Key Facts
- •The Russian Federation (RF) and Claimants (former Yukos shareholders) are in a dispute over US$50 billion arbitral awards.
- •The awards were challenged in Dutch courts, with the Dutch Supreme Court (DSC) ultimately upholding most of the lower court's decisions but remanding the fraud issue.
- •Claimants seek enforcement of the awards in England, while the RF claims state immunity.
- •Two preliminary issues were considered: (1) whether the RF is precluded from re-arguing its agreement to arbitrate; (2) whether the Jurisdiction Application should be dismissed if Issue 1 is affirmative.
Legal Principles
Issue estoppel based on foreign judgments.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd, Gol Linhas Aereas SA v Matlinpatterson, The Good Challenger Navegante SA v. Metalexportimport SA, MAD Atelier International BV v Manès
State immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978), particularly Section 1(2) and Section 9.
State Immunity Act 1978
Recognition and enforcement of overseas judgments against states under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982), Section 31.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
Interpretation of multilateral treaties, particularly the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).
Energy Charter Treaty
The Elchinov exception concerning the binding effect of higher court rulings where EU law is involved.
Elchinov v. Natsionalna Zdravnoosiguritelna Kasa
Outcomes
Issue estoppel applies; the RF is precluded from re-arguing its agreement to arbitrate.
The Dutch courts' decisions on jurisdiction are considered final and conclusive, satisfying the requirements for issue estoppel. The RF's state immunity claim is rejected because it submitted to the jurisdiction of the Netherlands by challenging the awards.
The Jurisdiction Application is dismissed.
The finding of issue estoppel means the RF's agreement to arbitrate is established, thus engaging the exception to state immunity under Section 9 of the SIA 1978.