Swiss court obliges Russia to pay compensation to Ukrainian firms due to loss of assets in Crimea

Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland upheld the decision of the arbitrage in Geneva, which obliged Russia to pay $81.1 million to 12 Ukrainian companies as the compensation for losses sustained in the result of the confiscation of all assets in Crimea after the annexation in 2014 as SWI reported.

Two proper court decisions were published on January 9. They reject the appeal of Russia due to the decisions made by the International Court of Arbitration in Geneva in April 2019. In one of the appeals, the Russian side stated that the Geneva court body is not suitable for the decision in this case as it defines the status of Crimea.

It also stated that the arguments of Ukrainian firms, which state that they fall within the scope of Agreement between the government of Russia and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the promotion and mutual defense of the investments, dated 1998 are no applicable. According to this agreement, Russia and Ukraine should not expropriate investments provided by the investors of another country, without timely payment of just compensation.

In 2015, 12 Ukrainian companies appealed to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. The court appointed two arbitrators and they chose Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler from Geneva as the chairman of the group. Thus, the case was transferred to Switzerland.

According to the Federal Supreme Court, the competence of the International Court of Arbitration in Geneva cannot be doubted. It was approved by the previous hearing in October 2018.

As we reported, by a decision of December 12, 2019, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland rejected the Russian Federation’s application for the cancellation of international arbitration decision in favor of PJSC “Ukrnafta”.

Earlier, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has ordered Ukraine to pay compensation in the amount of 112 million dollars to Russian oil company TatNeft in the framework of the Ukrnafta case.

(C)112UA 2020


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.