{"id":292021,"date":"2026-08-21T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-21T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=292021"},"modified":"2026-08-21T14:04:07","modified_gmt":"2026-08-21T12:04:07","slug":"sanctions-do-not-automatically-bar-enforcement-english-court-upholds-e214-million-lcia-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/08\/21\/sanctions-do-not-automatically-bar-enforcement-english-court-upholds-e214-million-lcia-award\/","title":{"rendered":"Sanctions Do Not Automatically Bar Enforcement: English Court Upholds \u20ac214 Million LCIA Award"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-fh-holding-moscow-limited-v-ao-unicredit-bank-and-unicredit-s-p-a-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewca-civ-468-friday-17th-april-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+EWCA+Civ+468%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-16464-tuesday-8th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>OWH SE i.L v RTI Ltd<\/em> <em>and others<\/em> [2026] EWHC 1015<\/a><\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Jihane Bensaid<\/strong>, In-house Counsel at <strong>Groupe Ricardo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-4b9acada atbs-tabs-4121013f atbs-tabs-2c40885b atbs-tabs-5762387c atbs-tabs-60fcdf21 atbs-tabs-362e59b9 atbs-tabs-f82b2041 atbs-tabs-3f3b6f17 atbs-tabs-e564879e atbs-tabs-7d5286ff atbs-tabs-8074491d atbs-tabs-ec08974b atbs-tabs-ae459841 atbs-tabs-012e1490 atbs-tabs-c95d372c atbs-tabs-e53aa7e1 atbs-tabs-d078d18f atbs-tabs-fe8ed5c8 atbs-tabs-4b7fc855 atbs-tabs-e9190e75 atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-4b9acada\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 1 May 2026, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, sitting in the Commercial Court, dismissed an application to set aside an order enforcing an LCIA arbitral award in the case of <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>OWH SE i.L (in liquidation) v RTI Limited (in liquidation) and United Company RUSAL, IPJSC <\/em>[2026] EWHC 1015 (Comm)<\/a>. The dispute arose in the context of international sanctions imposed following Russia&#8217;s invasion of Ukraine and concerned the enforcement of an award relating to currency swap transactions governed by an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1065696\/000119312511118050\/dex101.htm\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1065696\/000119312511118050\/dex101.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ISDA Master Agreement<\/a>. The Court reaffirmed the public policy in favour of finality and enforcement of arbitral awards, drawing an important distinction between primary sanctions provisions and ancillary immunity provisions within sanctions regimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">RTI Limited (<strong>&#8220;RTI&#8221;<\/strong>), an indirect Jersey subsidiary of the Russian aluminium group Rusal, entered into a series of currency swap transactions with OWH SE (<strong>&#8220;OWH&#8221;<\/strong>), a German credit institution and subsidiary of PJSC VTB Bank, pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement (2002 version) dated 11 September 2019. The transactions were designed to hedge the Rusal Group&#8217;s exposure to rouble fluctuations. RTI&#8217;s obligations were guaranteed by United Company Rusal IPJSC (<strong>&#8220;Rusal&#8221;<\/strong>) under an English law guarantee, which, like the Master Agreement, was subject to <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-lcia-london-court-of-international-arbitration\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-lcia-london-court-of-international-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">LCIA<\/a> arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Following Russia&#8217;s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, both VTB Bank and OWH became designated persons. On 25 February 2022, OWH issued a margin call to RTI for USD 43.5 million. RTI refused payment on the grounds that such payment might indirectly benefit VTB Bank, an entity designated under several sanctions regimes, including Jersey sanctions legislation.