Arbitrability, EU Public Policy, and EU Sanctions: The Svea Court of Appeal’s Referral to the CJEU in NV Reibel v. JSC VO Stankoimport

This case-note aims to analyse the legal implications of Article 11 of Council Regulation 833/2014, which prohibits the satisfaction of claims related to contracts affected by the European Union (EU) sanctions against Russia, focusing on the NV Reibel v. JSC VO Stankoimport case referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Svea Court of Appeal. This case raises fundamental questions about the amicable settlement – and by extension, arbitrability – of claims under Article 11 and whether the Regulation forms part of EU public policy. This contribution examines whether amicable settlements are permissible under the Regulation and its role within the EU legal framework. It sheds light on the potential impact of a CJEU ruling on arbitrability across EU jurisdictions, particularly in light of differing national criteria for arbitration. It argues that the classification of Regulation 833/2014 as EU public policy would strengthen its enforceability, ensuring uniformity and coherence in its application across Member States. Such an approach would align with the EU’s broader objectives, such as promoting peace, security, and the integrity of the internal market, while avoiding the fragmentation of the regulation’s applicability to dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration. By establishing the regulation as EU public policy while preserving its arbitrability, the EU can enhance its ability to achieve its external policy goals without undermining the rights of parties to access justice, thereby maintaining the effectiveness and consistency of its sanctions regime, while keeping arbitration as a viable option to provide parties with a neutral and accessible forum for resolving disputes.