Court of appeal reverses on interim relief applications in Russian courts: implications for claimants

In the course of advising foreign law firms on Russian enforcement mandates, a recurrent assumption surfaces: that an interim relief order obtained at first instance provides a stable foundation on which to build a recovery strategy. A recent appellate decision in Russia has tested that assumption directly, and the outcome carries material consequences for foreign claimants and for the firms instructing Russian lawyers on their behalf. The appellate court reversed an interim relief order that had frozen assets linked to an offshore holding structure, finding that the evidentiary threshold for demonstrating a real risk of dissipation had not been met to the standard required at the appellate level. For instructing counsel, the ruling repays careful analysis.

If you are currently instructing Russian lawyers on an interim relief application or reviewing an existing order — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

The proceedings concerned a commercial dispute in which a foreign claimant sought to freeze assets held through an offshore vehicle with connections to Russia. At first instance, the Russian court granted the interim relief application on the basis of a broadly framed submission that the respondent's corporate structure created a risk of dissipation, supported by documentary evidence of asset movements. The first-instance decision appeared, on its face, to reflect the prevailing approach in Russian court practice: courts at that level have generally shown a degree of procedural generosity when a claimant's substantive claim is adequately supported. The appellate court took a materially different view. It did not dispute the underlying merits of the claimant's case. Instead, it focused on the evidentiary quality of the dissipation risk analysis. The appellate panel found that the documentary record established historical asset movements but did not, in the court's assessment, demonstrate a prospective and imminent risk of dissipation of a kind sufficient to justify the continued restraint of assets. The interim relief order was discharged. The decision is consistent with a discernible pattern in Russian appellate courts: a narrowing of the evidentiary standard that will sustain an interim order on appeal, particularly where offshore structures are involved.

The appellate court's reasoning rested on a distinction that practitioners advising foreign claimants in Russia will need to internalise. Evidence that an asset has moved, or that a corporate structure is capable of moving assets, does not automatically satisfy the prospective risk standard that appellate panels apply when reviewing interim relief in Russian courts. The court required positive evidence of a concrete and near-term intention to dissipate, or of specific triggering conditions that would cause dissipation in the event the interim order were lifted. This is a demanding standard, and it is one that first-instance courts have not consistently required. The consequence of that inconsistency is now visible: a class of interim relief orders that survive at first instance will be vulnerable on appeal, and foreign claimants who have structured their enforcement strategy around a first-instance order may find themselves without the protective mechanism they believed was in place. The court also commented, briefly, on the adequacy of the undertaking as to damages provided by the claimant. This element of the reasoning is less developed in the decision than the evidentiary point, but it signals that appellate panels are prepared to look beyond the threshold question of whether interim relief was justified and to examine the procedural preconditions that must accompany any such order. For firms instructing Russian lawyers on behalf of creditor clients, this aspect of the ruling warrants attention when drafting the application package.

"The appellate reversal here reflects a maturing standard: Russian courts are increasingly treating interim relief as a measure requiring prospective, not merely historical, evidence of dissipation risk — a distinction that shapes how applications must be framed from the outset." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners

Firms advising foreign creditors with Russian-connected assets should review whether existing interim relief orders meet the appellate evidentiary standard — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

For foreign law firms instructing local counsel Russia on asset tracing and recovery matters, the practical implications of this ruling fall into three areas. First, application design: the evidentiary package supporting an interim relief application in Russia should be built, from the outset, to withstand appellate scrutiny — not merely to satisfy the more accommodating first-instance threshold. This means the prospective dissipation risk analysis must be anchored to specific, contemporaneous evidence rather than to structural inference alone. Second, strategic sequencing: where interim relief is a load-bearing element of the enforcement strategy — as it typically is in matters involving offshore assets with Russian connections — the risk of appellate discharge should be priced into the strategy at the instruction stage. Contingency planning that assumes the order will survive appeal in all cases is, in the light of this Russia ruling for foreign parties, no longer adequate. Third, the undertaking as to damages: the appellate court's observations on this point suggest that Russian courts may apply closer scrutiny to the form and substance of the undertaking, including whether it is backed by identifiable assets within the jurisdiction. This is an area where the interface between Russian procedural requirements and the foreign client's practical capacity to provide a meaningful undertaking will require early coordination between instructing counsel and Russian lawyers. The Asset Tracing & Recovery practice at Vetrov & Partners regularly advises foreign law firms on the design and execution of interim relief applications in Russian courts, including the post-order management of challenges. The firm has also published a detailed analysis of shifting court practice on interim relief at Court practice shift on interim relief applications in Russian courts and a risk-oriented companion piece at Key risk points in interim relief applications before Russian courts.

• Court practice shift on interim relief applications in Russian courts
• Key risk points in interim relief applications before Russian courts
• Asset Tracing & Recovery — practice overview

Q: What does this ruling change for foreign law firms instructing Russian lawyers on interim relief matters?

A: The ruling makes explicit a standard that has been developing in Russian appellate practice but was not consistently applied at first instance: that an interim relief order requires positive, forward-looking evidence of a real and near-term risk of asset dissipation. Historical evidence of asset movements, or evidence of a corporate structure that is capable of dissipating assets, will not automatically sustain an order on appeal. For foreign law firms instructing Russian lawyers, this means the evidentiary package must be designed for the appellate standard from the outset, rather than calibrated to the more permissive first-instance threshold. It also means that enforcement strategies built around an existing first-instance order should be reviewed for appellate vulnerability.

Q: What should foreign companies and their advisers do in light of this decision?

A: Three steps are advisable. First, any existing Russian interim relief order in a matter involving offshore assets should be assessed against the evidentiary standard articulated by the appellate court — specifically, whether the dissipation risk analysis rests on prospective evidence or primarily on historical or structural inference. Second, applications not yet filed should be redesigned, with the evidentiary framework and the undertaking as to damages both prepared to the appellate standard. Third, instructing counsel should confirm with their Russian lawyers that the application package addresses the undertaking-as-to-damages requirements that Russian courts may scrutinise. Vetrov & Partners advises on all three stages and can review existing application packages on request.

Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009. The firm is recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years and is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.

The firm's Asset Tracing & Recovery practice advises foreign creditors and their instructing counsel on interim relief applications, asset freezing, and enforcement proceedings before Russian arbitrazh courts and the Russian IP Court. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge with direct partner involvement on every engagement. The firm works directly with foreign law firms as local counsel in contentious Russian matters.

Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.

— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/