Check, Not Checkmate: EuroChem v Tecnimont and the Lugovoy Chessboard

Legal gamesmanship has been forming in cross-border disputes involving Russian parties since the influx of cases issued by the Russian courts under the so-called Lugovoy Law, a provision which grants the Russian courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned individuals and companies, even where parties had previously agreed to international arbitration. The premise is that sanctions may make the agreed foreign forum unavailable or unfair to the Russian party; the consequence is that the consent of parties to arbitrate can be displaced by the Russian domestic jurisdiction.

This creates the central friction: foreign courts, especially in jurisdictions that have signed the New York Convention, are under duties to respect arbitration agreements and arbitral awards, while Russian courts may render judgments or anti-arbitration injunctions in contradiction of those very arbitration agreements. Every proceeding becomes a move; every injunction becomes a countermove; every enforcement forum becomes a square on the global board.

EuroChem v Tecnimont is an essential piece in this string of cases. It is notable because of the size and jurisdictional scale of the claim, which has now travelled across Russia, England, and now India.  It is also significant sectorally: the dispute arises from the fertilisers industry, a strategically sensitive sector for India, particularly amid the ongoing supply-chain disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz and India’s growing reliance on the Russian fertiliser supplies.

The Bombay High Court’s latest judgment does not end the game. But it does amount to an important check: India refused, at the interim stage, to allow EuroChem to rely on a Russian judgment to freeze assets against Tecnimont in India.

Tecnimont v EuroChem: dispute nature and procedural history

The underlying dispute arises from the K2 fertiliser complex project in Russia. On 1 June 2020, EuroChem North-West-2, Tecnimont S.p.A. and Tecnimont’s 99%-owned Russian subsidiary, MT Russia, entered into a series of onshore and offshore engineering contracts for the project.  The contracts contained an arbitration clause providing for ICC arbitration seated in London, and a choice-of-law clause selecting the laws of England and Wales; the arbitration clause also expressly excluded the jurisdiction of other courts.

In May-June 2022, Tecnimont and MT Russia suspended performance, citing EU sanctions affecting individuals who were ultimate beneficiaries of EuroChem’s assets. EuroChem terminated the contracts on 4 August 2022.  The dispute was heard before a London-seated ICC tribunal, and EuroChem participated in that arbitration for approximately three years, appointed an arbitrator, advanced counterclaims and did not challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

EuroChem changed course after adverse English court developments in related bonds litigation. EuroChem later commenced proceedings before the Moscow Commercial Court on 1 September 2025, invoking Article 248.1 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code (i.e., the Lugovoy  Law, which confers exclusive jurisdiction over sanctioned entities on the Russian courts despite arbitration agreements) and arguing that sanctions created obstacles to access justice in London, making the arbitration agreement unenforceable or incapable of performance.  Tecnimont was joined as a co-defendant in the Moscow proceedings in late October 2025, roughly one month before the Russian judgment was rendered.

The Russian proceedings resulted in EuroChem’s first tactical move: a Moscow Commercial Court judgment dated 5 December 2025 awarded EuroChem substantial sums against Tecnimont and MT Russia. EuroChem then sought an Indian decree based on that judgment for amounts including RUB 8,058,168,619.35 as unjust enrichment, RUB 3,834,694,789.96 as interest and RUB 159,222,357,146 as damages, together approximately GBP 2 billion.

Tecnimont resisted EuroChem’s claims through the arbitration and English courts supervisory route. The ICC tribunal issued procedural and peremptory orders directing EuroChem to withdraw the ongoing Russian proceedings initiated by EuroChem in contravention of the arbitration clause and refrain from enforcing Russian court orders.  On 21 November 2025, Tecnimont applied for an anti-suit injunction against EuroChem in the English High Court, and Tecnimont later relied on that English order before the Bombay High Court. Thus, the legal battle that ensued between EuroChem and Tecnimont culminated in Indian proceedings.

EuroChem filed proceedings before the Bombay High Court (“Bombay Court”) seeking to rely on the Russian judgment as conclusive evidence of Tecnimont’s debt and asking for interim protection restraining Tecnimont from removing or disposing of Indian assets up to the value of EuroChem’s claim.

India’s latest judgment: a check on the enforcement gambit

On 8 June 2026, the Bombay Court dismissed EuroChem’s interim application. The Bombay Court did not finally decide whether the Russian judgment could never be enforced in India. Rather, it held that, at the pre-trial stage, the Russian judgment could not be treated as absolute and conclusive proof of EuroChem’s money claim, and that its conclusiveness would need to be tested at trial.

The Bombay Court’s reasoning is important for the broader Lugovoy chessmove; it held as follows:.

