Sergey Vodolagin comment on RBC article EuroChem Seeks to Seize Assets of Italian Tecnimont

EuroChem Seeks to Seize Assets of Italian Tecnimont. Comments by Sergey Vodolagin.

A subsidiary of the mineral-chemical holding EuroChem has achieved its first success in the High Court of Bombay in its attempt to seize assets of the Italian engineering group Tecnimont. According to RBC, this involves a temporary injunction requiring the Italian company not to withdraw funds and to maintain the status quo regarding its assets in India. A decision on full interim measures is expected in the coming weeks.

The conflict dates back to 2022, when Tecnimont and its Russian subsidiary MT Russia unilaterally suspended construction of an ammonia and urea plant in Kingisepp (Leningrad Region). The client assessed the facility's readiness at that time as only 25%, with significant delays from the schedule.

EuroChem terminated the contracts and demanded the return of unearned advances, losses, and penalties totaling €1.6 billion. In November 2025, the Arbitration Court of Moscow ruled in favor of the Russian company, ordering the contractors to pay more than 171 billion rubles.

The dispute concerns the failure to fulfill a contract for the construction of an ammonia and urea production complex in Kingisepp with a total capacity of 2.5 million tons. Currently, despite a corresponding injunction from the High Court of London, EuroChem is seeking enforcement of the Russian court's decision by arresting Tecnimont's assets abroad in countries where the Italian company operates, as an interim measure.

Following this, the contractors filed for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in London, as provided for in the contracts, and EuroChem-2 asserted counterclaims there. Later, the Russian company initiated proceedings in the Arbitration Court of Moscow, demanding nearly 203 billion rubles from the Italians, and on November 27, 2025, the court granted the claims, ordering the contractors to pay more than 171 billion rubles.

The Italian side attempted to restrict EuroChem-2's right to continue legal proceedings in Russia by filing a motion with the High Court of England and Wales. In November 2025, that court ruled in its favor, and the decision has remained unchanged since. Nevertheless, EuroChem-2 believes that, given the approval of the 171 billion rubles recovery decision, this restriction has "effectively lost its significance." In response, the Russian company petitioned the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, which prohibited Tecnimont S.p.A. and MT Russia from continuing the international arbitration process in London.

In January, when the appellate instance of the High Court of London upheld the first-instance decision prohibiting courts in Russia, EuroChem-2's press service stated its intention to defend its interests in Russian courts. A company representative explained that, under the Arbitration Procedural Code (APC), disputes related to the application of sanctions by foreign states fall under the "exclusive competence" of local arbitration courts.

After the Arbitration Court of Moscow's decision and its imposition of an arrest on assets of Tecnimont and MT Russia, the key issue became enforcement abroad. EuroChem-2 is seeking recognition and enforcement of the judicial act in foreign jurisdictions, including India and Malaysia, where assets of Maire Group structures—the parent company of Tecnimont—are located.

The value of Tecnimont's assets in India is estimated at more than €300 million, according to Alexander Grebelsky, managing partner of Grebelsky & Partners law firm.

If the arrest of Tecnimont (Maire Group) assets in India is fully implemented, it creates "serious operational risks," Grebelsky believes. Sergey Vodolagin, managing partner of Westside law firm, echoes this: "The arrest of the Italian contractor's assets could significantly complicate its fulfillment of obligations not only in India but in other countries as well."

Although international practice in recent years shows that Russian courts "actively" award large sums against foreign "defaulting contractors" (for example, in the Ruskhimalliance case against Linde), actual cross-border enforcement of such decisions remains the exception rather than the rule.

The prospects for enforcing decisions of Russian state courts abroad depend on the jurisdiction where enforcement will take place—whether it supports anti-Russian sanctions or is "friendly," such as BRICS countries, Vodolagin adds. "As examples in South Africa and India show, courts in these countries are willing to enforce Russian court decisions even without bilateral agreements on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments," he explained. A legal assistance treaty on civil and commercial matters exists between Russia and India, providing the "formal basis" for appealing to the High Court of Bombay, which EuroChem has utilized, Grebelsky noted. "However, the practice of recognizing Russian court decisions in India is extremely limited, with only isolated precedents," he adds pessimistically.

More on RBC Pro: https://pro.rbc.ru/demo/699718739a7947308eaddedf