The court in the Hague justified the decision on a 50 billion compensation to Yukos shareholders by the Treaty of accession of Crimea

The court of appeal of the Hague, which ordered Russia to pay $ 50 billion to former Yukos shareholders

Rechtspraak.nl

Yukos shareholders demanding compensation from Russia through the court in the Hague, had invoked article N26 of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which defines “unconditional consent” of the parties to refer the dispute to international arbitration

Archive NEWSru.com

The court of appeal of the Hague, which ordered Russia to pay $ 50 billion to former Yukos shareholders, in the decision relied in particular on the Agreement on the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation. It is reported by RBC with reference to the decision of the court.

Yukos shareholders demanding compensation from Russia through the court in the Hague, had invoked article N26 of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which defines “unconditional consent” of the parties to refer the dispute to international arbitration. Russia insisted that it has not ratified the energy Charter Treaty, signed in 1994, used it temporarily and only in that part which did not contradict the Russian legislation. Article N26 allegedly conflicted with the laws of the Russian Federation and not used.

The court did not support Russia’s position and concluded that after the signing and pending ratification of the energy Charter Treaty the country had either to provisionally apply the Treaty as a whole, or to make a special statement about the refusal of the application. Russia such a statement is not made, says Meduza.

The court noted that Russia, in some cases, agree on the provisional application of treaties as a whole, even if some of their provisions are contrary to the legislation of the Russian Federation. One example the court called the Treaty on admitting Crimea into the Russian Federation. He acted since the signing of the March 18, 2014, not ratification.

The constitutional court, having considered the urgent request of President Vladimir Putin about the verification of constitutionality of this agreement, March 19, wrote that “in fact, the adoption of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation is envisaged as an element of application of this Treaty prior to its ratification”. This meant that Crimea and Sevastopol are part of Russia since the signing of the contract, not from the moment of its entry into force, explained the constitutional court.

Constitutional court Chairman Valery Zorkin, later added that in terms of when to be sent to the Crimea was preparing for “an armed Maidan troopers”, time for “strict legal cricketarchive” was not.

In the same decree about the verification of constitutionality of the Treaty of accession of the Crimea, the constitutional court refers to another decision of March 2012, which stressed that “the agreement on provisional application of an international Treaty means that it becomes part of the legal system of the Russian Federation and shall be governed on a par with the come into force international treaties (unless specifically otherwise stipulated by the Russian Federation), since otherwise, the provisional application would be deprived of meaning.” Rules temporarily applied international treaties “become part of the legal system of the Russian Federation and have entered into force international treaties of the Russian Federation, the priority before the Russian laws,” noted the constitutional court.

According to the court of the Hague, the provisions of the Treaty has deviated from the Russian laws, as he set a new state border. The approach of the Russian Federation and experts in the Yukos case contrary to the position of the constitutional court, considers the court of appeal of the Hague. “In those cases where they claim that the provisional application of the agreement does not have priority over Russian Federal laws, this position is refuted by the established practice of the constitutional court,” stressed the court.

The Hague court of appeal gave examples of other international treaties of Russia, which, he believes, the provisional application of the agreements contain provisions at odds with Russian law. In particular, the Agreement between the USSR and the USA about the line of demarcation of Maritime spaces of 1990 (the Bering sea) – it was executed on a temporary basis, but did not come into force in the procedure of ratification. As well as the Agreement establishing the international scientific-technical center, signed in 1992 by Russia, the U.S., EU and Japan. The court considers that the immunities that the Russian government has provided the staff of the center in Moscow, disagreed with the Russian legislation, despite the provisional application of this Treaty.

We will remind, the court of Appeal in the Hague on 18 February, ordered Russia to pay former Yukos shareholders $ 50 billion in compensation for actual nationalization of the company. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the International arbitration arbitration in the Hague. It was taken in 2014, but in 2016 reversed in the other court.

Now, the former shareholders of Yukos can bring about the arrest of Russian property in other countries. Russia has announced its intention to appeal the verdict.