&nbsp;The parties were unable to agree upon a lawful payment mechanism. OWH subsequently declared an Event of Default and issued a Termination Notice on 25 March 2022, resulting in a close-out amount of approximately \u20ac214 million payable by RTI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OWH commenced LCIA arbitration proceedings against RTI and Rusal on 24 June 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute was heard by an LCIA tribunal composed of <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/jonathan-nash\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/jonathan-nash\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Jonathan Nash KC<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/elizabeth-gloster\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/elizabeth-gloster\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Dame Elizabeth Gloster<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/andrew-lenon\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/andrew-lenon\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Andrew Lenon KC<\/a>. RTI and Rusal challenged the validity of the termination notice, arguing <em>inter alia<\/em> that the default notices had not been properly served, that a contractual <em>&#8220;Relevant Sanctions Event<\/em>&#8221; had occurred, and that payment of the margin calls <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-jersey-royal-court-2025-jrc-137-thursday-22nd-may-2025#decision_81597\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-jersey-royal-court-2025-jrc-137-thursday-22nd-may-2025#decision_81597\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">would have been unlawful under Jersey sanctions law<\/a>, constituting <em>&#8220;Illegality&#8221;<\/em> under the Master Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The tribunal rejected all three arguments. It held that RTI was estopped by convention from disputing service of the notices and that the sanctions authorities relied upon did not fall within the contractual definition of a <em>&#8220;Relevant Sanctions Event&#8221;<\/em>. On illegality, the tribunal found that RTI and Rusal had failed to comply with the contractual requirement to give prompt notice, which was a condition precedent to relying on illegality as a defence. The tribunal accordingly declined to determine whether payment would in fact have breached sanctions law. On 25 September 2024, <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-owh-se-i-l-v-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-award-monday-1st-january-2024#decision_79768\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-owh-se-i-l-v-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-award-monday-1st-january-2024#decision_79768\">it rendered an award<\/a> on liability ordering payment of some \u20ac214 million, confirmed by <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-award-on-costs-friday-29th-august-2025#decision_87672\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-award-on-costs-friday-29th-august-2025#decision_87672\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a final award on interest and costs dated 29 August 2025<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OWH obtained permission to enforce the award pursuant to <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-arbitration-act-1996-arbitration-act-1996-monday-17th-june-1996#art_78116\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-arbitration-act-1996-arbitration-act-1996-monday-17th-june-1996#art_78116\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996<\/a>. Rusal applied to set aside the enforcement order, arguing that enforcement would be contrary to English public policy by reason of Article 46A of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jerseylaw.je\/laws\/current\/l_2_2019\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.jerseylaw.je\/laws\/current\/l_2_2019\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Jersey Sanctions and Asset-Freezing Law 2019 (<strong>&#8220;SAFL&#8221;<\/strong><\/a>), which mirrors <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2018\/13\/section\/44\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2018\/13\/section\/44\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">section 44 of the UK Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (<strong>&#8220;SAMLA&#8221;<\/strong>)<\/a>. These provisions grant immunity from civil liability where a party reasonably believed that its conduct was necessary to comply with sanctions obligations. Rusal contended that RTI had such a reasonable belief and therefore benefited from immunity, and that English public policy required the court to give effect to that immunity by refusing enforcement.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OWH opposed the application, submitting that no actual breach of sanctions law had been established, that the immunity argument had never been raised before the tribunal, and that the public policy in favour of enforcement of arbitral awards should prevail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principal legal questions before the Court were: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>whether enforcement of the award would be contrary to English public policy because RTI allegedly benefited from immunity under Article 46A of SAFL; <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>whether ancillary immunity provisions such as Article 46A of SAFL and section 44 of SAMLA carry sufficient public policy weight to override the pro-enforcement principle within