RU
☰
Court

Ninth Arbitrazh Appeal Court ruling of 02.07.2026 (travel ban)

CaseBankruptcy of Artsinovich — Банкротство · 2024–2026
Date
Document typeCourt decision
InstanceAppeal
CourtДевятый арбитражный апелляционный суд
Case no.А40-40034/2024
Pages5
SourceМатериалы дела
Added08.10.2026

This material has been redacted to protect personal data: names of all persons (except the surname Artsinovich), case and act numbers, signatures, seals and identifiers are hidden and cannot be recovered from the image or text.

Ninth Arbitrazh Appeal Court ruling of 02.07.2026 (travel ban) — Page 1

Text version

Unofficial translation.

Judgment of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal of 2 July 2026 — travel ban on the debtor

[[PAGE 1]]

[Document No. 972/2026-144477(1)]

NINTH ARBITRAZH COURT OF APPEAL
127994, Moscow, GSP-4, Proezd Solomennoy Storozhki 12
e-mail: 9aas.info@arbitr.ru — website: http://www.9aas.arbitr.ru

JUDGMENT No. 09AP-22335/2026

Moscow — Case No. A40-40034/24 — 2 July 2026

The operative part of the judgment was announced on 24 June 2026. The judgment was drawn up in full on 2 July 2026.

The Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal, composed of presiding judge Yu. L. Golovacheva and judges S. A. Nazarova and A. A. Komarov, with the record kept by assistant judge A. V. Kirillova, having examined in open court the appeal of M. A. Artsinovich against the ruling of the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow of 18.03.2026 imposing on the debtor M. A. Artsinovich a temporary restriction on leaving the Russian Federation until the date of the ruling completing or terminating the debtor's bankruptcy procedure, issued in the framework of the insolvency (bankruptcy) case of M. A. Artsinovich, with the participation of the representatives as recorded in the minutes of the hearing,

HAS ESTABLISHED:

By decision of the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow of 08.08.2025, individual entrepreneur Maxim Anatolyevich Artsinovich was declared insolvent (bankrupt) and a procedure for the realisation of his property was introduced in respect of him. Sergey Alekseevich Loshchilov was approved as insolvency administrator.

On 20.02.2026 an application by the insolvency administrator Sergey Alekseevich Loshchilov for interim measures in the form of a restriction of the debtor's right to leave the Russian Federation was received by the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow in electronic form.

By ruling of the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow of 18.03.2026 the claims made were granted.

Disagreeing with the judicial act adopted, the debtor applied to the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal with an appeal in which he seeks the setting aside of the ruling of the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow of 18.03.2026 and the adoption of a new judicial act.

In support of the setting aside of the judicial act, the appellant relies on a breach by the court of first instance of the rules of substantive and procedural law, on the incomplete examination of circumstances of significance for the case, and on the inconsistency between the conclusions set out in the judicial act appealed against and the circumstances of the case.

Before the hearing, the appeal court received the creditor's response to the appeal, which was added to the file under Article 262 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code. From the debtor it received additional documents, which were not added to the file for lack of evidence that it had been impossible to submit those documents to the court of first instance.

[[PAGE 2]]

At the hearing the debtor maintained the arguments of the appeal and, in reply to a question from the appeal court, explained that his foreign travel passport was necessary for holidays abroad, for medical treatment and for business trips.

The creditor's representative objected to the appeal being allowed.

The debtor's representative applied for the lifting of the interim measures. By a ruling entered in the minutes, the appeal court left the debtor's application for the lifting of the interim measures unexamined, on the ground that such an application is to be examined by the court which adopted the interim measures (Article 97 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code).

The other persons participating in the case, notified by the court of the time and place of the hearing, including publicly through the posting of information on the official website on the Internet, did not appear at the hearing, and the appeal is therefore examined in their absence, pursuant to Article 156 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code.

Guided by Articles 123, 266 and 268 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code, having examined the evidence submitted in the case and considered the arguments of the appeal, the appeal court finds no grounds for setting aside or varying the ruling of the arbitrazh court, which was adopted in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and the circumstances of the case, or for allowing the appeal, on the following grounds.

