Series
Blogs
Series
Blogs
In Reibel (C-802/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been asked to clarify how EU sanctions interact with arbitration. At stake is whether claims caught by Article 11 of Council Regulation 833/2014, which prohibits the satisfaction of claims in connection with any contract or transaction affected by EU sanctions against Russia set out in that Regulation, can validly be submitted to arbitration and, if so, whether they can be granted.
On 26 February 2026, Advocate General Biondi delivered his (non-binding) Opinion. While proposing a broad understanding of the “claims” whose satisfaction is prohibited by Article 11(1), he confirmed that arbitration remains available as a dispute resolution mechanism, subject to strict limits and robust judicial review on grounds of EU public policy.
We take a closer look.
The dispute arises out of a 2015 contract for the sale of metal products between NV Reibel, a Belgian company, and JSC VO Stankoimport, a Russian importer.
Under the contract, Stankoimport paid an advance of €2.6 million. On 23 March 2017, the Belgian authorities prohibited export of the goods on the basis that they were “dual-use goods” within the meaning of Council Regulation 428/2009. Their export was therefore restricted by Regulation 833/2014, adopted in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
The goods were never delivered. Reibel did not reimburse the advance. Stankoimport terminated the contract and commenced (Sweden seated) arbitration pursuant to the contract’s dispute resolution provisions.
In an award dated 5 December 2021, the arbitral tribunal ordered Reibel to reimburse the advance payment plus interest.
The tribunal held that a claim for reimbursement of an advance for goods never delivered did not fall within the category of “claims” whose satisfaction is prohibited by Article 11(1) of Regulation 833/2014. In its view, repayment simply restored the parties to their pre‑contractual position and did not confer any financial advantage flowing from a prohibited transaction.
Reibel brought annulment proceedings before the Stockholm Court of Appeal. Under Swedish law, an award may be set aside if it is manifestly incompatible with Swedish public policy, a notion that includes EU public policy.
The Stockholm Court of Appeal referred three questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, asking in essence whether:
The AG first addressed whether Article 11(1) prevents parties from submitting sanctions‑affected claims to arbitration.
Applying a literal, contextual and teleological interpretation of Article 11(1), the AG concluded that the provision does not prohibit the submission of such claims to arbitration. Article 11(1) precludes their satisfaction but does not bar parties from bringing those claims before an arbitral tribunal.
However, this comes with two strict conditions:
In other words, arbitration is in principle available, but it cannot be used to circumvent the sanctions regime, and national courts must retain the ability to police compliance at the annulment or enforcement stage.
The AG then turned to whether Regulation 833/2014 forms part of the EU public policy.
He recalled that, where arbitration operates within the EU legal order, it must remain compatible with the fundamental principles of that order. EU public policy acts as a mandatory limit on party autonomy and cannot be circumvented by choosing arbitration.
Relying on recent case law, in particular the CJEU’s judgment of 1 August 2025 in Seraing (C-600/23) (see our previous blog post here), the AG underlined that judicial review of arbitral awards for compliance with EU public policy is an autonomous concept of EU law.
The AG concluded that Article 11(1) forms an integral part of the EU public policy. As a result, national courts seised of annulment or enforcement proceedings must, including of their own motion where necessary, assess whether an arbitral award complies with Article 11(1) and set aside or refuse enforcement where it does not.
Finally, the AG examined whether a claim for reimbursement of an advance payment, together with interest, is a prohibited “claim” within the meaning of Article 11(1).
In his view, it is.
A claim for reimbursement of an advance payment is directly linked to a contract whose performance has been prevented by sanctions. It therefore falls squarely within Article 11(1). The fact that such a claim may be characterised as restitutionary, restoring the parties to their pre‑contractual position, does not take it outside the scope of the prohibition.
The AG did, however, stress the temporary character of the restrictive measures. Once the sanctions are lifted, the underlying claim may again become enforceable.
The Opinion draws a firm line between procedural access to arbitration and the substantive limits imposed by EU sanctions. In short:
The AG’s opinion is advisory to the CJEU and non-binding, so final resolution of these issues awaits the CJEU’s judgment (potentially expected in four to six months). Whether or not the CJEU follows the AG, the decision will have significant consequences for EU sanctions‑related arbitration, particularly in the context of annulment and enforcement in EU Member States and may also further reinforce the increasing role of EU public policy in the judicial control of awards.
With thanks to Théo Rochereau for his assistance in the preparation of this article.
12 March 2026