sanctions regimes;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>whether the enforcement proceedings should be adjourned pending <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-jersey-court-of-appeal-2025-jca-327-monday-15th-december-2025#decision_87040\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-jersey-court-of-appeal-2025-jca-327-monday-15th-december-2025#decision_87040\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a proposed appeal before the Privy Council<\/a> and related BIT arbitration proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Commercial Court dismissed Rusal&#8217;s application and upheld the enforcement order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">First, Mrs Justice Dias <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=It%20was%20also%20not%20in%20dispute%20that%20there%20is%20a%20strong%20public%20interest%20in%20upholding%20the%20finality%20of%20arbitration%20awards%20and%20in%20enforcing%20them.\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=It%20was%20also%20not%20in%20dispute%20that%20there%20is%20a%20strong%20public%20interest%20in%20upholding%20the%20finality%20of%20arbitration%20awards%20and%20in%20enforcing%20them.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">reaffirmed the strong public interest<\/a> favouring enforcement and the finality of arbitral awards, emphasising that courts must exercise extreme caution before refusing enforcement on public policy grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Secondly, the Court <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=However%2C%20Article%2046A,in%20certain%20circumstances.\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=However%2C%20Article%2046A,in%20certain%20circumstances.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">drew a decisive distinction between primary sanctions provisions and ancillary immunity provisions<\/a>. It accepted that sanctions regimes pursue important public interests and that provisions such as Article 46A of SAFL and section 44 of SAMLA protect parties acting in good faith. However, the Court held that immunity provisions do not themselves prohibit payment or render conduct unlawful: they merely provide a possible defence against civil liability in specific circumstances. As such, they did not carry the same public policy weight as primary sanctions prohibitions. Several further considerations reinforced this conclusion: neither payment of the margin call nor payment of the award would actually breach English or Jersey sanctions law; the immunity defence was not mandatory; it had not been raised before the tribunal; and Rusal, as a Russian company, could not directly invoke Article 46A or section 44.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the Court <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=For%20all%20these,is%20accordingly%20dismissed.\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=For%20all%20these,is%20accordingly%20dismissed.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">rejected Rusal&#8217;s request to adjourn the proceedings<\/a>, finding that the proposed treaty claims were <em>\u201cambitious\u201d<\/em> and legally uncertain, and did not justify delaying enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This decision is significant in the growing body of case law on the intersection of international sanctions and arbitration enforcement. It confirms that English courts remain firmly committed to the enforceability of arbitral awards, even in politically sensitive disputes involving sanctions regimes arising from the conflict in Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court&#8217;s distinction between primary sanctions provisions and ancillary immunity provisions is particularly noteworthy. By treating immunity provisions as carrying comparatively weaker public policy force, the judgment restricts the scope for losing parties to convert sanctions-related uncertainty into broad public policy objections to enforcement. Unless an award would require actual unlawful conduct, English courts are likely to continue enforcing arbitral awards notwithstanding the broader regulatory complexities of sanctions regimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the PBA Bulletin on June 5, 2026 with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">read it Here<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jihane Bensaid<\/strong>&nbsp;is a candidate in the LL.M.