ECJ’s Advocate General affirms the arbitrability of disputes relating to sanctions

Andrea Biondi, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union, stated in his Opinion of 26 February 2026 in NV Reibel/JSC VO Stankoimport (Case C‑802/24, Reibel) that claims covered by the no‑claims clause in Article 11(1) of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (“Regulation 833/2014”) remain, in principle, capable of being submitted to arbitration. This confirms a point that in recent years has often given rise to uncertainty in arbitral proceedings and related court disputes.

At the same time, the Advocate General makes clear that the prohibition on satisfying such claims forms part of the public policy of the European Union and must always be taken into account by national courts when they review arbitration awards.

Background to the Opinion

The proceedings before the ECJ are based on a request for a preliminary ruling from Sweden’s Svea Court of Appeal (Svea Hovrätt) dated 20 November 2024. The request for a preliminary ruling was preceded by the following procedural history:

The Belgian company NV Reibel (“Reibel”) and the Russian company JSC VO Stankoimport (“Stankoimport”) concluded a supply contract in 2015 that was governed by Swedish law. Under the contract, Reibel was to deliver goods to Russia that were later classified as dual-use goods by the Belgian authorities and thus covered by the applicable EU sanctions.

Stankoimport initiated UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings seeking damages and repayment of an advance payment plus interest. The place of arbitration was Stockholm. The arbitral tribunal dismissed the claim for damages, citing the no-claims clause in Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014, but upheld Stankoimport’s claim for repayment of the advance payment. Reibel then applied to the competent Swedish national court, the Svea Court of Appeal, to have the arbitration award set aside. The Swedish court referred the following questions, among others, to the ECJ:

• Are claims covered by Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014 even arbitrable?
• Does Regulation 833/2014 belong to the “constitutional” core of EU law and is it therefore part of a public policy review of arbitration awards?
• Was the arbitration tribunal’s interpretation of the no-claims clause correct, particularly with regard to the repayment of the advance payment?

Arbitrability of disputes relating to sanctions affirmed

The Advocate General answers these key questions in his Opinion as follows:

Arbitrability of claims subject to sanctions:

Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014 does not per se prevent parties from submitting their disputes to arbitration. The no-claims clause does not prohibit the filing or contractual settlement of such claims, but only their satisfaction.

Arbitral tribunals may therefore also rule on claims relating to sanctions, provided that they strictly comply with EU law. In the context of the Russia sanctions, this means specifically that claims falling under the no-claims clause may be examined in arbitration proceedings, but no enforceable award may be made because their satisfaction is prohibited under EU law.

Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014 as part of EU public policy:

The Advocate General classifies the prohibition on satisfaction enshrined in Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014 as part of EU public policy. National courts dealing with annulment or enforcement proceedings must therefore examine whether the arbitral tribunal has correctly applied Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014. Otherwise, the arbitration award must be set aside on the grounds of violation of EU public policy or enforcement must be refused.

Scope of the prohibition of satisfaction:

In the Advocate General’s view, Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014 also covers claims for repayment of an advance payment if the supply of the goods did not take place due to the sanctions in force. A reclassification of claims does not alter the fact that they are subject to the prohibition on satisfaction. It is therefore not possible to circumvent the no-claims clause by resorting to other bases for claims.

Implications for practice

The most important and practically relevant takeaway from the Opinion is that arbitration agreements remain valid and applicable even in the case of contracts affected by sanctions. The mere fact that sanctions are involved does not automatically mean that the matter is not arbitrable. The fear of a general “non-arbitrability” of sanctions-related disputes, as advanced by the European Commission, is not borne out in the Opinion.

Furthermore, the Advocate General clarified that arbitral tribunals within the EU must comply with Article 11 of Regulation 833/2014 as a mandatory part of EU public policy. An arbitral tribunal may not grant a claim that falls within the scope of the no‑claims clause. This applies irrespective of how such a claim is characterised in law (for example, as contractual, unjust enrichment, damages or otherwise).

Finally, he addressed the controversial question of whether the repayment of an advance payment, which is intended to restore the legal relationship to its position prior to the imposition of sanctions (status quo ante), infringes the no‑claims clause, and answered that question in the affirmative. The German authorities had initially taken the opposite view, considering it prohibited only to place the Russian contractual partner in the position it would have been in had performance taken place (for example, by way of damages in lieu of performance), while treating a mere unwinding of the contractual relationship as permissible, until they aligned their FAQs with those of the European Commission in 2023.

The Opinion is not binding on the ECJ. The final decision on the arbitrability of sanctions-related disputes in the EU will be made in the pending judgment. We will keep you advised.