EU Establishes Anti Suit Injunction against Russian Litigation

On 23 April 2026, the EU amended Regulation (EU) 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures against Russia (the ‘Sanctions Regulation’) and established an anti suit injunction for European entities being sued in Russia in violation of jurisdiction clauses.

Nine months ago, the EU had already amended the same Sanctions Regulation to establish a variety of remedies allowing various EU entities (including Member States) to seek damages in compensation of litigation in third States and investment arbitration.

Anti Suit Injunction against Russian Litigation

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/506 establishes an anti suit injunction. If a European entity (as identified under Art 13 (c) and (d) of the Sanctions Regulation) is sued in Russian courts in connection with a contract affected by sanctions in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause, that European party may now seek in a court of a Member State an anti suit injunction against Russian entities as identified in Article 11(1) of the Regulation.

New Article 11 ca of the Sanctions Regulation provides:

‘Without prejudice to Articles 11a and 11b, in the event that a person referred to in point (a), (b) or (c) of Article 11(1) of this Regulation initiated proceedings before a Russian court in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which has been affected, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the measures imposed under this Regulation or under Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause or otherwise pursuant to Article 248.1 or Article 248.2 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation or equivalent Russian legislation, against a natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in point (c) or (d) of Article 13 of this Regulation to obtain an injunction, order, relief, judgment or other Court decision, the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in point (c) or (d) of Article 13 of this Regulation shall be entitled to obtain, in judicial proceedings before the competent courts of a Member State, a court order upholding the exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause and ordering the person indicated in point (a), (b) or (c) of Article 11(1) to not initiate or to discontinue those legal proceedings. Failure to observe that order shall lead to financial penalties proportionate to the potential loss which could be incurred by the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in point (c) or (d) of Article 13 of this Regulation as a result of such violation. Payment of the financial penalties imposed by the court shall be made to the natural or legal person, entity or body referred to in point (c) or (d) of Article 13 of this Regulation that submitted the request.’

Article 11 ac can be safely characterised as an anti suit injunction: the court of the Member State seized is granted the power to order the Russian targeted person (as defined in Art 11(1) of the Regulation) not to initiate or to discontinue the proceedings initiated before the Russian court.

The ground for granting the injunction is the breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement. While this is not the main ground on which common law courts grant anti suit injunctions, this is the main one, and one that certain civil law courts have found legitimate in the past.

An important difference between civil law and common law courts, however, is that civil law courts typically lack power to sanction contempt of court, at least in civil proceedings. Article 11 ac thus provides that the sanction of the injunction is financial only, and is payable to the injured (European) party, rather than the local treasury.

The efficacy of the injunction will depend on the availability of assets of the defendants in the EU. Whether courts of third States will accept to enforce financial ‘penalties’ remains to be seen.

Quasi Anti Suit Injunction against Third State Litigation and Investor State Arbitration

The Sanctions Regulation had already been amended in 2025 to establish a ‘quasi’ anti suit injunction (in EU parlance) against third State litigation or investor State arbitration initiated in connection with the Sanctions Regulation.

Several provisions of the Sanctions Regulations have established that courts of Member States may grant damages to compensate for any damage suffered as a consequence of third State litigation or investor State arbitration in connection with the Sanctions Regulation.

Third State Litigation

Under Article 11a, European parties in the meaning of Article 13 may seek compensation in courts of Member States of direct or indirect damages suffered as a consequence of claims in third State courts in connection with contracts affected by the Sanctions Regulation. Defendants are to be any Russian person within the meaning of Art 11 who lodged such claims. Article 11a was amended last month to add proceedings seeking to enforce the resulting judgment.

Amended Article 11a reads:

A condition for the availability of the remedy is that “the person concerned does not have effective access to the remedies under the relevant jurisdiction”. It is unclear what this means. Are the relevant remedies procedural? Does this refer to due process in the foreign court? Or are the remedies substantive: is the requirement that the foreign court would apply EU sanctions law?

Russian and Third State Expropriation Measures

Article 11b offers a similar remedy against certain defined Russian expropriation measures.