\/MSc in International Business Law and Management (\u201c<strong>DAIM<\/strong>\u201d) at ESSEC Business School and previously completed a Master\u2019s degree in Business Law at Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne in partnership with the Euro-Mediterranean University of Fez. She currently works in the legal and finance department of <strong>Groupe Ricardo<\/strong>, where she assists with cross-border corporate and restructuring matters. Jihane is a member of the ESSEC Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot team and a contributor to the Paris Baby Arbitration newsletter. Her interests focus on international arbitration and cross-border restructuring, particularly in transactions involving Europe, Africa, and Asia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-4b9acada\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><strong><strong>Sanctions internationales et ex\u00e9cution des sentences : la Commercial Court confirme une sentence LCIA de 214 millions d\u2019euros<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-china-communications-construction-company-ltd-v-respondent-1-respondent-2-respondent-3-respondent-4-and-respondent-5-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-16464-tuesday-8th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-at-v-qc-judgment-of-the-court-of-first-instance-of-the-high-court-of-hong-kong-2026-hkcfi-1437-wednesday-11th-march-2026?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%5B2026%5D+HKCFI+1437%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong><em><em><\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/a><strong><em><em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>OWH SE i.L v RTI Ltd<\/em> <em>and others<\/em> [2026] EWHC 1015<\/a><\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 1er mai 2026, la Commercial Court d\u2019Angleterre et du Pays de Galles a rejet\u00e9 une demande d\u2019annulation d\u2019une ordonnance d\u2019ex\u00e9cution d\u2019une sentence arbitrale de la LCIA dans l\u2019affaire <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>OWH SE i.L (en liquidation) v RTI Limited (en liquidation) &amp; another<\/em> [2026] EWHC 1015 (Comm)<\/a>. Le litige s\u2019inscrivait dans le contexte des sanctions internationales adopt\u00e9es \u00e0 la suite de l\u2019invasion de l\u2019Ukraine par la Russie et portait sur l\u2019ex\u00e9cution d\u2019une sentence relative \u00e0 des op\u00e9rations de swap de devises r\u00e9gies par un <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1065696\/000119312511118050\/dex101.htm\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1065696\/000119312511118050\/dex101.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">contrat-cadre ISDA<\/a>. La Cour a r\u00e9affirm\u00e9 le principe de l\u2019efficacit\u00e9 des sentences arbitrales, en distinguant les dispositions primaires des r\u00e9gimes de sanctions des clauses d\u2019immunit\u00e9 qui leur sont accessoires. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">RTI Limited (<strong>\u00ab RTI \u00bb<\/strong>), filiale indirecte de droit jersey du groupe russe d\u2019aluminium Rusal, a conclu une s\u00e9rie d\u2019op\u00e9rations de swap de devises avec OWH SE (<strong>\u00ab OWH \u00bb<\/strong>), \u00e9tablissement de cr\u00e9dit allemand et filiale de PJSC VTB Bank, en vertu d\u2019un contrat-cadre ISDA (version 2002)&nbsp;sign\u00e9 le 11 septembre 2019. Ces op\u00e9rations avaient pour objet de couvrir l\u2019exposition du groupe Rusal aux fluctuations du rouble russe. Les obligations de RTI \u00e9taient garanties par United Company Rusal IPJSC (<strong>\u00ab Rusal \u00bb<\/strong>) au titre d\u2019une garantie soumise au droit anglais. Le contrat-cadre et la garantie contenaient tous deux une clause compromissoire <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-lcia-london-court-of-international-arbitration\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-lcia-london-court-of-international-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">LCIA<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Apr\u00e8s l\u2019invasion de l\u2019Ukraine par la Russie en f\u00e9vrier 2022, VTB Bank et OWH ont \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9sign\u00e9es comme entit\u00e9s sanctionn\u00e9es dans le cadre de diff\u00e9rents r\u00e9gimes de sanctions. Le 25 f\u00e9vrier 2022, OWH a adress\u00e9 \u00e0 RTI un appel de marge de 43,5 millions de dollars am\u00e9ricains. RTI a refus\u00e9 de payer ce montant en raison du risque que ce paiement ne b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie indirectement \u00e0 VTB Bank, entit\u00e9 d\u00e9sign\u00e9e au titre de plusieurs r\u00e9gimes de sanctions, notamment la l\u00e9gislation jerseyaise. Les parties n\u2019\u00e9tant pas parvenues \u00e0 s\u2019accorder sur une modalit\u00e9 de paiement licite, OWH a prononc\u00e9 un \u00e9v\u00e9nement de d\u00e9faut et notifi\u00e9 la r\u00e9siliation du contrat le 25 mars 2022. Le montant de cl\u00f4ture d\u00fb par RTI s\u2019est \u00e9lev\u00e9 \u00e0 environ 214 millions d\u2019euros. OWH a engag\u00e9 une proc\u00e9dure arbitrale LCIA contre RTI et Rusal le 24 juin 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le litige a \u00e9t\u00e9 soumis \u00e0 un tribunal arbitral LCIA compos\u00e9 