Following a documented shift in arbitrazh court practice across several Russian federal districts in late 2025 and early 2026, the threshold for obtaining interim relief — including asset freezes — has become materially more demanding for applicants, including foreign creditors enforcing claims under Russian law. What had previously been treated by many courts as a largely procedural gateway has, in a number of circuits, evolved into a substantive examination of the applicant's evidentiary case. For foreign creditors and enforcement counsel operating on a live claim, understanding precisely what changed, who bears the practical burden, and what documentation is now required at the application stage is not a point of academic interest — it is a matter of whether interim measures are granted before assets are dissipated.
Russian procedural law on interim measures — governed by the arbitrazh procedural framework — has long set out two principal grounds on which a court may grant interim relief: the risk that non-grant will make enforcement of a future judgment impossible or substantially more difficult, and the need to prevent significant harm to the applicant. Neither ground is new. What has shifted is how courts in practice assess and weigh the evidence submitted in support of those grounds, and the degree to which they will examine the merits of the underlying claim at the interim stage.
In late 2025, a pattern emerged across several Siberian, Ural, and Volga circuit courts: applications supported only by the existence of a claim — without accompanying evidence of asset dissipation risk, unexplained counterparty conduct, or specific indicators of insolvency — were being declined at a significantly higher rate than in prior periods. Courts began requiring applicants to demonstrate, with documentary support, that the risk of dissipation was concrete and proximate, not merely theoretical. Formulaic recitations of the statutory grounds, which had previously been sufficient in a number of jurisdictions, were being treated as inadequate.
The shift also affected the proportionality assessment. Courts began examining whether the specific interim measure sought — a full asset freeze, a prohibition on disposals, or an injunction against specific transactions — was proportionate to the amount of the claim and the nature of the risk identified. Applications seeking broad freezing orders over assets whose value substantially exceeded the claimed sum drew heightened scrutiny and, in several instances, partial grants limited to assets whose value more closely corresponded to the claim value.
For foreign creditors pursuing enforcement of Russian-law claims — whether arising from supply agreements, loan facilities, pledge enforcement, or judgments being converted into Russian proceedings — this shift in court practice alters the preparation required before an interim relief application can be filed with a realistic prospect of success.
Foreign creditors preparing interim relief applications in Russian courts should seek specialist local counsel before the application is filed — not after a first refusal. Make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
The practical impact falls most heavily on three categories of foreign creditor.
First, trade creditors holding Russian-law governed supply or distribution agreements, where the counterparty is a Russian legal entity and the underlying claim has not yet ripened into a judgment or arbitral award. In these situations, the creditor must typically demonstrate both the existence of a well-founded claim and a concrete risk of asset dissipation — a double evidentiary burden that the more demanding court practice has made considerably harder to satisfy without documentary evidence of counterparty behaviour suggesting imminent disposal or concealment.
Second, institutional creditors and distressed debt purchasers who have acquired claims against Russian entities — particularly where the original creditor relationship was established under a foreign-law agreement that is being enforced through Russian court proceedings. Courts in these matters have, in some instances, been attentive to the gap between the foreign-law transaction documents and the Russian-law evidentiary requirements for interim relief, and have expected applicants to bridge that gap explicitly in their application materials.
Third, creditors seeking to enforce foreign arbitral awards or foreign court judgments in Russia, where interim measures are sought during the recognition and enforcement proceedings. Under Russian law, interim relief is available during enforcement proceedings, but the applicant's ability to demonstrate the requisite risk of harm is constrained by the fact that the underlying merits have already been determined elsewhere — courts have shown some reluctance to treat the award itself as sufficient evidence of dissipation risk, and have required additional indicators specific to the Russian debtor's conduct.
For creditors who delay initiating enforcement proceedings in Russia, the risk is compounded: a debtor who becomes aware of an imminent claim may take asset-disposal steps within a window of weeks, and an interim relief application that fails on evidentiary grounds at first instance leaves the creditor without protection during the period required to cure the application and refile.
