London, 3 July, 2026 – International law firm McDermott Will & Schulte secured final injunctive relief for Maire S.p.A. (“Maire”) against LLC EuroChem North-West-2’s (“EuroChem”) from the English Commercial Court in relation to EuroChem’s continued unlawful campaign in Russian in breach of arbitration agreements with Maire’s subsidiaries Tecnimont S.p.A. (“Tecnimont”) and MT Russia LLC (“MTR”, together with Tecnimont, the “Contractors”).
The underlying dispute between the Contractors and EuroChem concerns the construction of an ammonia and urea fertiliser plant near the Russian town of Kingisepp (the “K2 Project”), in respect of which EuroChem engaged the Contractors under various EPCC contracts (the “K2 Contracts”). As previously reported here, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the imposition of increased trade and financial sanctions measures (including, on 9 March 2022, the designation of the ultimate owner and controller of EuroChem, Mr Andrey Melnichenko) the Contractors suspended performance of the K2 Contracts. EuroChem disputed the lawfulness of that suspension, terminated the K2 Contracts, and sought to enforce in the English court on-demand payment guarantees issued in its favour by ING and SocGen to secure the Contractors’ performance of the K2 Contracts.
The Contractors commenced London-seated arbitration under the ICC Rules in August 2022 (the “Arbitration”), disputed EuroChem’s termination of the K2 Contracts and attempt to cash in the payment guarantees and intervened in the English court proceedings to challenge EuroChem’s judicial enforcement of the guarantees. On 31 July 2025, Mr Justice Bright of the High Court found that EuroChem had always been (and, to date, remains) owned and controlled by Mr Melnichenko, such that the guarantees are subject to the EU asset freeze measures and are not payable.
As discussed in greater detail here, after Mr Justice Bright’s judgment, despite being bound by exclusive arbitration agreements and having participated in the Arbitration for more than three years, EuroChem sought to sidestep the Arbitration by bringing unlawful parallel proceedings in Russia against the Contractors. On 27 November 2025, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court awarded EuroChem approximately €2 billion following a hearing that lasted mere hours and at which the Contractors were afforded just six minutes to present their case, notwithstanding the complexity of issues in dispute (which issues had been subject to three years of arbitration at that juncture) (the “Moscow Judgment”). Further, on 10 December 2025, the St. Petersburg Arbitrazh Court granted anti-arbitration orders to restrain the Arbitration altogether and imposed statutory penalties of approximately €900 million in the event of non-compliance. EuroChem has since pursued a vexatious and unsuccessful campaign to try and enforce these Russian judgments around the world, notably in India and Malaysia.
On 23 March 2026, EuroChem issued separate proceedings against Maire (as well as the Contractors) seeking to enforce the unlawful Moscow Judgment through certain parent company guarantees (the “Maire Guarantees”) issued by Maire to EuroChem as security for the Contractors’ performance under the underlying K2 Contracts (the “Russian Guarantee Proceedings”). The tribunal in the Arbitration (the “Tribunal”) determined the Russian Guarantee Proceedings to be a breach of the arbitration agreements in the K2 Contracts insofar as the Contractors were concerned because the proceedings relied on the unlawful Moscow Judgment. The Tribunal therefore ordered the Russian Guarantee Proceedings to be withdrawn as against the Contractors. EuroChem has not complied with the Tribunal’s order.
As it is not a party to the arbitration agreements, on 20 April 2026 Maire issued a claim before the English High Court seeking injunctive relief requiring EuroChem to withdraw the Russian Guarantee Proceedings as against Maire on the basis that such proceedings are vexatious and oppressive (the “Injunction Claim”). Whilst the Maire Guarantees contain an asymmetric jurisdiction clause whereby Maire must refer disputes under them to the Courts of England and Wales, but EuroChem can refer disputes elsewhere, they are otherwise governed by English law and record the parties’ agreement that the English courts “are the most appropriate and convenient courts to settle any dispute”.
Whilst EuroChem had already seized the Russian Courts of the Russian Guarantee Proceedings, Maire argued that the English Court’s should nevertheless accept jurisdiction. This argument was principally because the underlying dispute centred on the application of EU sanctions (and whether the Contractors had a right to suspend performance as a result), which the Russian Court would not recognise and, therefore, the Russian Court would fail to properly apply the Maire Guarantees’ governing English law and, critically, give EuroChem an illegitimate juridical advantage.
On 23 April 2026, Mr Justice Robin Knowles heard and granted Maire’s ex parte application for interim injunctive relief. EuroChem was duly served with the interim injunction but did not comply with it.
At a return hearing of the interim injunction on 8 May 2026, EuroChem, despite having been given notice of the hearing, declined to appear. At that hearing, Mrs Justice Dias granted permission for Maire to: (a) apply for summary judgment of their Injunction Claim (notwithstanding EuroChem’s non-attendance) pursuant to CPR 24.4(a); or (b) seek directions for an expedited trial. In order to assist with potential recognition or enforcement of any judgment abroad, Maire proceeded to list an expedited trial on the merits of their Injunction Claim. The trial went before Mr Justice Henshaw on 19 June 2026, and the Judge granted final injunctive relief and ordered EuroChem to pay Maire’s costs on the indemnity basis.
Of particular note, Mr Justice Henshaw determined as follows:
The Guarantees permitted the Defendant to sue in Russia, but did not warrant the pursuit of proceedings based on a judgment – the [Moscow] Judgment – obtained in clear violation of Arbitration Agreement that formed an essential part of the K2 Contracts, as well as in breach of multiple orders made by the Tribunal as set out earlier. The Russian Guarantee Proceedings themselves have been pursued in breach of the Butcher J Order. They seek an improper juridical advantage that is at odds with English conceptions of public policy. This is in my view a clear case for intervention notwithstanding considerations of comity.
This latest judgment highlights the English Commercial Court’s willingness to combat vexatious and oppressive conduct, including where Russian parties’ have breached jurisdiction agreements and sought to avail themselves of Russian counter-sanctions legislation in order to gain an illegitimate juridical advantage and obtain favourable judgments from their local courts, even in circumstances where the Russian Courts have already been seized of an issue.
This latest setback for EuroChem is compounded by the Bombay High Court’s dismissal, on 8 June 2026, of its application for an interim order freezing Tecnimont’s assets in India, so as to preserve them for attempted enforcement of the unlawful Moscow Judgment. As explained here, the Bombay High Court found the competence of the Russian Court doubtful and observed that there was an absence of any prima facie case in favour of EuroChem.
The Maire entities in the Arbitration and parallel English court litigation are represented by the disputes team of McDermott Will & Schulte, led by partners Milo Molfa, Alfonso Annibale De Marco, Jack Thorne, and David Kiefer, supported by associates James McGlaughlin, Jonathan Robb, Alison Morris, William Merry, and William Evans in London, Mariafiore Miniussi in Milan, Maxime Delabarre in Paris, and Maria Cristina Rosales del Prado and Ignacio Zabala Alonso in Washington DC, and supported by trainee Fleur Saillard and paralegal Rory Benton in London.
About us
Leading organizations turn to global law firm McDermott Will & Schulte for a better way to address legal challenges, connect with those at the forefront, and drive stronger outcomes. Working across more than 20 offices globally, our 1,700+ lawyers act on data-driven insights, deep relationships, and unmatched industry experience to deliver on our commitment of Always Better.
