Background and procedural record

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.

Mr. Pugachev is ordered to pay costs; possibility of appeal is uncertain

Emphasizing the voluntary nature of arbitration, the judges see no violation of the right to effective legal protection

Only an award that wrongfully upheld jurisdiction can be set aside based on the lack or invalidity of an arbitration agreement

Court emphasizes limited scope of set-aside applications under Spanish law

BIT’s definition of “investor” indicates that claimant should have been French when investing

Historical circumstances explain role of clause central to the majority’s interpretation, dissenter says

No investment was made after the claimant became a French citizen

Claimant is ordered to bear arbitration costs

Claimant has burden to prove tribunal’s jurisdiction

No evidence that claimant acquired French nationality through fraud or error

Dissenting arbitrator stresses dynamic nature of investment operations

BIT does not bar dual nationals from claiming against Russia

Majority sees no general “principle” that nationality only matters at the time of the breach and at the time of the claim

Tribunal can determine Mr. Pugachev’s nationality

Naturalisation decision by French authorities should be treated with deference

Urgency test is also met in relation to extradition request

Tribunal eschews Russia’s request for third-party funding disclosure

Tribunal adjourns decision on costs for later in the arbitration

Russia’s request to share information with its Deposit Insurance Agency is refused, but the tribunal imposes certain confidentiality obligations on the parties and orders claimant to remove information from website

Claimant cites non-payment in Noga and Sedelmayer cases, but Russia counters with evidence of a broader compliance record

Russia can’t persuade tribunal that Pugachev lacks resources to pay his bills – nor that the BIT claims’ supposed lack of merit should be weighed in this context

Tribunal does not see bad faith, despite claimant’s non-compliance with English court orders – and tribunal’s strictures against publicity

Threshold for interfering with criminal proceedings “very high”, and not met in this case

Claimant’s USD 6 billion security for claims application rejected as disproportionate

Archives