Russian Federation
Results: 28
Results: 26
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2023 | SCM v. Russia |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
2 | 2019 | Ukrenergo v. Russia |
Investment: Investments in 17 substations of the Crimea electric power system. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation by the Russian Federation of the claimant’s electricity infrastructure facilities and transmission lines in Crimea. |
Pending | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
3 | 2018 | DTEK v. Russia |
Investment: Ownership of electric power distribution assets in Crimea. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimant’s electricity distribution business in the Crimea region by the Russian Federation. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
4 | 2016 | Naftogaz and others v. Russia |
Investment: Oil and gas assets. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimants’ oil and gas assets in Crimea by the Russian Federation and the transfer of assets to a Russian state-owned company. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
5 | 2016 | Oschadbank v. Russia |
Investment: Ownership of a bank branch in Crimea. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged seizure of a branch of Oschadbank in Crimea following the annexation of this territory by the Russian Federation in 2014. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
6 | 2016 | Rafikovich Amalyan v. Russia |
Investment: Capital loans to the Agency of Reconstruction and Development LLC (ARR) made through Financial and Industrial Corporation SAN LLC in which the claimant acquired a 50% stake. Summary: Claims arising out of several State organs’ alleged acts relating to a shorefront development project in which the claimant had invested, including refused registration of property rights on ARR for a 29-hectare land plot it had developed at the Voronezh river reservoir, allegedly resulting in ARR’s bankruptcy, and registration of the land in the City Administration’s favour. Based on an agreement with the City Administration, ARR had undertaken hydraulic filling works on the reservoir to create the land plot, and it had been allegedly promised ownership of the land for its ultimate development into a commercial and residential district. |
Data not available | Russian Federation | Greece |
7 | 2016 | Starr v. Russia |
Investment: Shareholding in PJSC “Investtradebank” (Investtorgbank, ITB), a Russian commercial bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimant’s shareholding in “Investtradebank” related to the bank’s placement under administration in 2015 and its restructuring. |
Pending | Russian Federation | Netherlands |
8 | 2015 | Aeroport Belbek and Kolomoisky v. Russia |
Investment: Rights under an operations contract concerning the commercial passenger terminal at the Belbek Airport near Sevastopol including investments in various upgrades and renovations. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the commercial passenger terminal operated by the claimant at the Belbek Airport near Sevastopol following the annexation of Crimea by Russia. |
Pending | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
9 | 2015 | Everest and others v. Russia |
Investment: Ownership of a large number of properties in Crimea, including offices, apartment buildings, and villas. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of properties following the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
10 | 2015 | Lugzor and others v. Russia |
Investment: Investments in real estate located in the Crimean Peninsula. Summary: Claims arising out of the Russian Federation's alleged interference with and expropriation of the claimants' real estate investments in Crimea. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
11 | 2015 | Privatbank and Finilon v. Russia |
Investment: Investment of alleged USD 1 billion into the banking operations in Crimea encompassing loans, real estate and a vast automated teller machine (ATM) network. Summary: Claims arising from the alleged expropriation of the claimants' investments in Crimea as well as its subsidiary Moskomprivatbankin following the 2014 Russian annexation of that territory including alleged confiscation of various cash holdings and real estate assets owned by the claimants, totaling nearly $200 million. |
Pending | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
12 | 2015 | Pugachev v. Russia |
Investment: Investments in a real estate development company; majority shareholdings in two shipbuilding enterprises and in a construction bureau; rights to develop and mine the coking coal deposit in the Tuva region of Russia; ownership of 167 land plots, and other investments. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged expropriation by the government of the claimant’s various assets in Russia, civil and criminal proceedings instigated against the claimant and damage to other investments allegedly inflicted by the government. |
Decided in favour of State | Russian Federation | France |
13 | 2015 | Stabil and others v. Russia |
