Wintershall Dea claims in a treaty arbitration that Russia’s 2022–2023 presidential decrees stripped it of its Siberian gas joint ventures with Gazprom. Russia has responded with Moscow court orders imposing penalties of about €7.5B each on Wintershall Dea, its counsel, and the arbitrators. On June 4, 2026, a Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) court issued a penal injunction against Russia enforcing the tribunal’s orders.
Latest development Jun 4, 2026
On June 4, 2026, Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of First Instance granted Wintershall Dea’s request for a penal injunction against Russia. The injunction enforces orders the arbitral tribunal had already made against Russia.
Why it matters
The dispute tests whether a state can use its domestic courts to penalize an investor, its lawyers, and treaty arbitrators, and how a seat court can respond. The answer will guide investors and tribunals in the dozens of pending claims over exits from Russia.
Background
Wintershall Dea, the German oil and gas group formed by the 2019 merger of Wintershall and DEA, held long-standing joint ventures with Gazprom. The ventures developed gas fields in Western Siberia, including the Achimgaz and Achim Development projects. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Wintershall Dea announced it would wind down its Russian business and stop financing new projects there. Between late 2022 and 2023, Russian presidential decrees transferred its stakes in these joint ventures to Russian state-controlled entities without what Wintershall Dea regards as adequate compensation. On September 30, 2024, Wintershall Dea announced that it had commenced two treaty arbitrations against the Russian Federation.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) administers this arbitration, PCA Case No. 2024-42, which is seated in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). The claim invokes the Energy Charter Treaty and the Germany-Russia bilateral investment treaty. Russia has fought the case by attacking the arbitration itself rather than on the merits, and in May 2025 it challenged arbitrators Olufunke Adekoya and Charles Poncet. Later that month, reports said the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow had acted directly against the foreign arbitrators, the PCA, and a law firm involved in the case. The Moscow court’s orders purport to ban the arbitration.
On September 8, 2025, the Moscow court issued a judgment imposing penalties of roughly €7.5B each on Wintershall Dea, its counsel, and the arbitrators if the arbitration continued. On October 22, 2025, the tribunal directed Russia to terminate the Moscow proceedings and not to seek enforcement of the Moscow injunction. On November 19, 2025, Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke of the DIFC Court of First Instance recognized and enforced the tribunal’s anti-anti-suit injunction. He ordered that a Moscow enforcement hearing be vacated and warned Russia of possible contempt proceedings. On November 20, 2025, the Moscow court nonetheless ordered recovery of the €7.5B penalty from Wintershall Dea.
On December 5, 2025, Justice Cooke rejected Russia’s application that he recuse himself. On February 20, 2026, the appointing authority dismissed Russia’s third challenge to the whole tribunal. On March 16, 2026, Russia sued in Moscow for a lifetime ban on Poncet, and the tribunal enjoined that suit in April 2026. On June 4, 2026, Justice Cooke issued a penal injunction enforcing the tribunal’s orders against Russia. The case remains active with no merits decision, and the Moscow and DIFC proceedings continue on separate, conflicting tracks.
Timeline 14 events
-
EnforcementDIFC court issues penal injunction against Russia
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke granted Wintershall Dea’s request. The injunction enforces orders the arbitral tribunal had already made against Russia.
Penal Injunction of Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke of the DIFC Court of First Instance Granting Wintershall's Request to Enforce Orders Already Made by the Arbitral TribunalDIFC court confirms injunction against Russia in Wintershall case
-
OrderTribunal enjoins Russia’s Moscow suit to ban Poncet
The suit sought to bar Charles Poncet permanently from acting as an arbitrator.
-
FilingRussia seeks lifetime ban on arbitrator Poncet
Russia filed the suit in a Moscow court to disqualify tribunal member Charles Poncet permanently from acting as an arbitrator.
-
OrderAppointing authority dismisses Russia’s challenge to the entire tribunal
The appointing authority rejected Russia’s bid to remove all members of the tribunal. It was Russia’s third such challenge.
Decision of the Appointing Authority Dismissing Russia's Challenge to All Members of the Tribunal
-
OrderJustice Sir Jeremy Cooke declines to recuse himself
The DIFC Court of First Instance judge rejected Russia’s application that he step aside from the case.
Order of H.E Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke of the DIFC Court Declining to Recuse Himself from the Case
-
EnforcementMoscow court orders recovery of €7.5B from Wintershall Dea
The Moscow Arbitrazh Court granted Russia’s application and ordered recovery of the penalty despite the tribunal’s contrary order.
Moscow court orders recovery of €7.5 billion in Wintershall case
-
JudgmentDIFC court enforces tribunal’s anti-anti-suit injunction against Russia
Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke recognized and enforced the tribunal’s anti-anti-suit injunction and ordered that a Moscow enforcement hearing be vacated. He also warned Russia of possible contempt proceedings.
