Case C-635/25, Axpo Nordic: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 30 September 2025 – INTER RAO Lietuva AB v Axpo Nordic AS
Date: 2025-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, access to the courts, economic sanctions, international sanctions, judicial review, legal expenses, provision of services, public order, right to an effective remedy








C_202600281EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/281


26.1.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 30 September 2025 – INTER RAO Lietuva AB v Axpo Nordic AS


(Case C-635/25, Axpo Nordic)

(C/2026/281)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: INTER RAO Lietuva AB

Other party: Axpo Nordic AS

Questions referred







1.


Where a competent court of a Member State of the European Union rules on the recognition and enforcement, in a Member State of the European Union, of the part of the decision by an arbitral tribunal ordering a party to pay the costs of the arbitration, does that matter fall within the scope of Article 4(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (1) of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (as costs of legal representation)?










2.


Where a court of a Member State has recognised and authorised the enforcement of the part of the decision ordering a person subject to restrictive measures to pay the costs of the arbitration, does the recognition and enforcement of such a decision fall within the scope of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, namely, the exception allowing a payment to be made from the frozen funds of a person subject to restrictions under that regulation?










3.


Can Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 269/2014 and the objectives of the application of Regulation No 269/2014, be interpreted as precluding a competent court of a Member State of the European Union from recognising and enforcing in a Member State of the European Union a commercial arbitral decision made in a third country, where the commercial arbitral tribunal has expressly refused to apply the provisions of Regulation No 269/2014? Can the provisions of Regulation No 269/2014 establishing a regime of restrictive measures be regarded as overriding mandatory provisions of EU law (EU public policy) within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Regulation [No 593/2008]? (2)











4.


If the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, can the competent court of a Member State of the European Union, in the context of the procedure of exequatur, refuse to recognise and enforce, in a Member State of the European Union, a decision of a commercial arbitral tribunal where the ad hoc commercial arbitral tribunal has refused to comply with the provisions of Regulation No 269/2014?






(1)  
            OJ L 78, 2014, p. 6.

(2)  
            OJ L 177, 2008, p. 6.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/281/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)