Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Naftogaz v. Russia, Decision of the Helsinki District Court, June 17, 2025

17 Jun 2025
NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine and others v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2017-16
View case details
Decision of the Helsinki District Court
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Decision of the Helsinki District Court
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Marko Lepistö
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, Russia
Country
Finland
Print reporter
Document Summary
Decision of the Helsinki District Court
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

This document is a decision issued by the Helsinki District Court (Finland) granting an application for provisional measures (attachment) filed by National Joint Stock Company Naftogaz of Ukraine and several affiliated entities against the Russian Federation. The applicants sought to secure assets pending the enforcement of the final arbitral award rendered on April 12, 2023, in PCA Case No. 2017-16, which ordered the Russian Federation to pay over USD 4.22 billion in compensation for the unlawful expropriation of investments in Crimea.

Parties' Positions and Jurisdictional Issues

The Russian Federation opposed the application, arguing that the enforcement of the arbitral award should be stayed pending the outcome of ongoing set-aside proceedings before the Dutch courts. Furthermore, the respondent invoked state immunity under customary international law, asserting that provisional measures could not be directed against sovereign property and must be strictly limited to assets used for commercial purposes. The applicants maintained that the arbitral award constituted a valid and binding debt, and that the respondent's persistent refusal to comply with the award demonstrated a clear risk of asset dissipation.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The Court determined that the applicants had established a prima facie claim based on the binding PCA award, noting that the existence of parallel annulment proceedings in the Netherlands did not preclude the granting of provisional measures. Addressing the risk of dissipation, the Court found that given the substantial quantum of the award and the respondent's conduct, the risk of the respondent concealing or transferring assets could not be deemed improbable.

On the issue of state immunity, the Court acknowledged the principles codified in the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which generally prohibit execution against state property unless it is used for commercial purposes. However, the Court ruled that it was not required to delineate or restrict the attachment order to specific commercial assets at this preliminary stage. The Court held that the determination of whether specific seized assets are immune from execution falls within the exclusive competence of the enforcement authority (the bailiff) during the actual execution of the attachment. Consequently, the Court ordered the attachment of the Russian Federation's movable and immovable property in Finland up to the full value of the arbitral award, including accrued interest and costs.