© AP Photo / Mike Corder
Ilya Craft, a lawyer for the MIA “Russia today”
On Wednesday, the Hague district court acquitted in 2014 of the Arbitration court decision The Hague, with whom Russia had recovered $ 50 billion in damages in favor of the former shareholders of Yukos. We will understand, what is connected with the abolition of the court decision.
To begin with a brief background to remind you of the claim “YUKOS shareholders.”In the early 2000s, Yukos had been exposed to tax claims on hundreds of billions of rubles. the company was unable to pay its debts, so the assets were sold at auction, and the company liquidated in 2007.
The former Yukos shareholders -. offshore company Hulley Enterprises, Yukos Universal and Veteran Petroleum presented to the Arbitration Court of The Hague claim to Russian authorities for compensation of costs and lost income.
it has been argued that the Russian authorities have specifically put the tax claims and the bankruptcy of Yukos was organized with a view to its expropriation. Allegedly, thus Russia had violated the commitments undertaken in the framework of the Energy Charter Treaty: an equal and honest attitude to investments and their integrity, the prohibition of expropriation without compensation of the cost.
After 7 years of the lawsuit, the court ruled on recovery from Russia 50 billion dollars plus legal costs of plaintiffs.
How Russia delayed the judicial process
it should be noted that Russia has not ratified the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). This document, which provides for the protection and promotion of foreign investments in the energy sector and mechanisms for resolving disputes between the investor and the state.
Do not ratified the document, Russia to protect themselves from possible claims. But in this case, made possible the participation of our country in the process itself unprecedented decision?
It appears, October 31, 2005 the parties signed a court agreement, which agreed to the dispute according to the court, as well as provided that the dispute will be resolved in the framework of the ECT
Without this agreement -. the court would simply not take place. So foreign consultants, who represented Russia at that time in foreign courts, dragged her into an argument, out of which the winner has become a very difficult task.
“The most equitable in the world of the court”
The then court decision risen on the side of the plaintiffs, it is an amazing example of the bias and heaps of inadmissible evidence. So, as witnesses were questioned beneficiaries plaintiff companies Nevzlin and Dubov – that is, those directly interested in the outcome of the case.
There have also been questioned persons, known for their anti-Russian position and negative attitude personally to the Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, the “witness” Illarionov did not hesitate and showed the court that Putin personally, in his presence, gave instructions to “punish Khodorkovsky,” and take away Yukos.
accepted such evidence, “the fairest court in the world”, considering that they have sufficient to make a decision on collecting from Russia 50 billion dollars.
it is important to note that Russia, like any other sovereign state, has immunity from enforcement of the court decision. Unsubscribe from this immunity can only be agreeing to enforce. Such consent Russia nobody gave. The Court took formal consent to the examination of the case and violated the important principle of national sovereignty in international law.
Russia disagreed with the court’s decision and filed a complaint. Despite this, the authorities of some European countries with amazing zeal began to carry it out -. Seize not only the property of Russia as a state, but also in the Russian legal entities Assets
At the trial by the Hague District Court began to find out the amazing details how the lower court neglected the basics of formal legality
it was found that the plaintiffs have hidden the real beneficiaries, offshore companies that sued -. Khodorkovsky, Nevzlin and Dubov. Nowhere in the decision of Hague court did not mention who the real owner of the controlling plaintiff companies. It is one thing – feeding a lawsuit by the independent European investors, who in good faith have invested in the Russian economy, and quite another – filing a complaint anti-Russian criminals under the guise of offshore companies with the aim to enrich themselves at the expense of Russia
Questions arose and. the composition of the court hearing the case. a lawyer Martin Valasek was brought to the consideration of the case by the court, which is not formally part of the court, he took an active part in resolving the dispute on the side of the three officially appointed judges. According to expert opinion, the authorship of the text of the decision of the Hague Court on 71% belongs to Valasek, not judges. Lawyer billed for their services at a rate of more than one million dollars, which exceeded the judges’ fees themselves.
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (the main document that regulates the procedure for the consideration of disputes by the Hague tribunal) establishes a clear procedure for appointing the court. Only persons formally agreed by the parties, have the right to administer justice on behalf of the court. The trial court other persons (in illicit composition) is an unconditional ground for cancellation of the decision.
The triumph of justice
These circumstances were obvious brute force to the Hague District Court, which overturned the decision of the arbitration court and took . a decision in favor of Russia
Legally, this means that all actions by the arrest of Russian assets abroad should be immediately discontinued
However, it is too early to rest on our laurels -. “Yukos shareholders” have already declared of its intention to appeal the decision, and there is still two instances for appeal, including the Supreme court of the Netherlands.
for the enemies of Russia is hoping for an opportunity to make money a lot of money at the expense of the Russian people, the decision of the District court was a serious blow.
it was found that in Europe, not all courts are heard scams instructions with connections in high places.
For the very same Russian “claim Yukos shareholders” should be immutable lesson that the best and least expensive way to win in foreign courts – it does not participate in
Rate this article
No comments:
Post a Comment