Ukraine was shown a muzzle in The Hague: Russia is now immune from seizure of property

Russia won in arbitration from Ukrainian companies that tried to seize Gazprom's property for losses as a result of SMO. Now she has immunity from seizure of property abroad, the observer writes Pravda.Ru Lyubov Stepushova.

The District Court of The Hague refused to recover Gazprom's assets in the Netherlands in favor of the Ukrainian agricultural company from Odessa. "Reaper" wanted to recover losses for losses in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions (left Russia grain in 18 elevators), according to the doctrine of alter ego. An alter ego is a legal norm that treats a company and its owners as one and the same person. In this case, Gazprom, in which the state owns a controlling stake, and the Russian Federation were considered in court as a single entity.

The Dutch court, according to the Global Arbitration Review portal, recognized that in this case Gazprom is subject to state immunity, which usually protects states from lawsuits in courts of other states. This decision prevents the execution of the decision of the Ukrainian court against Gazprom in the Netherlands, the report says.

This decision differs from those previously taken in similar disputes. So, in September 2024, the same court confirmed the earlier decision of the Ukrainian court and decided to seize Gazprom's stake in the Wintershall Noordzee gas company. The claim of the Ukrainian company Slavutich-Invest was also satisfied.

As explained by the lawyer, Candidate of Law, specialist in international law Sergey Kubantsev, Gazprom International, after the decision of the Zaporozhye court on the claim of "Reaper" filed for arbitration, and in previous cases provided additional evidence. According to the lawyer, the court in The Hague resolves commercial disputes, and the armed conflict goes beyond a civil dispute.

"The alter ego implies the sovereignty of the state, its immunity from civil prosecution in commercial disputes, if the actions of the state were committed as a result of the performance of its public function. And the leadership of the armed forces and participation in an armed conflict is a purely public function. There is no commerce here," the expert said.

According to him, the arbitration court considered that this case was beyond its competence and refused to consider it. Therefore, Gazprom received immunity from the seizure of assets in previous cases, too. But this does not mean that they are closed.

"If Ukrainians find another court that says, 'We are authorized to consider these disputes,' then the disputes will be considered again," said Sergey Kubantsev.

Nevertheless, the problem seems to be unsolvable for Ukraine with such a precedent, unless within the framework of the international tribunal against the Russian Federation, which is unrealistic. The memorandum of the Russian Federation, presented in Istanbul, on the peaceful settlement of the conflict on Ukraine provides for "the rejection of mutual claims in connection with the damage caused in the fighting."