Interim Relief Before a Russian Court: When to Apply and What to Expect

Reading time: 5 min

Category tag:
Practice Analysis

Byline:
By Vitaliy Vetrov

May 2026

INSIGHTS ARTICLES — Cross-border Disputes & Arbitration

The Statutory Framework

Article 90 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code provides the general authority for interim measures in commercial proceedings. The article permits the arbitrazh court to take interim measures at any stage of the proceedings — including before the statement of claim is filed — where the applicant can demonstrate that failure to take the measures may render the enforcement of a future judgment difficult or impossible, or may cause significant harm to the applicant.

This is a two-limb test: the applicant must establish both that the underlying claim exists (or is likely to succeed) and that the risk of future enforcement difficulty is real. Russian courts apply the limbs with varying emphasis — some focus primarily on enforcement risk, others require a more developed showing of the substantive claim. The quality of the application — both the legal argument and the supporting evidence — determines which approach the court applies.

Types of Interim Measures Available

Article 91 APC enumerates the interim measures available in commercial proceedings. The most frequently sought are the restraint of funds in bank accounts (arestovanie denezhnykh sredstv), the prohibition on the debtor carrying out specific actions (such as disposing of assets or transferring shares), and the seizure of movable and immovable property.

For foreign creditors enforcing Russian-situated assets, the bank account freeze is typically the first measure sought, because it preserves the most liquid assets and is the measure whose execution is fastest. A court order freezing a bank account is executed by the court's own enforcement office on the day it is issued — a materially faster process than the Federal Bailiff Service enforcement pathway that applies to other asset classes.

The prohibition on share transfers — preventing the debtor from disposing of its shareholding in Russian companies — is the complementary measure where the debtor's most valuable assets are equity interests rather than cash. Share prohibition orders are noted in the share register by the registrar and prevent any transfer until the court lifts the measure.

Before Service: The Critical Window

The most tactically significant feature of Russian interim relief is that applications can be filed before the main claim is served on the respondent. Under Article 93 APC, the court considers an interim relief application within one day of its receipt, without notifying the respondent. If the application is granted, the order is issued before the respondent knows that proceedings have been commenced.

This pre-service window is the period during which interim relief has the greatest effect. A debtor who is not on notice of a claim cannot take steps to move assets in anticipation of the order. Once the debtor receives service of the main claim — or discovers that proceedings have been commenced — the opportunity to pre-empt asset movement through interim relief is substantially reduced.

In practice, the decision to file the interim relief application before or simultaneously with the main claim — rather than at a later stage — is the single most consequential tactical choice in a recovery-oriented mandate.

What the Application Must Contain

A well-drafted interim relief application includes four elements: a description of the main claim and its legal basis; an explanation of why the interim measure is necessary (the enforcement risk limb); identification of the specific assets to which the measure should apply; and evidence supporting the enforcement risk — such as information about recent asset transfers, the debtor's deteriorating financial position, or structural features of the debtor's corporate arrangements that facilitate asset movement.

Courts respond poorly to generic applications that do not identify specific assets and provide only speculative enforcement risk analysis. The more specific the application — identifying particular accounts, particular real property, or particular shareholdings — the higher the probability of a same-day grant. Where the applicant has conducted preliminary registry-based asset identification, that work should be referenced in the application.

The Cross-Undertaking Question

Russian procedural law requires the applicant to provide security for potential damages caused to the respondent by the interim measure, if the measure is later found to have been unjustified. Unlike the cross-undertaking in damages required by English courts, the Russian requirement is addressed through a counter-security (vstrechnoye obespecheniye) mechanism under Article 94 APC — the court may, but is not obliged to, require security from the applicant. In most first-instance applications, counter-security is not required unless the court finds the claim particularly uncertain.

The risk of an unjustified interim measure claim — where the respondent subsequently succeeds in the main proceedings and seeks compensation for the period during which the measure was in place — is real and should be assessed before the application is made. For creditors with a clear contractual claim and strong evidence of enforcement risk, this risk is low. For applicants with a speculative claim, the calculus is different.

Vitaliy Vetrov

Is Managing Partner of Vetrov & Partners. He has managed interim relief applications before Russian arbitrazh courts in cross-border enforcement mandates and in recognition proceedings under the New York Convention.

This article reflects the law and practice as of May 2026.

Related reading:

Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in Russia: The Procedural Map for 2026

Asset Tracing & Recovery in Russia — Practice Page