Amended Article 11b reads:

1.   Any person referred to in Article 13, point (c) or (d), shall be entitled to recover, in judicial proceedings before the competent courts of a Member State, any direct or indirect damages, including legal costs, caused to that person or to a legal person, entity or body that the person referred to in Article 13, point (d), owns or controls, by any persons, entities or bodies referred to in points (a), (b) or (c) of Article 11(1) that benefited from, or are responsible for issuing, a decision pursuant to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 302 of 25 April 2023 as subsequently amended, pursuant to Federal Law No. 470-FZ of 4 August 2023 as subsequently amended, or pursuant to related or equivalent Russian legislation, provided that such decision is illegal under international customary law or under a bilateral investment treaty entered into between the relevant Member State and the Russian Federation, and provided that the person concerned does not have effective access to the remedies under the relevant jurisdiction. Such damages may be recovered from the persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 11(1), point (a), (b) or (c), that benefited from, or are responsible for, a decision issued under those Russian decrees or legislation, or from persons, entities or bodies that own or control those entities or bodies.

1a.   Without prejudice to paragraph 1, any person referred to in Article 13, point (c) or (d), shall be entitled to recover, in judicial proceedings before the competent courts of a Member State, any direct or indirect damages, including legal costs, incurred by that person or by a legal person, entity or body that the person referred to in Article 13, point (d), owns or controls, as a consequence of injunctions, orders, reliefs, judgments or other judicial or administrative decisions rendered in a third country other than Russia, which seek to enforce the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No 302 of 25 April 2023 as subsequently amended, Federal Law No 470-FZ of 4 August 2023 as subsequently amended, or related or equivalent Russian legislation, provided that such decision is illegal under international customary law or under a bilateral investment treaty entered into between the relevant Member State and the relevant jurisdiction, and provided that the person concerned does not otherwise have effective access to the remedies under the relevant jurisdiction. Such damages may be recovered from the persons, entities or bodies that seek or cooperate in the enforcement of decisions referred to in paragraph 1 in a third country other than Russia, or from persons, entities or bodies that own or control those entities or bodies, with the exception of their lawyers and of members of the judiciary.

2.   Member States shall not be liable for judicial decisions rendered in accordance with paragraph 1 or for the enforcement of such decisions. Member States shall not comply with judgments, arbitral awards, including investor-State arbitral awards, or other judicial decisions which hold them liable contrary to the first sentence of this paragraph.

Investor State Arbitration

Finally, Article 11e established a similar remedy for investor State arbitration initiated against a Member State in connection with not only the Sanctions Regulation, but also Regulation  269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. Plaintiffs entitled to seek such compensation are Member States and, as the case may be, the EU, and defendants are to be any Russian person within the meaning of Art 11 who initiated or participated in such arbitrations, or later sought to enforce the resulting award.

Article 11e reads:

Any Member State shall, where applicable, take any appropriate measures to recover or be entitled to recover, in judicial proceedings before the competent courts of a Member State, any direct or indirect damages, including legal costs, incurred by that Member State as a consequence of investor-State dispute settlement proceedings brought against a Member State in connection with measures imposed under this Regulation or Regulation (EU) No 269/2014. The Member State shall, where applicable, be entitled to recover such damages from any persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 11(1), point (a), (b) or (c), of this Regulation, which initiated, intervened or participated in the investor-State dispute settlement or which seek to enforce any award, decision or judgment related to the investor-State dispute settlement and persons, entities or bodies that own or control any of those persons, entities or bodies.

Where applicable, the Union shall be entitled to recover any damages incurred by it under the same conditions.

Jurisdiction

A provision had also been adopted to define the jurisdiction of courts of EU Members States to grant these and other remedies. Article 11d is amended to extend to anti suit injunctions. It reads:

‘Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to other provisions of Union law or of the law of a Member State, a court of a Member State may, on an exceptional basis, hear a claim for damages brought pursuant to Article 11a, Article 11b, Article 11ca or Article 11e, provided that the case has a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised.’

H/T: Antonio Leandro, who is the author of a paper on the issue available here.