In adopting the judicial act appealed against, the court of first instance proceeded as follows.

On 20.02.2026 an application by the insolvency administrator Sergey Alekseevich Loshchilov for interim measures in the form of a restriction of the debtor's right to leave the Russian Federation was received by the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow in electronic form.

The application was based on the fact that the debtor owns a jewellery business in London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and Dubai (UAE), holds the passport of a citizen of a foreign State (the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis), and makes regular foreign trips for tourist and other purposes not directed at repaying the debt to the creditors.

Under Article 90 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, an arbitrazh court may, on the application of a person participating in the case, adopt urgent temporary measures aimed at securing the claim or the property interests of the applicant (interim measures). Interim measures are permitted if the failure to adopt them may make it difficult or impossible to enforce the judicial act, and also in order to prevent significant damage being caused to the applicant.

Under Article 91(1) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, interim measures include both the attachment of property belonging to the respondent and held by him or by other persons, and the prohibition of the respondent and other persons from performing certain acts relating to the subject matter of the dispute.

The circumstances of significance for the correct examination of the case are determined by the arbitrazh court on the basis of the claims and objections of the persons participating in the case, in accordance with the rules of substantive law to be applied.

[[PAGE 3]]

As established by paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation of 01.06.2023 No. 15 "On certain issues concerning the adoption by courts of measures securing a claim, interim measures and preliminary protective measures", when examining an application for interim measures the court establishes whether grounds for adopting interim measures exist, determines how far the specific measure sought by the applicant is connected with the subject matter of the claim made, whether it is proportionate to it, and in what way it will ensure the actual attainment of the objectives of adopting interim measures.

The court adopts interim measures where at least one of the grounds for their adoption is established.

In this connection, when assessing the applicant's arguments, the courts should in particular bear in mind:

  • the reasonableness and justification of the applicant's request for interim measures;
  • the connection between the interim measure sought and the subject matter of the claim made;
  • the likelihood of significant damage being caused to the applicant if interim measures are not adopted;
  • the striking of a balance between the interests of the parties;
  • the prevention, when interim measures are adopted, of any infringement of public interests or the interests of third parties.

In addition, the court assesses how far the specific interim measure sought by the applicant is connected with the subject matter of the claim made, whether it is proportionate to it, and in what way it will ensure the actual attainment of the objectives of interim measures based on the grounds provided for by Article 90(2) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Thus, pending the adoption of a judicial decision in the case, for the effective enforcement of the future decision, and also in order to ensure a balance of the interests of the parties concerned in the disputed legal relationship, interim measures must be aimed at preserving the existing state of relations (status quo) between the parties.

Article 27(2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees everyone the right freely to leave the Russian Federation, which, however, under Article 55(3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, may be restricted by federal law to the extent necessary for the protection of the foundations of the constitutional order, morality, health, and the rights and legitimate interests of others, and for ensuring the defence of the country and the security of the State.

Under Article 15(5) of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 15.08.1996 "On the procedure for departure from the Russian Federation and entry into the Russian Federation", the right of a citizen of the Russian Federation to leave the Russian Federation may be temporarily restricted if he evades the performance of obligations imposed on him by a court — until the obligations are performed or until the parties reach agreement.

Under Article 213.24(3) of the Bankruptcy Law, where a citizen is declared bankrupt, the arbitrazh court is entitled to issue a ruling temporarily restricting the citizen's right to leave the Russian Federation.

The temporary restriction of a citizen's right to leave the Russian Federation is in force until the date of the ruling completing or terminating the proceedings in the citizen's bankruptcy case, including as a result of the approval by the arbitrazh court of an amicable settlement.

Where there is a valid reason requiring the citizen to leave the Russian Federation, the arbitrazh court is entitled, on the citizen's application and taking into account the opinion of the creditors and of the insolvency administrator, to lift the temporary restriction of the citizen's right to leave the Russian Federation ahead of time.