Wintershall v. Russia (II), Anti-Suit Order of H.E Justice Sir Jeremy Cooke ... 19 Nov 2025Wintershall Dea (II): Jurisdictional Conflict in the Age of Counter-InjunctionsWintershall Dea – Round 3: The Moscow – Dubai Arbitration Clash
-
OrderTribunal orders Russia to terminate the Moscow anti-arbitration proceedings
The tribunal also directed Russia not to seek enforcement of the Moscow injunction.
-
JudgmentMoscow Arbitrazh Court issues €7.5B penalty judgment
The judgment imposed penalties of roughly €7.5B each on Wintershall Dea, its counsel, and the arbitrators if the PCA arbitration continued.
Wintershall v. Russia (II), Judgment of the Moscow Commercial Court А40-92702/25-56-674Arbitrators and Counsel face € 7.5 bn fine by Russian Court in case of continuation of arbitration proceedings€7.5 Billion Penalty: Russia's Court Prohibits Continuation of PCA Arbitration
-
OrderReports say Moscow court targets arbitrators, the PCA, and a law firm
The reports said the Moscow Arbitrazh Court had acted directly against the foreign arbitrators, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and a law firm involved in the case.
Russian Arbitrazh Court Targets Foreign Arbitrators, PCA and a Law Firm
-
OrderRussia challenges arbitrators Adekoya and Poncet
Russia filed the challenge in the arbitration itself.
-
FilingWintershall Dea announces two treaty arbitrations against Russia
Wintershall Dea said in a press release that the two treaty claims concern the loss of its Siberian gas joint venture interests.
Wintershall Dea initiates two arbitration proceedings against RussiaPress Release of Wintershall Dea on Initiation of Two Arbitration Proceedings
-
OtherWintershall Dea confirms exit from Russia
The company had lost its Siberian joint venture interests to state decrees.
-
OtherRussia moves to seize Wintershall Dea’s Gazprom joint venture stakes
Wintershall Dea had announced it would exit Russia and stop funding new projects after the invasion of Ukraine. Russian presidential decrees then began transferring its Siberian gas stakes to Russian-controlled entities.
Wintershall Dea withdraws from RussiaPutin orders Wintershall Dea, OMV stakes in JVs with Gazprom transferred to Russian cos
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the PCA tribunal in Wintershall Dea v. Russia (II) issue an award on liability by June 30, 2029, and for whom?
- Wintershall wins liability award48%
- Still pending on June 30, 202942%
- Tribunal rules for Russia7%
- Case settles or is withdrawn3%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2029in 32 months
- Record confidence
- Low
A liability award for Wintershall Dea by June 30, 2029, is the most likely outcome, at 48%. The decrees transferring its Siberian stakes look like a direct taking, and Russia has fought the forum rather than the merits. Russia’s repeated challenges and Moscow countersuits could still push the award past the deadline.
How it resolves. Resolves on public reports, party statements, or PCA records showing that the tribunal in PCA Case No. 2024-42 issued a partial or final award deciding Russia’s liability by June 30, 2029. An award finding Russia liable on any treaty claim counts as a Wintershall win. An award declining jurisdiction or rejecting all claims counts as a ruling for Russia. A reported settlement, discontinuance, or withdrawal before any such award counts as settlement or withdrawal. Otherwise the question is still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. Investment treaty arbitrations over direct expropriation in which the respondent state contests procedure but largely boycotts the merits: Treaty arbitrations take a median of about four to five years from filing to award. Investors win roughly half of merits decisions overall, with higher rates in clear direct expropriation cases.
Treaty arbitrations filed in 2024 typically need four to five years to reach an award, which places a liability decision near the June 30, 2029, deadline. The record shows no procedural calendar, hearing date, or bifurcation order, so timing is the main uncertainty. On the merits, presidential decrees transferring the joint venture stakes resemble a direct expropriation, where investors succeed more often than the roughly 50% overall rate. Russia has attacked the tribunal and counsel rather than engaging on the merits, which tends to favor the claimant if jurisdiction holds. Three failed tribunal challenges and the DIFC penal injunction suggest the arbitration will keep moving despite the Moscow penalties. Settlement is unlikely given sanctions and Russia’s open hostility to the process. The record has no new entry since the previous forecast of September 24, 2026, so the numbers are unchanged.
No hearing date or procedural calendar on the record · Decrees resemble a direct taking of the joint venture stakes · Russia’s challenges and Moscow suits can delay but have failed · DIFC seat court is actively supporting the tribunal · Sanctions and hostility make settlement unlikely
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Oct 3, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made