LITIGATION TRENDS 2025 | 69 T O C E M P E S G A N T I I P C A P R O W C S P O R T C O N T A C T I N T A P P P A T C C L S E C Sanctions: The Growing Tension in Arbitral Neutrality International arbitration has traditionally been viewed as a politically neutral avenue for parties to resolve disputes, free from the influence of national interests. However, the growing use of economic sanctions as a geopolitical tool raises significant concerns about their impact on the enforcement of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards. The increasing interference of national interests in arbitration is evident in two recent English cases: Google LLC & Google Ireland Limited v. NAO Tsargrad Media & others [2025] EWHC 94 (Comm) Google sought to suspend or terminate the provision of its services to four Russian entities following their designation under international sanctions. The relevant service agreements all included London-seated LCIA arbitration agreements or exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of the English courts. The Russian entities circumvented the agreed jurisdiction clauses by relying on article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Court Procedural Code (under which Russian courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving Russian sanctioned parties) to bring proceedings against Google in Moscow. The Moscow Court granted them: (i) court orders requiring that Google resume providing its services, and (ii) Astreinte orders, which are fines that quickly compound over time for continued noncompliance with relevant court order(s). The Russian entities then sought to enforce the Astreinte orders against Google in Russia, resulting in the assets of a Russian Google subsidiary being seized, and other jurisdictions. In response, Google applied for antienforcement and anti-suit injunctions in the English courts. By then, the Astreinte fines had spiralled to £1.85 octillion, which the English court noted was “about 20 trillion times greater than the estimated GDP of all the economies in the world”. Google obtained the requested injunctions, despite the historic reluctance of the English courts to grant antienforcement relief. UniCredit Bank GmbH v. RusChemAlliance LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 99 Unicredit involved a dispute over English law governed bonds issued by UniCredit Bank in favour of RusChemAlliance LLC, guaranteeing construction undertaken by certain German entities in Russia. The bonds provided for all disputes to be resolved by Paris-seated ICC arbitration. Upon the imposition of EU sanctions, and the German entities’ consequent termination of the construction contract, RusChem attempted to redeem the bonds. UniCredit refused, citing the impact of EU sanctions on the bank’s ability to lawfully process the transaction. RusChem commenced proceedings in the Russian courts to compel UniCredit’s performance, again utilising article 248. UniCredit responded by launching anti-suit proceedings in the English courts. It fought off RusChem’s jurisdiction challenge (which went all the way to the UK Supreme Court) and successfully obtained an anti-anti-suit injunction. RusChem then resumed proceedings in Russia and obtained (i) an anti-suit injunction against the English decision, and (ii) an order requiring UniCredit to cancel the English anti-suit injunction or face a €250 million penalty. In a highly unusual move, UniCredit returned to the English courts requesting that its anti-suit injunction be discharged to avoid the imposition of the large Russian fine against assets it held in the region. Impact of Sanctions on Arbitration As illustrated by the cases above, sanctions can significantly affect the arbitrability of disputes involving sanctioned entities. UniCredit, in particular, highlights how practical considerations such as the location of assets can trump the power of an agreed arbitration clause and successful antisuit injunction. They also illustrate the growing tension between arbitration’s International Arbitration I I 68 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5NDgyMg==