de <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/jonathan-nash\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/jonathan-nash\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Jonathan Nash KC<\/a>, de <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/elizabeth-gloster\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/elizabeth-gloster\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Dame Elizabeth Gloster<\/a> et d\u2019<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/andrew-lenon\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/andrew-lenon\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Andrew Lenon KC<\/a>. RTI et Rusal ont contest\u00e9 la validit\u00e9 de la notification de r\u00e9siliation, faisant valoir notamment que les mises en demeure n\u2019avaient pas \u00e9t\u00e9 valablement notifi\u00e9es, qu\u2019un <em>\u00ab \u00e9v\u00e9nement de sanctions pertinent \u00bb<\/em> au sens du contrat-cadre s\u2019\u00e9tait produit, et que le paiement des appels de marge <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-jersey-royal-court-2025-jrc-137-thursday-22nd-may-2025#decision_81597\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-jersey-royal-court-2025-jrc-137-thursday-22nd-may-2025#decision_81597\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 illicite au regard du droit jerseyais des sanctions<\/a>, constituant ainsi une situation d\u2019<em>\u00ab ill\u00e9galit\u00e9 \u00bb<\/em> au sens du contrat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le tribunal a rejet\u00e9 l\u2019ensemble de ces arguments. Il a jug\u00e9 que RTI \u00e9tait irrecevable, par application du principe d\u2019<em>estoppel by convention<\/em>, \u00e0 contester la notification des mises en demeure, et que les r\u00e9gimes de sanctions invoqu\u00e9s ne correspondaient pas \u00e0 la d\u00e9finition contractuelle d\u2019un \u00ab<em> \u00e9v\u00e9nement de sanctions pertinent \u00bb<\/em>. S\u2019agissant du moyen d\u2019ill\u00e9galit\u00e9, le tribunal a constat\u00e9 que RTI et Rusal n\u2019avaient pas satisfait \u00e0 l\u2019obligation contractuelle d\u2019en donner notification dans les meilleurs d\u00e9lais, laquelle constituait une condition pr\u00e9alable \u00e0 l\u2019invocation de ce moyen. Le tribunal a ainsi statu\u00e9 en faveur d\u2019OWH <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-owh-se-i-l-v-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-award-monday-1st-january-2024#decision_79768\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-owh-se-i-l-v-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-award-monday-1st-january-2024#decision_79768\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">dans une sentence du 25 septembre 2024<\/a>, confirmant une cr\u00e9ance d\u2019environ 214 millions d\u2019euros, puis <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-award-on-costs-friday-29th-august-2025#decision_87672\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-award-on-costs-friday-29th-august-2025#decision_87672\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a rendu une sentence finale sur les int\u00e9r\u00eats et les frais le 29 ao\u00fbt 2025<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OWH a obtenu une ordonnance d\u2019ex\u00e9cution de la sentence en vertu de l\u2019<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-arbitration-act-1996-arbitration-act-1996-monday-17th-june-1996#art_78116\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/rule\/en-arbitration-act-1996-arbitration-act-1996-monday-17th-june-1996#art_78116\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">article 66 de l\u2019<em>Arbitration Act 1996<\/em><\/a>. Rusal a demand\u00e9 l\u2019annulation de cette ordonnance, soutenant que l\u2019ex\u00e9cution serait contraire \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public anglais au regard de l\u2019article 46A de la <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jerseylaw.je\/laws\/current\/l_2_2019\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.jerseylaw.je\/laws\/current\/l_2_2019\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">loi jerseyaise sur les sanctions et le gel des avoirs de 2019 (<strong>\u00ab SAFL \u00bb<\/strong>)<\/a>, disposition analogue \u00e0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2018\/13\/section\/44\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2018\/13\/section\/44\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">l\u2019article 44 de la loi britannique sur les sanctions et la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux de 2018 (<strong>\u00ab SAMLA \u00bb<\/strong>)<\/a>. Ces textes accordent une immunit\u00e9 de responsabilit\u00e9 civile aux parties qui croient raisonnablement que leur comportement est n\u00e9cessaire au respect des sanctions. Rusal faisait valoir que RTI b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiait