Hague arbitration court to consider case brought by oligarch Igor Kolomoisky against Russia - TOL.org.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague has said it will consider a case against Russia by Ukrainian businessman and sometime politician Igor Kolomoisky who claims he was deprived of his right to operate a passenger terminal at a Crimean airport after Russia annexed the peninsula.
The Subcommittee on Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards conducted over 2014/2015 a comparative study on 'public policy' as a defence to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention. For such purpose, the Subcommittee has solicited and received reports from Arbitration Committee members reporting jurisdiction by jurisdiction on the treatment of public policy by the domestic courts in the context of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
Misen Energy AB (publ) (“Misen”) has submitted an investment dispute notice to the Government of Ukraine under the Ukrainian Swedish Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”). Misen notified Ukraine that a dispute has arisen between it and Ukraine concerning Misen’s investment in Ukraine, and invited Ukraine to resolve the dispute by consultation and negotiation.
Assignment of benefits of arbitral awards is a standard business practice worldwide, undertaken by companies involved in international trade and supported by credit insurers. However, this practice may face some obstacles in Ukraine considering contradictory and poorly developed court practice of granting leave for enforcement upon an application submitted by any person other than a person who was the party to arbitration. Courts are rather formalistic in deciding on that matter as Ukrainian laws do not directly envisage the possibility to an application for leave to enforce an international arbitration award to be submitted by any person other than a creditor (the meaning of this term is sometimes narrow, so that it is understood as a synonym to a party to arbitration). Actually, until recently there are not so many court cases, if any at all, in which the matter of assignment of benefits of arbitral award was clearly addressed.
by Martin Andrew Jarrett
When may an arbitral panel bind non-consenting respondents to a default award proposed by the claimant and other consenting respondents? In Grant Thornton International Ltd. (the “Claimant”) v. JBPB & Co. (a partnership) (the “Respondents”)  HKCFI 523, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance (Construction and Arbitration Proceedings) (the “Court”) had occasion to rule on this question.
Investor–State arbitration: highest number of new cases ever. $8 million spent on lawyers and arbitrators in an average case
In 2012, 58 new known investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases were initiated (stated in the 2013 World Investment Report by UNCTAD). This brings the total number of known cases to 514 and the total number of countries that have responded to one or more ISDS cases to 95. The 58 cases constitute the highest number of known ISDS claims ever filed in one year and confirm foreign investors’ increased inclination to resort to investor–State arbitration.
July 08, 2013 - The ad hoc Committee issues its decision on annulment of the arbitral award in Joseph C. Lemire v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18)
The decision will be published in few days
On 28 April 2011 the Arbitral Tribunal of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce rejected most of the claims filed by Remington Worldwide Limited against Ukraine. The company accused Ukraine in violating the Energy Charter Treaty ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament, Verkhovna Rada in 1998.
The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine that is authorized to defend state interests in foreign courts and arbitration tribunals, currently is in the negotiation process for a peaceful settlement of 7 disputes with foreign investors, stated the Minister of Justice Oleksandr Lavrynovych in an interview to "Investgazeta" (Monday, March 14, 2011).
The Minister explained that in the process of developing strategies of protection of Ukraine's interests in every case of a dispute with a foreign investor Ministry comes primarily from the possibility of a peaceful settlement.
Some years ago Ukrainian courts established the approach that the transfer of funds as a contribution of a participant to the statutory capital had to be considered as a kind of agreement, and the company’s charter reflected that agreement. Later that approach was changed.
As we announced earlier the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled on enforcement under the New York Convention of a Swedish arbitral award rendered in RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy JSC case. Recently the SCC published the unofficial translation of the Court’s ruling. For those who are interested it is available here.
Posted by International Arbitration Team
ICSID announces its tribunal’s award in Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine case. The claim is commercial, not the investment one!
On December 1, 2010 the arbitration tribunal of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes announced its final award in Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. V. Ukraine case.
On November 24, 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine adopted its final ruling on RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy JSC case. The Court supported the position of the court of first instance and the appeal court. As we informed in our previous posts that after the arbitral tribunal had issued its award in favor of RosUkrEnergo, the respective motion on its enforcement was filed to the Ukrainian court. The court of first instance satisfied the motion, however its ruling was appealed.
Now, after the cassation instance ruled about the enforcement, there is a chance to challenge the court ruling on the grounds of new circumstances revealed or on the extraordinary grounds. The chance is rather theoretical.
RosUkrEnergo investigation commission of the Verkhovna Rada assumes that Naftogaz Ukrainy JSC lost the SCC case because of change of its legal position
On November 17, 2010 RosUkrEnergo investigation commission of the Verkhovna Rada presented draft report regarding the award of the arbitral tribunal under the rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
The draft is subject to consideration of the core committee, thus it is not the final version yet. However, the draft contains assumptions and conclusions that may be interesting for our readers who follow the RosUkrEnergo case. After the arbitral tribunal had issued its awards of March 3, 2010 and June 8, 2010, they were recognized and permitted to be enforced according to the ruling of August 13, 2010 adopted by the Shevchenko District court of Kyiv. The ruling was then appealed. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. As we may say the state officials and bodies pay great attention to the outcomes of the case, which already lead to criminal proceedings instituted against former officials of customs authorities.
The Tribunal found that Ukraine conducted the expropriation of Alpha Projektholding’s rights and interests in the 1998 and 1999 Joint Activities Agreements in violation of Article 4 of the the Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Republic of Austria and Ukraine (Compensation for Expropriation) and denied fair and equitable to Claimant’s investments in violation of Article 2 of the UABIT (Protection and Promotion of Investments).
However, the Tribunal ruled that Ukraine had not violated Article 8 of the UABIT (Other Obligations) and the national treatment obligation in Article 3 of the UABIT with respect to claimant’s investments. The recognition of violation of the Ukrainian Foreign Investment Law was declined as well.
Ukraine has been ordered to pay USD 2,979,232 with additional interest accruing from July 1, 2004, at a rate of 9.11 percent compounded annually. As stated in the Award, if payment were made on December 31, 2010, total damages owing as of that date would be USD 5,250,782.