News (#07-08 July-August 2017)


Siemens filed claim to return turbines from Crimea

The German concern Siemens filed a claim against Technopromexport (Rostech structure) and St. Petersburg JVC Siemens Gas Turbine Technologies to Moscow Arbitration Court.

The court case file did not state the reason for filing the claim; however, the plaintiff demands “to prevent further shipments to the Crimea and return of previously delivered equipment to Taman, its original destination”.

Earlier, the Reuters news agency reported that Russia supplied two turbines for power plants produced by Siemens to occupied Crimea. Shipments were carried out bypassing sanctions. Siemens stated that its turbines could not get into Crimea. In its turn, the Russian state-owned company Technopromexport, which builds power plants in Crimea, claimed that it bought equipment on the secondary market, but refused to disclose the manufacturer.


Kiev court canceled ban on delivering goods to Crimea

A Kiev Administrative Court of Appeal has changed the ruling of the court of first instance by delivering a judgment, which invalidated the first clause of the Order of the Cabinet of Ministers No.1035 of 16 December 2015.

A reminder that the Cabinet of Ministers limited deliveries of certain goods (works, services) from Crimea to other territories of Ukraine and back. For the period of temporary occupation, such deliveries were prohibited, except for personal belongings of citizens and socially significant foodstuffs moved by citizens, the total invoiced value of which did not exceed equivalent of UAH 10,000, and total weight of which did not exceed 50 kg per person.

This rule was applied in case when a person who imported goods to the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, entered it no more than once a day.

The Order did not cover:

— electricity delivery from temporarily occupied territory to other territories of Ukraine and/or from other territories of Ukraine to the temporarily occupied territory. Such deliveries were carried out in accordance with a decision adopted by the National Security and Defence Council;

— delivery from the temporarily occupied territory to other territories of Ukraine of goods of strategic importance for the state economy and security sectors, as confirmed by the Ministry of Economic Development;

— import to the temporarily occupied territory of humanitarian aid provided by international humanitarian organizations in accordance with the list approved by the Ministry of Social Policy.

The judgment of Kiev Administrative Court of Appeal in case No.826/9502/16 was delivered on 14 June 2017 and came into force from the date of its publishing.


International Court in The Hague ruled against the RF for arrest of Greenpeace vessel

The International Arbitration Court in The Hague has, in the Netherlands–Russia controversy, ordered the Russian Federation to pay the Netherlands EUR 5.4 million for violating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

On 18 September 2013 the Greenpeace organization staged a protest action on the vessel Arctic Sunrise with 30 people aboard, near the Russian offshore oil platform located in the Barents Sea in the Russian economic zone. On 19 September Russian state authorities arrested the vessel and everybody on board.

The vessel was towed to Murmansk, where it was held despite the demands of the Netherlands to release the vessel. Thirty crew members were arrested and taken into custody and later charged with administrative and criminal offences. At the end of November 2013, they were released on bail, and after 18 December 2013 they were amnestied. On 6 June 2014 the attachment from Arctic Sunrise was removed and on 9 August 2014 the vessel returned to Amsterdam.

But on 4 October 2013 official Amsterdam filed a lawsuit against the Russian Federation.

In 2015 a group of five members based in Vienna decided that Russia was responsible for seizing the vessel in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Now the arbitration has determined the sum of compensation for damage to the vessel, as well as for illegal arrest and related moral harm to the 30 people who were on board. Russia must also pay interest in addition to the specified sum of compensation.


UAH 2.834 billion recovered from ESU, SCM subsidiary company

The Economic Court of Kiev recovered UAH 2.834 billion for Ukreximbank from ESU, a subsidiary company of SCM (owner of a 92.79% stake in Ukrtelecom). This is stated in its decision of 11 July.

In April 2013 the bank redeemed company bonds for the sum of UAH 2.254 billion. But ESU failed to repay the bonds in due time, in March 2017. The court upheld the Ukreximbank claim, including fines, punitive damages and unpaid interest.

On 11 July the court also accepted the claim filed by the State Property Fund of Ukraine against ESU and Ukreximbank for recovery of UAH 2.171 billion.

A reminder that another state-owned bank, Oschadbank, filed a claim against Ukrtelecom and demanded repayment of debt in the amount of UAH 1.1 billion under unpaid bonds.

The Ukrainian Journal of Business Law

Subscribe to The Ukrainian Journal of Business Law right now and enjoy the most relevant issues on doing business in Ukraine on your device or in print.

All this for just USD 9.99 a month.


Subscribe now