Investment: Ownership of 31 petrol stations in Crimea. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of petrol stations in Crimea following the 2014 Russian annexation of that territory. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
14 | 2015 | Ukrnafta v. Russia |
Investment: Ownership of 16 petrol stations in the region of Crimea. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of petrol stations in Crimea following the 2014 Russian annexation of that territory. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Ukraine |
15 | 2014 | Financial Performance Holdings v. Russia |
Investment: Loans/financing transactions. Summary: Claims arising out of certain loans/financing transactions that were made to Yukos prior to its expropriation, but that were not recognized and repaid following the expropriation and forced bankruptcy process. |
Discontinued | Russian Federation | Netherlands |
16 | 2014 | Luxtona v. Russia |
Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's shares in Yukos. |
Pending | Russian Federation | Cyprus |
17 | 2013 | Yukos Capital v. Russia |
Investment: Investments in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged illegal expropriation of claimant’s investments in Yukos Oil Company. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Luxembourg |
18 | 2012 | Sana Consulting v. Russia |
Investment: Data not available Summary: Claims arising out of an investment project in the Kaliningrad Region of Russia. |
Decided in favour of State | Russian Federation | Germany |
19 | 2009 | Cesare Galdabini v. Russia |
Investment: Accounts receivable under certain supply agreement concluded between Galdabani and the respondent. Summary: Claims arising out of Russia's alleged refusal to settle a debt owed for EUR 278’000 worth of equipment, which Galdabini supplied during the 1980s to a Soviet foreign trading enterprise for the ultimate benefit of VAZ, a private company. |
Decided in favour of State | Russian Federation | Italy |
20 | 2009 | Valle Esina v. Russia |
Investment: Summary: |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Italy |
21 | 2007 | Renta 4 S.V.S.A and others v. Russia |
Investment: Ownership of Yukos American Depository Receipts, related to the value of Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimants' American Depository Receipts in Yukos. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Spain |
22 | 2005 | Hulley Enterprises v. Russia |
Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's shares in Yukos. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Cyprus |
23 | 2005 | RosInvest v. Russia |
Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's 7 million shares in Yukos. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | United Kingdom |
24 | 2005 | Veteran Petroleum v. Russia |
Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's shares in Yukos. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Cyprus |
25 | 2005 | Yukos Universal v. Russia |
Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's shares in Yukos. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | United Kingdom |
26 | 2004 | Berschader v. Russia |
Investment: Sole shareholders in Belgian company that had a construction contract with Russia's Supreme Court. Summary: Claims arising out of late payments under a construction contract for the rehabilitation of the Russian Supreme Court building. |
Decided in favour of State | Russian Federation | Belgium |
27 | 2000 | UK Bank v. Russia |
Investment: Sovereign bonds. Summary: Claims arising out of the default on sovereign bonds during the Russian financial crisis. |
Settled | Russian Federation | United Kingdom |
28 | 1996 | Sedelmayer v. Russia |
Investment: Property rights in joint stock company engaged in the delivery of law enforcement equipment and relevant training. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged confiscation of the investor's property as a result of certain directive issued by the President of the Russian Federation ordering transfer of the claimant's assets to a state agency. |
Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Germany |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2021 | Severgroup and KN v. France |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | France | Russian Federation |
2 | 2019 | Russian Fund v. Lithuania |
Investment: Majority shareholding (68% of shares held by Vladimir Antonov) in Bankas Snoras, a now defunct Lithuanian bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the nationalization of Snoras bank in 2011 related to purported insolvency risks and suspected criminal activity, and the bank’s ensuing liquidation. |
Decided in favour of State | Lithuania | Russian Federation |
3 | 2019 | VEB v. Ukraine |
Investment: 99.8% shareholding in Prominvestbank, a Ukrainian commercial bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged confiscation of shares held by the claimant, a state-owned Russian company, in its Ukrainian subsidiary Prominvestbank and the ban of the subsidiary’s business operations with the parent company. |
Pending | Ukraine | Russian Federation |
4 | 2018 | Gazprom v. Ukraine |
