According to the newspaper “Vedomosti”, Russia has found new arguments that will be presented to the Hague court on appeal on the decision on collecting with Moscow’s $50 billion in favor of former Yukos shareholders. We are talking about the decisions of two international courts, which were made after the filing of the appeal.
In the first case we are talking about the decision of the appellate court of Stockholm, dated 18 January, which cancelled the decision of arbitration in the Swedish capital on recovery of $2 million in favor of the Spanish shareholders in Yukos. The court of appeal found that the Tribunal did not have the necessary powers to make such decisions.
The second decision was made by the International centre for settlement of investment disputes in Washington, which refused to recognize its jurisdiction in the dispute between the government of Guinea and the French company “Gaeta”. The centre has admitted that she “Gaeta” was actually ruled by the government.
These precedents confirm the position of the Russian side, insisting that the Hague court could not act as an arbitration party, as the actual owners of Yukos were Russian citizens. According to the Russian lawyers, it is not possible to abandon the rules of national law.
The decision of the Swedish court is not evidence in the proceedings in the district court of the Hague, said the press service of the Russian Ministry of justice: “However, I hope that the appeal court Svea district, which canceled the second award on the claims of former shareholders of OAO “NK “YUKOS” in the Russian Federation, will be considered by a Dutch court in the proceedings for annulment of decisions of the Hague arbitration, in which Russia also challenge the competence of arbitration to resolve a dispute”.
As an argument in the dispute references to judgements in such cases may occur, although are more informative, says Vladislav Kocherin from “Kocerin and partners.” However, a direct effect on the proceedings in the district court of the Hague, they will have no lawyer thinks that: “a Clear parallel carry I would not: after all, it’s a completely different jurisdiction and other grounds for challenge”.