[[PAGE 4]]

In applying this rule of law, account must be taken not only of the interests of the participants in the bankruptcy case, but also of the rights of the debtor as a citizen of the Russian Federation. It follows from an analysis of the above rules of law that the imposition of a ban on leaving the Russian Federation has the legal nature of interim measures, and therefore, under Article 65 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the applicant must prove the circumstances on which he relies and substantiate the reasons for making such a request with specific evidence confirming the need to restrict the citizen's right to leave the Russian Federation.

Since the debtor's departure from the Russian Federation in the framework of the bankruptcy procedure introduced in respect of him entails the need to spend funds from the bankruptcy estate, this does not correspond to the objectives of the procedure for the realisation of a citizen's property and infringes the rights of the creditors.

In addition, this ban makes it possible to prevent the debtor from evading the measures taken in the procedure for the realisation of his property and to protect the interests of the creditors.

At the same time, the mechanism of citizens' bankruptcy is the legal basis for an extraordinary means of releasing the debtor from creditors' claims, both those declared in the bankruptcy proceedings and those not declared. A debtor acting in good faith must endure the unfavourable consequences of being declared bankrupt, consisting above all in the transfer to the bankruptcy estate of the maximum possible volume of property and property rights in order to repay (partially repay) the claims of the creditors whose claims the debtor failed duly to satisfy. In other words, the mechanism of citizens' bankruptcy cannot be used to the detriment of the creditors' interests.

Taking the above circumstances into account, the court of first instance concluded that the insolvency administrator's application for a temporary restriction of the debtor's right to leave the territory of the Russian Federation was well-founded.

The appeal court, agreeing with the conclusions of the court of first instance, rejects the arguments of the appeal on the following grounds.

The insolvency administrator acted in good faith: he sent requests to the Border Service of the FSB of Russia, received refusals to provide the information out of court (replies of 16.12.2025 and of 06.02.2026 indicating the need for a judicial request), and made an application for the information to be obtained by the court, which was granted by the ruling of 24.03.2026. The information requested was obtained.

As the creditor states and the appellant has not disputed, according to the official information of the Border Control Unit of the FSB of Russia at Sheremetyevo International Airport "On the crossing of the State Border of the Russian Federation", the Debtor crossed the State Border 960 times in the period from 2001 to 2026, and 18 times after the introduction of the procedure (from 25.11.2024), which amounts to 9 foreign trips: 5 trips to the UAE, 2 to Türkiye, 2 to Georgia. Of these, 11 crossings were made after the debtor was declared bankrupt (08.08.2025). The last trip was from 13.02.2026 to 02.03.2026 (UAE). The trips were made using two foreign travel passports of a citizen of the Russian Federation, the second of which was used for the first time on 24.09.2025, that is to say, already in the course of the bankruptcy procedure.

The fact that the debtor returned from each of the trips does not indicate the absence of a risk and does not make the measure superfluous.

The other arguments of the appellant do not contain references to facts which were not verified and taken into account by the court of first instance when examining the case and which would be of legal significance for the issuing of the judicial act, would affect the soundness and lawfulness of the judicial act, or would refute the conclusions of the court of first instance;

[[PAGE 5]]

they are therefore found by the appeal court to be unsubstantiated and cannot serve as grounds for setting aside the ruling of the court of first instance.

In these circumstances, the arbitrazh court of first instance examined the materials of the case comprehensively and fully, gave a proper legal assessment to all the evidence, and applied the rules of substantive law to be applied, without committing any breach of the rules of procedural law.

The conclusions contained in the judicial act correspond to the actual circumstances of the case, and the appellate instance finds no grounds for setting it aside under Article 270 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

On the basis of the foregoing and guided by Articles 176, 266–269 and 272 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal

HAS RULED:

To uphold the ruling of the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow of 18.03.2026 and to dismiss the appeal.

The judgment enters into legal force on the day of its adoption and may be appealed against within one month of the day on which it is drawn up in full to the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow District.

Presiding judge: Yu. L. Golovacheva
Judges: S. A. Nazarova, A. A. Komarov