Investment: Shareholdings in JSC Gaztranzit, PJSC Yuzhniigiprogaz Institute, LLC Gazprom sbyt Ukraine, and LLC International Consortium for the Ukrainian Gas Transmission System Management and Development. Summary: Claims arising out of a multi-billion dollar fine imposed on the claimant by Ukraine’s Antimonopoly Committee in 2016 for violation of competition laws. Allegedly, subsequent enforcement actions included the forced sale of the claimant’s shares in a company. |
Settled | Ukraine | Russian Federation |
5 | 2018 | GRAND EXPRESS v. Belarus |
Investment: Participation in a joint venture to develop railcar manufacturing capacity in Belarus. Summary: |
Pending | Belarus | Russian Federation |
6 | 2018 | Lazareva v. Kuwait |
Investment: Shareholding in KGL Investment K.S.C.C. (“KGLI”), a Kuwaiti investment company. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of measures by Kuwaiti authorities, including the allegedly unsubstantiated charges against the claimant, her harassment, improper detention and the allegedly wrongful 10-year imprisonment, which inter alia decreased the value of the claimant’s investment. |
Decided in favour of State | Kuwait | Russian Federation |
7 | 2018 | Manolium-Processing v. Belarus |
Investment: Contract concluded with the Government for the construction of buildings in Minsk and its outskirts. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s termination of a 2003 investment agreement to develop land in Minsk for the construction of a luxury hotel, upon vacating the area from a trolley bus parking facility and rebuilding it on the city outskirts. Challenged measures also include the alleged confiscation of the relocated facility by the Government in order to cover a USD 20 million tax debt imposed on the claimant. |
Decided in favour of investor | Belarus | Russian Federation |
8 | 2018 | MTS v. Turkmenistan (II) |
Investment: Ownership of MTS-Turkmenistan (100 per cent shareholding), a local subsidiary holding telecommunication licences. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged actions by the Government and state-owned entities that forced the claimant’s subsidiary to suspend its business operations in the country. |
Decided in favour of State | Turkmenistan | Russian Federation |
9 | 2018 | RusHydro v. Kyrgyzstan |
Investment: Shareholding of 50 per cent in a joint venture with state-owned company OJSC Electric Power Plants to build four hydroelectric power plants in the Naryn region. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s termination of an intergovernmental agreement for the construction and operation of the Upper-Naryn hydroelectric power plants, in which the claimant participated as a joint venture partner, and alleged failure to reimburse the claimant for costs incurred related to the construction project. |
Decided in favour of investor | Kyrgyzstan | Russian Federation |
10 | 2017 | Boyko v. Ukraine |
Investment: Investments in Zhytomyrski Lasoschi, a chocolate factory in northwestern Ukraine. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged takeover and seizure of the claimant’s chocolate factory. |
Pending | Ukraine | Russian Federation |
11 | 2017 | MetroJet v. Egypt |
Investment: Investments in air transport services. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to put in place security systems at the Sharm el Sheikh airport compliant with international standards, related to the 2015 crash of an international chartered passenger flight (Metrojet Flight 9268) operated by the claimant. According to the claimant, this caused economic harm to its business, leading to a cease of operations and bankruptcy. |
Decided in favour of State | Egypt | Russian Federation |
12 | 2016 | Deripaska v. Montenegro |
Investment: Indirect majority ownership in the aluminium production enterprise Kombinat Aluminijuma Podgorica (KAP) and Rudnici Boksita Nikšić (RBN), a bauxite mine in the west of Montenegro. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unlawful expropriation of the claimant’s investments in an aluminium production company and a bauxite mine. |
Decided in favour of State | Montenegro | Russian Federation |
13 | 2016 | Evrobalt and Kompozit v. Moldova |
Investment: Shareholdings in Agroindbank, a Moldovan commercial bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the Moldovan National Bank’s decision obliging the claimants to sell their shares in Agroindbank within a three-month period and ordering the cancellation of the shares after this period. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
14 | 2016 | Tatarstan v. Ukraine |
Investment: 28.78% shareholding in the Ukrainian company PJSC “Ukrtatnafta” (owner of the Kremenchug oil refinery in the Poltava region). Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged taking of the claimant’s shares in the Ukrainian oil refinery “Ukrtatnafta” as a result of several allegedly illegal decisions of the Ukrainian courts rendered in 2007 and thereafter. |
Pending | Ukraine | Russian Federation |
15 | 2014 | TSIKinvest v. Moldova |
Investment: Shareholding of 4.16 per cent in the capital of Victoriabank, a Moldovan bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the suspension of claimant’s voting rights in a Moldovan bank and the forced sale of its shares within 3 months allegedly ordered by Moldova’s national bank. |