d\u2019une telle immunit\u00e9 et que l\u2019ordre public anglais devait faire obstacle \u00e0 l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de la sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OWH a contest\u00e9 cette demande, en faisant valoir qu\u2019aucune violation effective des sanctions n\u2019avait \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tablie, que l\u2019argument fond\u00e9 sur l\u2019immunit\u00e9 n\u2019avait jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 invoqu\u00e9 devant le tribunal arbitral, et que le principe de l\u2019efficacit\u00e9 des sentences arbitrales devait l\u2019emporter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Les questions juridiques soumises \u00e0 la Cour \u00e9taient les suivantes : <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de la sentence \u00e9tait-elle contraire \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public anglais en raison de l\u2019immunit\u00e9 dont RTI aurait b\u00e9n\u00e9fici\u00e9 au titre de l\u2019article 46A de la SAFL ? ; <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>les dispositions d\u2019immunit\u00e9 accessoires telles que l\u2019article 46A de la SAFL et l\u2019article 44 de la SAMLA constituaient-elles des r\u00e8gles d\u2019ordre public fondamentales au sein des r\u00e9gimes de sanctions ? ; et la proc\u00e9dure d\u2019ex\u00e9cution devait-elle \u00eatre suspendue dans l\u2019attente d\u2019un <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-jersey-court-of-appeal-2025-jca-327-monday-15th-december-2025#decision_87040\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-jersey-court-of-appeal-2025-jca-327-monday-15th-december-2025#decision_87040\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">appel devant le Comit\u00e9 judiciaire du Conseil priv\u00e9<\/a> et de proc\u00e9dures arbitrales fond\u00e9es sur des trait\u00e9s d\u2019investissement ?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Commercial Court a rejet\u00e9 la demande de Rusal et confirm\u00e9 l\u2019ordonnance d\u2019ex\u00e9cution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En premier lieu, le juge Dias <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=It%20was%20also%20not%20in%20dispute%20that%20there%20is%20a%20strong%20public%20interest%20in%20upholding%20the%20finality%20of%20arbitration%20awards%20and%20in%20enforcing%20them.\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=It%20was%20also%20not%20in%20dispute%20that%20there%20is%20a%20strong%20public%20interest%20in%20upholding%20the%20finality%20of%20arbitration%20awards%20and%20in%20enforcing%20them.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a r\u00e9affirm\u00e9 la pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rance du principe de l\u2019efficacit\u00e9 des sentences arbitrales<\/a> en droit anglais, soulignant que les juridictions doivent faire preuve d\u2019une \u00ab extr\u00eame prudence \u00bb avant de refuser l\u2019ex\u00e9cution pour motif d\u2019ordre public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En deuxi\u00e8me lieu, la Cour <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=However%2C%20Article%2046A,in%20certain%20circumstances.\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=However%2C%20Article%2046A,in%20certain%20circumstances.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a op\u00e9r\u00e9 une distinction d\u00e9cisive entre les dispositions primaires des r\u00e9gimes de sanctions et les clauses d\u2019immunit\u00e9 qui leur sont accessoires<\/a>. Si elle a reconnu que ces derni\u00e8res poursuivent un int\u00e9r\u00eat public l\u00e9gitime en prot\u00e9geant les parties agissant de bonne foi, elle a jug\u00e9 qu\u2019elles n\u2019interdisent pas elles-m\u00eames le paiement et ne rendent pas le comportement illicite : elles offrent seulement une d\u00e9fense \u00e9ventuelle contre la responsabilit\u00e9 civile dans des circonstances d\u00e9termin\u00e9es. Ces dispositions ne sauraient donc \u00eatre assimil\u00e9es, sur le plan de l\u2019ordre public, aux interdictions primaires des r\u00e9gimes de sanctions. Plusieurs \u00e9l\u00e9ments ont confort\u00e9 cette conclusion : ni le paiement de l\u2019appel de marge ni l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de la sentence n\u2019auraient constitu\u00e9 une violation effective des sanctions anglaises ou jerseyaises ; le recours \u00e0 l\u2019immunit\u00e9 n\u2019\u00e9tait pas obligatoire ; cet argument n\u2019avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 invoqu\u00e9 devant le tribunal arbitral ; et Rusal, en tant que soci\u00e9t\u00e9 russe, ne pouvait pas directement se pr\u00e9valoir de l\u2019article 46A de la SAFL ni de l\u2019article 44 de la SAMLA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En troisi\u00e8me lieu, la Cour <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=For%20all%20these,is%20accordingly%20dismissed.