Three adjustments to enforcement strategy are indicated by this shift in Russian court practice.
First, pre-application due diligence on the debtor's Russian asset base should be completed before any interim relief application is filed. An application that identifies specific assets — registered real property, bank account holdings at named institutions, equity stakes in Russian subsidiaries — is materially better positioned than a general application for a freeze over all assets. Courts responding to detailed, asset-specific applications are more likely to grant the measure sought, and the proportionality review is easier to satisfy when the applicant has anchored the application to identified assets whose value corresponds to the claim.
Second, the evidential package accompanying the application should address dissipation risk directly, with documentary support where available. Indicators courts have treated as relevant include: evidence of unexplained asset transfers in the period preceding the claim, counterparty corporate restructuring or change of ownership, evidence of deteriorating financial position, and the commencement or threatened commencement of other creditor proceedings. None of these indicators is determinative in isolation, but a combination of two or more — documented and presented in the application — substantially strengthens the threshold showing.
Third, enforcement counsel instructed on cross-border matters involving Russian assets should review the applicable procedural timetable. Under Russian procedural rules, interim relief applications are typically considered within one business day, which creates a short window for court to examine materials. Well-prepared, clearly structured applications that present the legal grounds and supporting evidence concisely — without requiring the court to draw inferences from documents that speak to the merits rather than the interim risk — are better suited to the procedural timetable than comprehensive submissions designed for a merits hearing.
For more on the applicable legal framework and the statutory criteria governing interim measures in Russia, see The law and practice of interim relief applications in Russian courts. A detailed risk analysis for applicants is set out in Key risk points in interim relief applications in Russian courts.
The firm's Asset Tracing & Recovery practice advises foreign creditors at all stages of enforcement in Russia, including pre-application asset identification, interim relief applications before arbitrazh courts, and coordination with foreign counsel on cross-border enforcement matters.
Q: What specifically changed in how Russian arbitrazh courts assess interim relief applications in 2026?
A: The principal change is evidentiary: courts in several federal circuits moved from treating the existence of a claim as near-sufficient to satisfy the dissipation-risk ground, to requiring concrete documentary evidence that dissipation is a real and proximate risk. Applications relying on formulaic statutory recitations without supporting evidence of debtor conduct are being declined at a higher rate. Courts also began applying a more active proportionality review, with freezing orders limited more closely to the value of the claim where the applicant sought broader measures.
Q: Which types of foreign creditor are most directly affected by this court practice development?
A: The shift is most consequential for three groups: trade creditors pursuing Russian-law claims against Russian counterparties before a judgment has been obtained; institutional creditors and distressed debt purchasers enforcing claims acquired under foreign-law instruments through Russian proceedings; and creditors seeking interim relief during recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or judgments in Russia. In each case, the application package must now demonstrate — with supporting documents — a concrete risk specific to the Russian debtor, rather than relying on general assertions of enforcement difficulty.
Q: What is the recommended practical step for a foreign creditor considering an interim relief application in Russia now?
A: The most important step is to instruct specialist Russian counsel before preparing the application, not after a first refusal. Pre-application work should cover: identifying and documenting the specific Russian assets to be frozen, assembling evidence of debtor conduct that indicates dissipation risk, and calibrating the measure sought to the value and nature of those identified assets. An application built on this basis is substantially better positioned under the current court practice than one filed on urgency grounds without prior preparation.
Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009, recognised by Pravo-300 — Russia's principal legal directory — for eight consecutive years, and listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.
The firm's Asset Tracing & Recovery practice advises foreign creditors — including trade creditors, institutional lenders, and distressed debt purchasers — on enforcement and interim relief proceedings before Russian arbitrazh courts, asset identification and tracing across the Siberian and Ural federal districts, and cross-border recovery coordination. With more than 1,000 matters handled since inception, the practice team provides direct partner involvement on every creditor-side mandate.
Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom
To discuss an interim relief application or enforcement matter in Russia — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76
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/