are jurisdictional, and cannot be addressed in damages phase

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Tribunal permits arguments on illegality, mitigation of loss and contributory fault at damages phase

Russia cites ECtHR case-law in contending that compensation for expropriation is not required where “exceptional circumstances” arise

Merits submissions are also precluded, but tribunal permits submissions on <em>quantum</em>

Request for stay of proceedings pending decision on set-aside is denied

Following Russia’s entry into the arbitration, tribunal rejects Russia’s request to present submissions on jurisdiction two years after jurisdictional award

No need to address further claims

Even if BIT contains a fork-in-the-road provision (which remains unclear), it has not been triggered

Tribunal considers that even outside of the denial of justice context, a failure to exhaust local remedies may be relevant as it can break the chain of causation – but this did not occur here

Failure to pay compensation and lack of due process render expropriation unlawful under international law and Russian law

Tribunal sees insufficient evidence to firmly conclude that the expropriation was prompted by animus toward Mr. Kolomoisky

Russia expropriated PrivatBank’s Crimean business through the combined effect of physical seizures and the Central Bank’s 2014 Resolution; no need to decide judicial expropriation claim

Conduct of militia is attributable to Russia under ILC Articles 5 and 11

Russia’s Central Bank and Crimean authorities qualify as state organs for purposes of attribution

Expropriation clause does not contain an additional territoriality requirement

Arbitrators see investment dispute, but express doubt that Salini test applies

Tribunal upholds jurisdiction ratione personae over PrivatBank

Legality requirement must be assessed at the date of Crimea’s incorporation into Russia

Evidence of residence and location of collateral in Crimea is sufficient to satisfy territorial requirement

Tribunal finds that PrivatBank, but not Finilon made a BIT-protected investment

Tribunal notes that it has taken every measure to safeguard Russia’s procedural rights, despite the state’s non-participation; claimants bear the burden of proving their case, even if the respondent declines to participate

BIT, interpreted according to the VCLT, is the primary source of applicable law

Tribunal cautions that it takes no position on the legality of Crimea’s incorporation into Russia

Procedural history features coordination with Belbek arbitration, lack of participation by respondent, and tribunal-appointed experts

Background: PrivatBank is ousted from Crimea after the peninsula’s accession to Russia

Archives