In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Russian Prosecutor General v Wintershall and others (Case No А40-92702/2025)</span>, the Commercial Court of Moscow granted an application by the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia to recover EUR 7.5 billion from Wintershall, its legal representatives and the arbitral tribunal. The penalty was imposed for violating a final anti-arbitration injunction restraining the continuation of investment arbitration proceedings against Russia under the Energy Charter Treaty.
In September 2025, the Commercial Court of Moscow had issued permanent anti-arbitration injunctions prohibiting Wintershall, its counsel and the arbitral tribunal from pursuing the arbitration. Despite that order, the tribunal issued an anti-anti-suit injunction directing Russia to discontinue the Russian court proceedings. Wintershall then sought recognition and enforcement of that anti-anti-suit injunction before the Dubai International Finance Centre (“<span class="news-text_medium">DIFC</span>”) Courts, which granted the application.
The Commercial Court of Moscow held that the tribunal’s procedural orders, including the anti-anti-suit injunction and subsequent directions and deadlines imposed on Russia, amounted to a continuation of the arbitration in deliberate breach of the Russian court’s injunction. That conduct triggered the imposition of a EUR 7.5 billion penalty against Wintershall, its counsel and the arbitral tribunal.
Following the penalty ruling, the Prosecutor General sought clarification as to whether the DIFC Court order had been taken into account. Referring to jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the Commercial Court of Moscow confirmed that the DIFC Court’s recognition and enforcement of the anti-anti-suit injunction constituted impermissible interference with Russia’s sovereign jurisdiction and judicial system. The court held that such interference contravened the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state.
The ruling marks a further escalation in the Wintershall v Russia dispute and more broadly in sanctions-era investment arbitration involving Russia. It underscores a strict stance by Russian courts against anti-anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals and foreign courts and is notable for the unprecedented scale of the financial penalties imposed. The decision highlights the heightened risks faced by foreign investors, their counsel and arbitral tribunals in investment proceedings involving Russia.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/Blob/I90ad66d2d9a111f098028aa0904d44cc.pdf?targetType=PLC-multimedia&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentImage&uniqueId=a7895121-7a87-4a6d-be26-0fb852bad207&ppcid=a7461179bf9a4a219fb421b38e00c94e&contextData=(sc.Search)&comp=pluk" target="_blank" class="news-text_link">Russian Prosecutor General v Wintershall and others (Case No А40-92702/2025) (21 November 2025)</a> and (<a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/Blob/Ia602e9e9d95d11f0a5f6fa0d299e95bd.pdf?targetType=PLC-multimedia&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentImage&uniqueId=a7895121-7a87-4a6d-be26-0fb852bad207&ppcid=a7461179bf9a4a219fb421b38e00c94e&contextData=(sc.Search)&comp=pluk" target="_blank" class="news-text_link">28 November 2025</a>).