• that the competence of the Moscow Commercial Court was “doubtful” in light of the arbitration agreements and the ongoing London-seated ICC arbitration. Sections 13 and 14 of the India’s Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) create a framework under which a certified copy of a foreign judgment gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the foreign court was competent; however, that presumption is not absolute and can be displaced where the record shows serious doubt as to jurisdiction, which was the case here with the existing arbitration clause;
• Article 248.1 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code contains qualifications, including language referring to cases where the parties’ foreign forum agreement is incapable of performance due to restrictive measures creating obstacles to access to justice. The Bombay Court noted EuroChem’s continued participation in the ICC arbitration and its representation in English proceedings, which made the Russian court’s competence contestable at the interim stage;
• Tecnimont’s natural justice objections were considered seriously. Tecnimont alleged that EuroChem filed an amendment containing over 20,000 pages and an expert report shortly before the Russian court, that Tecnimont was not given sufficient time to respond, and that the Russian court refused to appoint an independent expert. The Bombay Court did not finally adjudicate those allegations but held that they were serious objections under Section 13 of the India Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) requiring trial into these issues before any enforcement could be granted in India;
• EuroChem had not placed material facts fully and candidly before the Indian court, including the arbitration agreements, ICC tribunal orders, English anti-suit orders and related English court developments. Because interim injunctions are discretionary and equitable, this lack of full disclosure weighed against EuroChem; and
• finally, that EuroChem failed to satisfy the ordinary test for interim relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm. In the absence of the Russian judgment being accepted as conclusive at the pre-trial stage, and with no other sufficient evidence supporting the money claim, the Court refused to freeze Tecnimont’s Indian assets.

Practical takeaways for commercial parties

1. Lugovoy disputes create jurisdictional friction by design

Parties contracting with Russian counterparties should assume that an arbitration clause may not be the end of the jurisdictional story. Russian parties affected by sanctions may invoke the Lugovoy Law to bring disputes before Russian courts, even where the contract contains a foreign arbitration clause.  Russian courts may also grant anti-arbitration or anti-suit relief and impose significant penalties for non-compliance.

Commercial parties should therefore map not only the chosen seat and governing law, but also the likely asset jurisdictions, enforcement jurisdictions and jurisdictions where interim relief may be sought.  The EuroChem case shows that the real battle may occur not at the seat, and not in Russia, but in third-country courts where assets or receivables are located.

2. Indian courts have shown an arbitration-friendly and impartial approach

The fertiliser sector context makes EuroChem v Tecnimont particularly sensitive. Russia has become India’s largest fertiliser supplier. EuroChem specifically is named as one of the most important importers into India. The Strait of Hormuz disruptions has also increased pressure on India’s fertiliser supply chains, with reports noting that India has diversified sourcing to Russia, among others, amid disruptions to Gulf supplies.

The Bombay Court’s judgment is thus significant because it did not allow geopolitical or sectoral considerations to override the Indian statutory test for foreign judgments and interim relief.  The Bombay Court treated the arbitration agreement, the London seat, the ICC tribunal’s orders and the English anti-suit injunction as relevant to whether the Russian court’s competence was doubtful at the interim stage.

This is an arbitration-friendly signal. It suggests that Indian courts will not automatically accept a Russian Lugovoy judgment as conclusive where there are serious questions about party consent, arbitral jurisdiction, natural justice and compliance with foreign supervisory court orders.

3. For MENA: the Lugovoy question remains largely untested, but the board is forming

For the Middle East and North Africa (“MENA”) region, the enforcement of Lugovoy-law Russian judgments remains, so far, largely untested in reported court practice. Commentary has proposed the DIFC as a potentially attractive forum for recognition and enforcement of Russian judgments issued under the Lugovoy Law, including through recognition and enforcement routes or insolvency-related strategies.

Though still nascent, there is already a related MENA-side jurisdictional clash in Wintershall Dea v Russia (II), an Energy Charter Treaty arbitration seated in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”). Reports indicate that the DIFC courts intervened in support of the tribunal, while Russian courts issued anti-arbitration measures and large monetary sanctions.  That case is about a MENA-seated arbitration and DIFC court support colliding with the Russian anti-arbitration action.

For MENA-based commercial parties, the lesson is clear: the region may soon become an enforcement and anti-enforcement battlefield. Parties with assets in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other regional hubs should track Russian proceedings, arbitral orders, anti-suit relief and asset exposure early and carefully.

Conclusion

EuroChem v Tecnimont has revealed itself as a move in a much larger game: the post-Lugovoy contest between Russian protective jurisdiction and the international arbitral order.

Russia’s move is to bring sanctions-affected disputes home. The arbitral countermove is to defend party consent, the seat and tribunal authority. The enforcement move is then played in third countries where assets exist. In India, EuroChem’s interim move was checked: the Bombay Court refused to freeze Tecnimont’s assets and held that the Russian judgment’s conclusiveness must be tested at trial.

The gamesmanship tactics are certainly not over. For now, India has shown that even in a strategically sensitive sector, where Russia, and EuroChem specifically, is a critical commercial partner in view of India’s growing reliance on their imports, arbitration agreements, natural justice breaches and clean-hands principles remain powerful arguments to be relied on strategically.