Procedural Background and Core Dispute

This document is a judgment rendered by the Amsterdam District Court in summary proceedings (kort geding) between JSC DTEK Krymenergo (Claimant) and South Stream Transport B.V. (SST or Respondent). The dispute arises from DTEK's efforts to enforce a 2023 UNCITRAL arbitral award of over USD 300 million against the Russian Federation. To secure its claim, DTEK levied an attachment on the shares held by a parent company in SST, a Dutch-registered entity within the Gazprom group that operates the TurkStream gas pipeline.

Claimant's Application for Provisional Measures

DTEK sought extensive provisional measures to prevent the frustration of its attachment. It requested a broad injunction prohibiting SST from alienating, encumbering, or otherwise diminishing the value of its assets, including the TurkStream pipeline. DTEK also sought the appointment of a temporary, independent director for SST. The application was based on DTEK's contention that SST was planning to relocate its business and assets to a newly established subsidiary in Hungary (South Stream Operations) to evade enforcement in the Netherlands, citing statements by the Hungarian Foreign Minister and the recent incorporation of the Hungarian entity as evidence.

The Court's Analysis and Decision

The Court acknowledged that DTEK had presented serious indications of a potential asset transfer to Hungary. However, it found the threat was not sufficiently imminent or severe to warrant the full scope of the requested measures, which it deemed disproportionate and overly intrusive on SST's normal business operations. The Court gave weight to SST's assurances that any corporate restructuring would be subject to mandatory Dutch law provisions designed to protect creditors.

The Court reasoned that the requested injunctions were too broadly formulated and could lead to execution disputes. It further held that appointing a temporary director with a deciding vote would grant DTEK improper governance rights and was too far-reaching for summary proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court recognized DTEK's legitimate interest in being protected from a "thief in the night scenario" where assets could be moved without its knowledge.

Operative Orders

The Court largely denied DTEK's primary claims for a broad injunction and the appointment of a director. Instead, it granted a more limited form of relief, ordering SST to provide DTEK with prior written notification of any executed or intended transactions involving the "shifting" (verhangen) of significant assets, which the parties had discussed as concerning transactions with a value of approximately EUR 100 million. This information right was secured by a penalty (dwangsom) of EUR 500,000 for each day of non-compliance, up to a maximum of EUR 10 million. The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs.