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.