Eastern Europe-focused junior energy firm JKX Oil & Gas announced Monday that it has launched arbitration proceedings against the Ukrainian government under the Energy Charter Treaty – a bilateral investment treaty between the UK and Ukraine. JKX is looking to recover more than $180 million in rental fees that its Ukrainian subsidiary has paid on production of oil and gas in Ukraine since 2011. JKX said it is seeking compensation for "losses it has suffered from Ukraine's treaty violations", including "Ukraine's failure to treat JKX's investments in a 'fair and equitable' manner and failing to comply with commitments made by Ukraine in respect of JKX's investments."
Ukraine is awaiting the ruling of the Stockholm arbitration court concerning the temporary gas price in the gas dispute with Russia to appear late in November 2014, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has said.
Ukrainian state-run energy firm Naftogaz and Russian state-controlled gas firm Gazprom have both lodged cases with the Stockholm arbitration tribunal to review their gas transit contracts. All debt payments, on which Russia has been insisting, will be made only after a verdict from the International Court of Arbitration in Stockholm - (Reuters).
SCC is one of the most frequently referred arbitration institutes among Ukrainian parties, after the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (UCCI). This trend is consistent with the general East-West footprint in the SCC case load. In the last decade parties from Ukraine have appeared in 45 disputes before the SCC. 12 of these disputes have been administered by the SCC in the period 2011-2012.
On March 15, 2011 the new version of the Order of protecting the rights and interests of Ukraine during the disputes, before the foreign jurisdictional authorities in cases involving a foreign entity and Ukraine came in force. The Order was approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine.
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
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.
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.
In addition to those measures the members of the Ukrainian Parliament invented another one.
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.
Annette Magnusson is the new Secretary General at the Arbitrations Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, the SCC. On Monday 17 May she will speak on the topic “The future of arbitration in Sweden – challenges and opportunities” during the seminar to be hosted by Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. So – take the opportunity and ask Annette Magnusson her opinions on how arbitration will develop in Sweden!
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.
The tribunal of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has issued a intermediate decision on RosUkrEnergo's case against National Joint Stock Company “Naftogaz Ukrayiny” for approximately USD 2 million, www.rbc.ua reports. The court has ordered the Ukrainian state company to return USD 197 million to RosUkrEnergo. RosUkrEnergo alleged, that Naftogaz took 11 billion cubic meters of gas in Ukrainian underground gas storage facilities from RosUkrEnergo.
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
There are not many cases in public domain which may help us to determine all significant issues of recognition and enforcement of the awards of this world-renowned arbitration institution.
In case No. 22/200 the economic court of Donetsk Region adopted decision on 13.01.2010 on termination of the consideration of case since the parties agreed to arbitrate in “Arbitration Court of Stockholm” (not the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)). Thus, you may think that Ukrainian courts are liberal in their attitude to such details as the name of an arbitration institution.