Discontinued | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
16 | 2012 | Bogdanov v. Moldova (IV) |
Investment: Ownership of paint-manufacturing company. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged tax and environmental policy modifications which adversely affected the claimant's operation of a local company involved in the production and sale of paints, varnishes and similar products in Moldova. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
17 | 2012 | Gazprom v. Lithuania |
Investment: Minority shareholding in a Lithuanian gas distribution company. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged forced sale of Gazprom's stake in Lietuvos Dujos, Lithuania's gas distribution company, in the context of an EU-mandated gas market reform. |
Discontinued | Lithuania | Russian Federation |
18 | 2012 | Nadel v. Kyrgyzstan |
Investment: Minority shareholding in Asia Universal Bank, a Kyrgyzstan-based commercial bank. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged losses relating to claimants' shareholding in a commercial bank nationalized by Kyrgyzstan. |
Discontinued | Kyrgyzstan |
Russian Federation United States of America |
19 | 2012 | Naumchenko and others v. India |
Investment: Majority shareholding in the Indian telecoms company ByCell India. Summary: Claims arising out of the withdrawal by Indian authorities of an approval to grant frequency allocation licences to claimants' local telecoms company ByCell, after it had previously obtained clearance from India's Foreign Investment Board. |
Decided in favour of State | India |
Russian Federation Cyprus |
20 | 2011 | MTS v. Turkmenistan (I) |
Investment: Rights under telecommunication licenses held by Mobile TeleSystems' wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's decision to suspend claimant's subsidiary license to provide telecommunications services in Turkmenistan and not to renew claimants' five-year contracts, which caused MTS to cease its operations in the telecommunications market in Turkmenistan after the expiration of its initial license. |
Settled | Turkmenistan | Russian Federation |
21 | 2009 | Bogdanov v. Moldova (III) |
Investment: Ownership of the chemicals import company "Grand Torg", domiciled in the Free Enterprise Zone Expo-Business-Chisinau. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged wrongdoing on the part of Moldova's Customs Department, after it supposedly restricted the operations of claimant's company in a so-called free economic zone by unilaterally collecting from claimant's investment a fee for each customs declaration which was considered by the investor as a more onerous customs regime than that existing at its time of registration. |
Decided in favour of investor | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
22 | 2008 | Tatneft v. Ukraine |
Investment: Shareholding in the Ukrainian company Ukrtatnafta. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's taking of claimant's shares in the Ukrainian oil refinery “Ukrtatnafta” followed by the physical takeover of such company. |
Decided in favour of investor | Ukraine | Russian Federation |
23 | 2007 | Kaliningrad v. Lithuania |
Investment: Ownership of a building in Lithuania. Summary: Claims arising out of the seizure of a Lithuanian-based building owned by the Kaliningrad regional government by order of Lithuanian courts enforcing a LCIA arbitral award previously rendered against the claimant. |
Decided in favour of State | Lithuania | Russian Federation |
24 | 2007 | Paushok v. Mongolia |
Investment: Direct and indirect ownership of all outstanding shares of two Mongolian gold mining companies (KOO Golden East-Mongolia and KOO Bumbat) and an oil and gas company (KOO Vostokneftegaz) operating in Mongolia; capital contributions to these companies. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's enactment of the law "On Imposition of Price Increase (Windfall) Taxes on Some Commodities" which included the sale of gold and the law "On Minerals" that allegedly affected claimants' investments in the business of exploring and developing placer gold deposits in Mongolia. |
Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Mongolia | Russian Federation |
25 | 2005 | Bogdanov v. Moldova (II) |
Investment: Ownership of a paint-manufacturing company. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged wrongdoing on the part of Moldova's Customs Department, after it supposedly restricted the operations of claimant's paint-manufacturing company in a so-called free economic zone. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
26 | 2004 | Bogdanov v. Moldova (I) |
Investment: Ownership of local investment company that had a privatization contract with Moldovan authorities for the purchase of a majority shareholding in the capital of certain privatized company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Moldovan Department of Privatization's refusal to fully compensate the value of the investors' assets that were transferred to the State in accordance with certain privatization contract. |
Decided in favour of investor | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |