Advocate General’s Opinion in Reibel v Stankoimport: A Further Step Towards Clarifying Sanctions’ Impact on Arbitral Awards

The intersection of EU sanctions and international arbitration has been a complex and evolving landscape, marked by divergent national court decisions and a pressing need for clarity from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 

A significant development occurred on 26 February 2026, when Advocate General Biondi (the AG) delivered an opinion in Case C-802/24, NV Reibel v JSC VO Stankoimport. 

While the opinion is not binding on the CJEU, Advocates General’s opinions are widely regarded as highly influential, and the CJEU often adopts the reasoning set out in them.

The definitive interpretation of EU law on these issues will have to come from the CJEU in its forthcoming judgment.

Background

The CJEU proceeding at hand deals with interpretation of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (Regulation 833). Regulation 833 is the EU’s principal instrument of sectoral sanctions originally adopted in 2014 in response to Russia’s actions in Crimea and significantly expanded following the full-scale Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022. 

Among its provisions, Article 11(1) contains a so-called “no-claims” clause. This clause prohibits the satisfaction of claims made by Russian persons or entities in connection with any contract or transaction the performance of which has been affected, directly or indirectly, by the sanctions imposed under the Regulation.

This case relates to a Stockholm-seated arbitration between Belgian company, NV Reibel and Russian entity, JSC VO Stankoimport. The dispute arose from a 2015 agreement for the supply of goods. In March 2017, the Belgian authorities refused to issue Reibel an export licence for the goods intended for delivery to Stankoimport, as those goods were classified as “dual‑use items” and their sale was prohibited under Regulation 833.

Following the licence refusal, Reibel did not deliver the goods in accordance with the contract. Stankoimport had already made advance payments and, following the non-delivery, terminated the agreement and sought repayment and damages. In the award dated 5 December 2021, the arbitral tribunal ultimately dismissed the damages claim but ordered Reibel to refund the advance, concluding that this specific claim did not fall under the “no-claims” provision of Article 11(1) of Regulation 833 (although other claims did). Reibel challenged this award before the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm, which stayed the proceedings and referred three pivotal questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of Article 11(1).

The Three Questions Referred to the CJEU

The Svea Court of Appeal sought clarification on:

1. Whether parties are precluded from referring to dispute resolution outside the national courts on claims that, under Article 11(1), are not to be satisfied, and whether amicable settlements concerning such claims are null and void. Notably, the AG proposed that the question be refocused on the issue of whether Article 11(1) of Regulation 833 allows the parties to an agreement to have recourse to arbitration in respect of claims which fall under that Article.
2. Whether the national court is required to examine of its own motion the correct application of the law in an arbitral award in which Article 11 of Regulation 833 was applied, and, therefore, whether an award that contradicts it must be annulled or set aside.
3. Whether Article 11 of Regulation 833 prevents granting a claim for the repayment of advances if the underlying contract was affected by sanctions.

The Advocate General's Stance

Under CJEU procedure, an Advocate General delivers a reasoned opinion to the CJEU before the judges deliberate and issue their judgment. 

AG’s opinion in this case offers the following views:

Issue 1: Arbitrability. The AG concluded that Article 11(1) of Regulation 833 does not preclude parties from resorting to arbitration to resolve claims that should not be satisfied under that provision. However, crucial caveats apply: satisfaction cannot be obtained (whether in the course of or upon completion of arbitration) for claims contrary to Article 11(1), and the arbitral award must always be open to judicial review to guarantee compliance with EU public policy. In other words, while merely submitting a claim to an arbitral tribunal is permissible, the satisfaction of such a claim is prohibited if it contravenes Article 11(1). 

Issue 2: Article 11(1) of Regulation 833 as EU Public Policy. The AG firmly asserted that Article 11(1) of Regulation 833 is an integral part of EU public policy. The AG stressed that national courts, when considering an action to set aside an award, must verify the arbitral tribunal’s application of Article 11 for consistency with the regulation, even ex officio. If an incompatibility is found, the award must be set aside based on the breach of EU public policy, which forms part of Member States’ public policies. 

Issue 3: Repayment of Advances Under Article 11. On the specific matter of the repayment of advances, the AG unequivocally stated that Stankoimport's claim for repayment of an advance, plus interest, for goods whose supply was prevented by Regulation 833 does fall under the concept of a “claim” that is not to be satisfied within the meaning of Article 11(1). The AG emphasised the broad wording of Article 11(1), covering “any contract” or “any transaction” affected “directly or indirectly, in whole or in part” by the restrictive measures, and clarified that the prohibition on satisfying such claims is automatic. This directly contradicts the finding of the arbitral tribunal.

Implications for Enforcement and Future Outlook

The AG’s opinion is a significant contribution to the ongoing debate in an area currently characterised by inconsistent national court decisions.

As we highlighted in Freshfields’ earlier blog post, German court denies Russian arbitral award recognition on the basis of EU sanctions, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart in May 2025 refused to recognise a Moscow-seated arbitral award for repayment of advance payments for undelivered goods, explicitly citing Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation 833 as a basis for violating German public policy. In contrast, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne in May 2024 allowed enforcement of an SCC award in favour of a Russian party affected by an asset freeze, conditional on payment into a frozen account. The AG’s opinion aligns with the more restrictive approach adopted in Stuttgart, reinforcing that even repayment claims for transactions affected by sanctions are prohibited.

For companies facing potential claims from Russian counterparties, this opinion suggests that while engaging in arbitration may not be prohibited, the satisfaction of claims for repayment of advances linked to sanctioned contracts could be directly challenged on EU public policy grounds.

However, the definitive resolution of these questions rests with the CJEU. Its forthcoming judgment will undoubtedly have profound implications for businesses engaged in international trade and arbitration with sanctioned entities.