Regulatory update: interim relief applications in Russian courts against state unitary enterprises

Foreign creditors pursuing asset tracing and recovery against state unitary enterprises in Russia have long operated under a distinct procedural regime — one that has grown more complex following amendments to Russian procedural legislation that took effect in early 2027. Where a counterparty is a state unitary enterprise (known in Russian law as a GUP at the federal or regional level, or a MUP at the municipal level), the rules governing interim relief applications differ in material respects from those applicable to private commercial respondents. Creditors who approach these proceedings on the assumption that standard interim relief practice will apply risk both delay and the loss of recoverable assets.

Until the amendments that came into force in the first quarter of 2027, Russian arbitrazh courts generally applied a unified procedural framework to interim relief applications, with the principal distinctions arising from whether the respondent held assets capable of being secured rather than from the respondent's legal form. State unitary enterprises occupied a formally anomalous position: they hold assets on a right of economic management rather than ownership, which already complicated the execution of interim orders, but the application procedure itself had not been separately codified.

The 2027 amendments introduced a discrete procedural track for interim relief applications directed against state unitary enterprises. Under the revised framework, an applicant must now demonstrate not only the standard grounds — a reasonable prospect of a substantive claim and a real risk that enforcement will be frustrated without interim protection — but must additionally address the public interest dimension of any proposed measure. Courts are required, under the amended rules, to weigh the potential disruption to the enterprise's core statutory functions against the creditor's interest in securing assets. In practice, this means that orders freezing operational bank accounts or restraining disposal of assets integral to the enterprise's public function are subject to a heightened threshold.

A further change concerns the notification regime. Prior to the 2027 amendments, ex parte interim relief applications against state unitary enterprises followed the same compressed timeline applicable to commercial respondents. The amended rules now require the applicant to notify the enterprise's founding authority — the relevant federal ministry, regional executive body, or municipal administration — simultaneously with filing the application. The founding authority is accorded a short period to file observations, though in the majority of reported practice the courts have moved to determination before substantive observations are lodged.

"The 2027 amendments have not closed interim relief as a tool against state unitary enterprises, but they have added procedural layers that favour an applicant who has prepared the founding authority notification and the public interest analysis in advance, rather than treating these as formalities to be addressed after the order is sought." — Elizaveta Razina, Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners

The practical impact of the 2027 amendments is concentrated among three categories of foreign creditor.

First, trade creditors whose Russian counterparties are state unitary enterprises operating in logistics, utilities, or infrastructure. These enterprises frequently hold significant immovable property and equipment under economic management rights — assets that, while securable in principle under Russian procedural law, are now subject to the additional public function analysis before any interim order will issue.

Second, foreign companies that entered into construction, supply, or service contracts with municipal unitary enterprises (MUPs) and are pursuing debt recovery following contract termination or non-payment. MUPs are particularly common in housing and communal services, and their assets are closely tied to functions the municipal authority will resist disrupting.

Third, foreign investors and creditors with claims arising from joint venture or co-investment arrangements where the Russian party is or has become a state unitary enterprise following corporatisation proceedings. In these cases, the creditor may face a respondent whose legal form has changed since the original contract was concluded, with procedural implications that were not anticipated in the original dispute resolution clause.

Foreign creditors with claims against GUPs or MUPs should also be aware that the amended rules interact with the broader framework governing enforcement against state-owned entities in Russia. Even where an interim order is successfully obtained, execution against assets held under economic management rights requires a separate procedural step — and the 2027 amendments have not materially altered that execution stage.

For foreign creditors holding claims against Russian state unitary enterprises — particularly where asset dissipation is a live concern — the procedural window for securing interim protection is now narrower and more demanding. Acting before assets are transferred or restricted by the founding authority will remain the practical priority.

If you are a foreign creditor with a claim against a Russian state unitary enterprise, make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

The 2027 amendments reward preparation. The creditors most likely to obtain interim relief under the revised framework are those who have completed three steps before filing.

First, identify the founding authority and its formal relationship to the enterprise. This means confirming whether the GUP or MUP is federally, regionally, or municipally founded — which determines who must be notified and which executive body has standing to file observations. This information is available from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (EGRUL) and, for regional and municipal enterprises, from regional or municipal register records. The Asset Tracing & Recovery practice at Vetrov & Partners routinely conducts this pre-filing analysis as part of interim relief application preparation.

Second, prepare the public interest analysis before filing. Under the 2027 amendments, the court's balancing exercise is mandatory — not discretionary. An applicant who presents a structured analysis of why the proposed interim measure will not disrupt the enterprise's statutory functions, and who identifies alternative asset categories (such as financial claims or non-operational property) that can be secured without affecting public services, materially improves the prospects of an order issuing ex parte.

