Composition of arbitration International court of arbitration in the Hague (Permanent Court of Arbitration) issued an interim decision (Interim Award) relating to certain questions of jurisdiction and admissibility, on the claims of PrivatBank and its ex-owners Igor Kolomoisky against Russia in connection with the annexation of Crimea.

“February 24, 2017, after discussions, the Tribunal, unanimously adopted an interim solution (Interim Award) relating to certain questions of jurisdiction and admissibility”, – stated in the message arbitration.

At the same time, any additional information about the decision missing.

Reminiscent of arbitration that the arbitration proceedings at the suit of I . Kolomoyskiy and “the Airport “Belbek” against Russia was started 13 Jan 2015 under the rules of UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UN Commission on international trade law) and the agreement between the governments of Russia and Ukraine from 27 November 1998 on the protection of investments. The plaintiffs said that the Russian Federation violated its obligations arising from said contract, by taking from February 2014 actions that deprived plaintiffs of property rights, contractual and other rights in the operation of the passenger terminal for commercial flights of the airport “Belbek” in Crimea.

I. Kolomoisky said about the presence of his 2020 contract management of passenger terminal of the airport “Belbek” in Sevastopol nationalized by Russia after the annexation of Crimea. He demanded that Russia compensate losses in potential income from the terminal. We are talking about $15 million.

Then, 13 APR 2015, similar arbitration proceedings against the Russian Federation initiated PrivatBank and OOO “Financial company “Vinylon” since Russia’s annexation Krima did not allow the plaintiffs to continue their banking business in the Crimea.

After the hearing on jurisdiction and admissibility, which was held in Geneva from 12 to 14 July 2016, the arbitral Tribunal invited the parties to Supplement their written positions in the period until 14 October 2016. Plaintiffs have provided their written add-on 14 October 2016, while the Russian Federation did not provide any extras.

Members of the Tribunal are Pierre Marie-Dupli (Chairman of Tribunal), Daniel Bethlehem, KCMG, QC (appointed by claimants), and Vaclav Mikulka (appointed by the former competent authority, judge Bruno Simma, instead of RF).

As reported, the Hague arbitration considers a number of similar claims from companies related to the former shareholders of PrivatBank, in particular, “Ukrnafta” and “Stable”, lost in the Crimea, the oil business, and former Chairman of the Board of PrivatBank Alexander Dubilet and 18 companies, lost in the Crimea assets in real estate. All of these cases also reached the stage of the hearing on jurisdiction, but the decision has not yet been imposed.

Chairman of the Board of the nationalized at the end of 2016 PrivatBank Oleksandr Shlapak in an interview with the “Economic truth”, released Thursday, reported that after the nationalization of the financial institution continued its cooperation with the lawyers that were hired earlier. “Today we have divided the case: we are interested only in our portfolio, separately from the aggregate losses of the business of the former shareholders”, – he said.

According to him, the Crimean assets of the Bank in the amount, by today’s estimates, about 14 billion UAH were confiscated by the local authorities and investors about UAH 10 billion, if converted at today’s exchange rate, remained.

Shlapak said that the resource is to give the tools Crimean depositors, with a negative capital of the Bank, is missing, and the source can be only the additional capitalization of the Bank by the state. He recalled that in the case of other state-owned banks the government agreed to a recapitalization.

Commenting on the translation ex-the management of PrivatBank his Crimean assets and liabilities of the subsidiary “Vinylon”, the new head of the Board said: “While the court did not prove, do not want to defend or criticize this scheme. At that time, the Private were forced to make this decision, as the Bank has not been able to make payments to Crimean depositors”.