“Naftogaz of Ukraine” has complained to Russia on the seizure of his property in Crimea

“Naftogaz of Ukraine” formally initiated proceedings “investment dispute” about “the illegal Russian takeover of the investment group “Naftogaz” on the territory of Crimea”. In accordance with the intergovernmental Russian-Ukrainian agreement on mutual protection of investments, signed in 1998, Naftogaz sent the Russian authorities a request for consultations and negotiations to resolve the dispute.

“If the dispute is not resolved through negotiations, “Naftogaz” intends to submit it for arbitration”, — stated in the message of the company.

Earlier “Naftogaz” estimated the value of the loss of Crimean assets of 15.7 billion hryvnias (at the exchange rate on February 18, 2016 for approximately $584 million), including the number of casualties 15 oil and gas fields, 3 promising areas of oil and gas deposits, Glebovskoye underground gas storage facility, more than 1,200 km of gas pipelines, 43 gas distribution stations, 29 4 ships and floating drilling rigs and a number of production infrastructure.

In the middle of December 2015, the company announced its intention to restore control over the lost assets through “international judicial institutions”, as well as to demand reimbursement of all damages. However, only losses from the inability to develop oil and gas fields of the Crimea in 2014 then was estimated to be 13.8 billion hryvnia ($513 million).

After the last of the 2014 referendum on independence of Crimea is situated on the Peninsula of the property of the companies “Chernomorneftegaz” and “Ukrtransgaz” on the decision of the Crimean Parliament was nationalized and transferred to the Charter capital of the new company is the Republican enterprise “Chernomorneftegaz”.

In October 2014, the Prosecutor General’s office of Ukraine opened criminal proceedings on the fact of “taking property” under control previously, “Naftogaz” company “Chernomorneftegaz”. The total cost of lost property, the General Prosecutor’s office then estimated at 15 billion hryvnia.

In October 2015, to regain control of the oil and gas fields in the Black sea called the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko. Later, the Minister of energy and coal industry of Ukraine Volodymyr demchyshyn said that in the event of a lawsuit for the return of lost in the Crimea oil and gas assets, including offshore deposits, the Respondent will be Russia. The Minister acknowledged that the trial would be “expensive and complicated”.

In December 2015, the Ukrainian foreign Ministry demanded Russia to “immediately return to Ukraine in the use and enjoyment of its property”. The relocation of drilling rigs “Chernomorneftegaz”, who worked for located in the neutral waters of the Black sea the Odessa mine, the foreign Ministry of Ukraine called “the next episode of widespread robbery” and promised to seek redress.

In the beginning of 2016 against Russia, accusing the latter in violation of the agreement on investment protection and capture of property in the Hague Permanent court of arbitration (PCA) asked “Ukrnafta” and another 11 Ukrainian companies — Stabil, “Rubinar”, “Rustel”, “Kirovograd-Nafta”, “Crimea-petrol”, “Person”, “trade trust”, “eleftheria”, “the CCF SATEC”, Stemv and Group Novel-Estate.

“Despite the official requirement from PJSC “Ukrnafta”, the Russian Federation refused to pay compensation for the seizure of petrol stations and other property of the company in Crimea and Sevastopol”, — said the “Ukrnafta”.

Later with a similar lawsuit against Russia in connection with the expiration of pre-arbitration settlement appealed to the Stockholm arbitration court of the Ukrainian Oschadbank. The amount of the claim to Bank of Russia previously estimated at $700 million.

In addition, in early January 2016, it was announced in the PCA arbitration between the company “Belbek Airport” and Igor Kolomoisky on the one hand and Russia on the other. The parties must provide the requested members of the arbitration information in the period until 29 February 2016, the start date of the preliminary hearing has not been determined.