Third, revisit the scope of the interim relief sought. Applications seeking to freeze accounts through which wages, utility payments, or essential procurement flows are processed will face the highest resistance under the new rules. Applications targeting surplus financial assets, intellectual property rights, or real property held outside the enterprise's operational footprint are better placed. A targeted application is more likely to succeed than a broad one — and is less likely to provoke an expedited response from the founding authority.

Foreign creditors who have already filed interim relief applications under the pre-2027 procedure, and whose applications remain pending or have been refused on public interest grounds, should seek immediate advice on whether to re-file under the amended framework with a revised scope and the requisite founding authority notification.

For a detailed analysis of the procedural requirements applicable to your specific claim, including the key risk points that arise at the application stage, see Key risk points in interim relief applications and The law and practice of interim relief applications in Russia.

Several points of practical uncertainty persist as the 2027 amendments bed in.

The threshold for "disruption to statutory functions" has not been defined with precision in the amended rules, and early reported practice suggests that courts in different circuits are applying varying standards. Creditors operating in the Siberian or Ural federal districts should be aware that the local arbitrazh courts have, in a number of preliminary determinations, taken a somewhat narrower view of what constitutes a protected operational asset than courts in the Central district. This circuit divergence is a live variable in interim relief strategy.

The amended rules are also silent on what happens when a state unitary enterprise is in the process of being reorganised or converted into a joint-stock company. Whether the procedural protections introduced in 2027 survive a corporatisation event — and whether a creditor who obtained an interim order against a GUP can maintain that order against the successor entity — has not yet been addressed in published guidance or appellate authority.

Finally, the interaction between the new notification requirement and the confidentiality of ex parte applications remains to be worked out. In principle, pre-notification of the founding authority creates a risk that the enterprise is alerted to the prospective application and takes steps to restrict assets before the court acts. Whether applicants can seek a short-form protective order before the notification period runs is a question on which courts have not yet issued consistent guidance.

These open questions reinforce the value of legal preparation before filing — and of monitoring appellate practice in the relevant circuit as it develops.

• Key risk points in interim relief applications against Russian counterparties
• The law and practice of interim relief applications in Russian courts
• Asset tracing and recovery in Russia: a guide for foreign creditors

Q: What specifically changed in the rules for interim relief applications against state unitary enterprises in Russia in 2027?

A: The 2027 amendments introduced a separate procedural track for interim relief applications directed against GUPs and MUPs. Applicants must now satisfy a heightened threshold that includes a public interest analysis — specifically, demonstrating that the proposed measure will not disrupt the enterprise's statutory functions. In addition, the founding authority (the relevant ministry or executive body) must be notified simultaneously with the filing of the application, and is given a short period to file observations. Both requirements are mandatory and cannot be waived by the court. Courts retain discretion to proceed to determination before observations are received, but the notification obligation applies regardless.

Q: Which foreign creditors are most exposed to these changes, and how does the new framework affect their position?

A: The changes most directly affect trade creditors, construction and supply contract creditors, and foreign investors with claims arising from joint venture arrangements where the Russian counterparty is a state unitary enterprise. For these creditors, the practical consequence is that a wider range of assets — particularly those tied to operational functions — are now more difficult to secure through interim orders. The creditor's position is weakest where the target assets are integral to public service delivery (wages accounts, utility procurement flows). It is strongest where the application targets non-operational financial assets, surplus property, or intellectual property rights held by the enterprise. Preparation of the public interest analysis and the founding authority notification before filing is now essential, not optional.

Q: What should a foreign creditor do if an earlier interim relief application was refused on public interest grounds under the pre-2027 procedure?

A: A refusal on public interest grounds under the pre-2027 framework does not preclude re-filing under the amended procedure, provided the substantive claim remains live and within the applicable limitation period. The revised approach should include a narrowed scope (targeting assets outside the enterprise's operational footprint), a structured public interest analysis, and the requisite founding authority notification filed simultaneously. In some cases, the appropriate step is to seek a preliminary assessment of which asset categories are available for interim protection before committing to a specific application — this reduces the risk of a second refusal that could prejudice the creditor's overall enforcement strategy.

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

The firm's asset tracing and recovery practice advises foreign trade creditors, institutional investors, and foreign companies pursuing debt recovery and asset protection against Russian counterparties — including state-owned and state-controlled entities. The practice covers the full procedural cycle: pre-filing asset identification, interim relief applications, enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards, and cross-border recovery coordination. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team combines deep procedural knowledge of Russian arbitrazh practice with direct partner involvement on every engagement.

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

For advice on interim relief applications against state unitary enterprises or other Russian counterparties — 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/