International arbitration News, analytics and practice


The ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy JSC case

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

logo Final point in RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy case


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.


Final point in RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy 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.


Alpha Projektholding has won the investment dispute against Ukraine under ICSID rules

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.


If the case was lost in arbitration, let’s win in the Parliament

After the award in Rosukrenergo (we followed the case in our previous posts)  case was issued against the Ukrainian respondent, Ukrainian authorities and state officials announced several options of further actions, including filing an appeal against the award issues by the arbitral tribunal of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.

Parliament If the case was lost in arbitration, let’s win in the Parliament

In addition to those measures the members of the Ukrainian Parliament invented another one.


Welcome to our new Contributors: Konrad & Justich international law firm

Konrad & Justich's International Arbitration Practice Group is a highly specialised group of international arbitration lawyers, qualified in multiple jurisdictions, trained and skilled in all areas of dispute resolution and with particular expertise in handling high-profile arbitration cases before major arbitral institutions and ad-hoc panels.

KJ Welcome to our new Contributors: Konrad & Justich international law firm



Let me start by stating that formally consumers’ rights in Ukraine are protected and even overprotected. They even may file claims which are free of court fees. However, recently new initiative appeared that was aimed at protection of consumers from “deprivation of rights to be protected by the state court system”. Today, October 20, the core committee of the Ukrainian Parliament gave its positive opinion to the bill that excludes the consumers’ disputes out of the competence of arbitration courts. The bill was registered with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on September 9, 2010.


Arbitration is better than litigation, but proven business partners are the best

Conducting business internationally it is extremely important to be sure about the bona fide status of your counterparty. This factor is significant for potential disputes and may be considered in two main aspects. First of all the unclear legal status of counterparty may hide certain problems which may cause disputes. Secondly, the outcome of any arbitration or litigation against that party with unclear legal status may be ineffective due to impossibility to enforce an award or court decision.


New Age Attorneys

We continue a series of comments on this blog and we apologize to our subscribers and readers for a pause. The reason for the pause was the active involvement of the author of the blog to the process of establishing a new player in the legal services market that has occupied a niche of services in the field of international arbitration, trade and investment. I beg your welcome! Cai & Lenard Law firm!


cai New Age Attorneys 

The firm's lawyers shape the practice of arbitration in Ukraine. This blog will be updated by the analysis of these practices along with other useful materials. Cai & Lenard Website


Anw?lte der Neuen Zeit

Wir sind weiterhin eine Reihe von Kommentaren auf diesem Blog zu schreiben und wir wollen an unsere Abonnenten und Lesern f?r eine Pause zu entschuldigen. Der Grund f?r die Pause war die aktive Beteiligung der Autor des Blogs auf den Prozess der Schaffung einer neuen Player im Markt der juristischen Dienstleistungen, die eine Nische von Dienstleistungen im Bereich der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Handel und Investitionen besetzt hat. Ich bitte Sie herzlich willkommen! Cai & Lenard Anwaltskanzlei


cai lenard Anw?lte der Neuen Zeit 

Die Anw?lte der Kanzlei shaffen die Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Ukraine. Dieser Blog wird durch die Analyse dieser Praktiken zusammen mit weiteren n?tzlichen Materialien aktualisiert werden.  Cai & Lenard Website


Stockholm Court Rules Against Naftogaz Ukrainy in RosUkrEnergo Gas Arbitration Case

RosUkrEnergo, the controversial former intermediary in the supply of Russian and Central Asian gas to Ukraine, has won a key ruling in its arbitration case against Naftogaz, but the Stockholm Arbitration Tribunal has said that the cash-strapped Ukrainian state gas firm Naftogaz must restore 12.1 bcm of gas in storage to RosUkrEnergo rather than paying cash as compensation.

IHS Global Insight Perspective  
Significance The Stockholm Arbitration Tribunal ruling essentially restores ownership title to RosUkrEnergo of 11 bcm of gas in Ukrainian storage that the intermediary claimed was "expropriated" by Naftogaz in the aftermath of the political deal that ended the January 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute and awards a further 1.1 bcm of gas in lieu of damages.
Implications The court ruled that Naftogaz (which has already been held responsible for paying US$197 million in damages to RosUkrEnergo), must provide this 12.1 bcm by 1 September, giving it nearly three months to pump additional supplies into storage and transfer title to this gas to RosUkrEnergo—or come up with another solution.
Outlook Although the arbitration court's ruling is a clear victory for RosUkrEnergo, the decision to award the company (a joint venture between Centragas and Gazprom) in gas rather than in cash means that state-owned Ukrainian firm Naftogaz—which could scarcely afford to pay several billion dollars in cash damages—has dodged a bullet that could have pushed it into bankruptcy.


RosUkrEnergo is demanding the Stockholm Arbitration that Naftohaz Ukrainy compensate some USD 5.4 billion of losses

RosUkrEnergo (Switzerland) is demanding the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce that Naftohaz Ukrainy national joint-stock company compensate some USD 5.4 billion of losses for withdrawal of 11 billion cubic meters of gas stored in the Ukrainian repositories, RosUkrEnergo press secretary Andrii Knutov has informed Ukrainian News.

In his words the arbitration court opened hearings within the framework of consideration the dispute between RosUkrEnergo and the national oil and gas company.


ICSID Panel Denies Ukraine’s Challenge to Arbitrator

On March 19, 2010 two members of an ICSID arbitral tribunal – the Honourable Davis R. Robinson (President) and Dr. Stanimir A. Alexandrov – dismissed the Ukraine’s challenge to the tribunal’s third member, Dr. Yoram Turbowicz, reported Investment Treaty News.

Arbitral proceedings between Alpha Projektholding GMBH (Alpha) and the Ukraine began in 2007 after the Austrian company alleged violations of the Austria-Ukraine BIT in relation to its investment in a hotel-development project in Kiev in the mid-1990s.


“Naftohas Ukrajiny” muss “RosUkrEnergo” 197 Mio. Dollar zahlen

Wie dem “Dserkalo Tyshnja“ bekannt wurde, hat das Stockholmer Schiedsgericht in einem Zwischenurteil, bez?glich der Forderungen von “RosUkrEnergo” an “Naftohas Ukrajiny”, “Naftohas” verpflichtet, dem Kl?ger 197 Mio. Dollar zu zahlen.