\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-united-company-rusal-and-rti-ltd-v-owh-se-i-l-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2026-ewhc-1015-friday-1st-may-2026#decision_88488:~:text=For%20all%20these,is%20accordingly%20dismissed.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a rejet\u00e9 la demande de suspension de la proc\u00e9dure<\/a>, estimant que les recours envisag\u00e9s sur le fondement de trait\u00e9s d\u2019investissement \u00e9taient trop \u201cambitieux\u201d et juridiquement incertains pour justifier un ajournement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cette d\u00e9cision s\u2019inscrit dans un corpus jurisprudentiel en plein d\u00e9veloppement sur les interactions entre sanctions internationales et ex\u00e9cution des sentences arbitrales. Elle confirme que les juridictions anglaises demeurent attach\u00e9es au principe de l\u2019efficacit\u00e9 des sentences, y compris dans des litiges politiquement sensibles li\u00e9s aux sanctions adopt\u00e9es \u00e0 la suite du conflit en Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La distinction op\u00e9r\u00e9e par la Cour entre dispositions primaires et clauses d\u2019immunit\u00e9 accessoires est particuli\u00e8rement remarquable. En refusant d\u2019accorder \u00e0 ces derni\u00e8res la m\u00eame force d\u2019ordre public que les interdictions primaires, la Cour restreint la possibilit\u00e9 pour les parties perdantes de transformer l\u2019incertitude li\u00e9e aux sanctions en objection g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 l\u2019ex\u00e9cution. Sauf \u00e0 ce que l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de la sentence impose un comportement effectivement illicite, les juridictions anglaises devraient continuer \u00e0 en ordonner l\u2019ex\u00e9cution, nonobstant la complexit\u00e9 r\u00e9glementaire des r\u00e9gimes de sanctions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans l<\/em><\/em>e bulletin PBA<em><em> le vendredi 5 juin, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lire Ici<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jihane Bensaid<\/strong>&nbsp;is a candidate in the LL.M.\/MSc in International Business Law and Management (\u201c<strong>DAIM<\/strong>\u201d) at ESSEC Business School and previously completed a Master\u2019s degree in Business Law at Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne in partnership with the Euro-Mediterranean University of Fez. She currently works in the legal and finance department of <strong>Groupe Ricardo<\/strong>, where she assists with cross-border corporate and restructuring matters. Jihane is a member of the ESSEC Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot team and a contributor to the Paris Baby Arbitration newsletter. Her interests focus on international arbitration and cross-border restructuring, particularly in transactions involving Europe, Africa, and Asia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Can sanctions immunity block enforcement of an arbitral award? The English Commercial Court says no in OWH v RTI, upholding a EUR 214m LCIA award.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":291723,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"168"},"jnews_social_meta":{"twitter_image":"291726","fb_image":"291726","fb_description":"Can sanctions immunity block enforcement of an arbitral award? The English Commercial Court says no in OWH v RTI, upholding a EUR 214m LCIA award.","twitter_description":"Can sanctions immunity block enforcement of an arbitral award? The English Commercial Court says no in OWH v RTI, upholding a EUR 214m LCIA award.","fb_title":"Sanctions Do Not Automatically Bar Enforcement: English Court Upholds \u20ac214 Million LCIA Award","twitter_title":"Sanctions Do Not Automatically Bar Enforcement: English Court Upholds \u20ac214 Million LCIA Award"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,209,207,167,188,276,215,168,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-292021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-arbitration-aftermath-post-award","category-commercial-arbitration","category-europe","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-russia","category-united-kingdom","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=292021"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292021\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":292057,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/292021\/revisions\/292057"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/291723"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=292021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=292021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=292021"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=292021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}