Highly anticipated opinion from the CJEU addresses arbitration and EU sanctions

Insights|February 26, 2026

On 26 February 2026, Advocate General Biondi of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered his Opinion on the questions referred to the CJEU by the Svea Court of Appeal in Case C-802/24 – the Reibel case. The Reibel case is expected to have significant impact on several issues concerning the intersection of EU law and arbitration. Whilst not binding on the CJEU, the Opinion provides an important indication of the possible outcome of the case.

The key factual background to the issues before the CJEU

In December 2015, NV Reibel (Reibel), a Belgian logistics company, and JSC VO Stankoimport (Stankoimport), a Russian importer of metal products and machinery, entered into an agreement for the sale and delivery of goods and services.

After Stankoimport paid an advance, Belgian authorities refused to grant Reibel an export license in March 2017, citing EU dual-use and Russia sanctions regulations, as the goods were intended for helicopter parts production with potential military applications. When Reibel failed to deliver the goods and repay the advance, Stankoimport initiated arbitration seeking repayment plus interest, damages, and costs. The arbitral tribunal ordered Reibel to repay the advance plus interest, reasoning that this merely restored the pre-contractual position and was thus not prohibited under Article 11 of EU Regulation No 833/2014 (the so-called “no-claims clause”). Reibel subsequently challenged the award before the Svea Court of Appeal, which referred the following three questions to the CJEU:

  1. whether the issues examined by the arbitral tribunal were arbitrable under Swedish arbitration law;
  2. whether EU Regulation No 833/2014 forms part of the fundamental principles of the EU legal system (public policy); and
  3. whether the tribunal’s interpretation of Article 11 of EU Regulation No 833/2014 was correct.

Advocate General Biondi began his Opinion with a statement that this request for a preliminary ruling has offered the CJEU the opportunity to write a new chapter in the relationship, sometimes perceived as tortuous, between EU law and out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms.

Advocate General Biondi opines in favor of arbitration being compatible with EU law

Addressing the above-mentioned questions, Advocate General Biondi took the view that Article 11(1) (the no-claims clause) of EU Regulation No 833/2014 must be interpreted as:

  1. not precluding parties to an agreement from submitting to arbitration a claim falling within the scope of that provision. Nevertheless, no satisfaction may be granted in respect of a claim that is contrary to the no-claims clause, whether in the course of or upon completion of such arbitral proceedings. Being bound by EU law, the tribunal must apply it correctly and be especially attentive to any attempt to circumvent the prohibitions imposed by EU restrictive measures.
  2. being part of EU public policy. A national court or tribunal before which an action for an arbitration award to be set aside is brought must ensure, where appropriate of its own motion, that the application of Art. 11(1) by the arbitral tribunal is compatible with that provision. If that application is found to be incompatible with Art. 11(1), the court or tribunal concerned must draw all the appropriate conclusions, in accordance with its national law, and grant the application to have the award set aside based on the breach of EU public policy in order to remove the incompatibility from the EU legal order.
  3. precluding the satisfaction of a claim for repayment of an advance, plus interest, paid in respect of goods the supply of which has been prevented on the basis of EU Regulation No 833/2014.

Notably, Advocate General Biondi emphasized that arbitrators dealing with the no-claims clause were not only bound by EU law but also, at their level, are the guarantors that EU law will be applied correctly and observed. He noted that, although set apart from the State court system, and therefore having no dialogue with the Court, arbitral tribunals do not sit outside the scope of EU law.

Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the CJEU. As a next step, the CJEU will begin its deliberations in the case. A judgment will be delivered at a later date. The Roschier team is monitoring further developments closely.