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

Aeroport Belbek and Kolomoisky v. Russia, Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal, July 21, 2026(I)

21 Jul 2026
Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr. Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2015-07
View case details
Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal (I)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal (I)
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
Paul Glazener, Dina Adriana Schreuder, A.J. Swelheim
Claimant's counsel
Isabelle P.M. van den Nieuwendijk
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
Aeroport Belbek LLC, Russia
Country
Netherlands
Print reporter
Document Summary
Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal (I)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture and Background

This judgment concerns an incidental motion for joinder filed by the Russian Federation before the Hague Court of Appeal pursuant to Article 222 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv). The Russian Federation sought to consolidate two parallel proceedings initiated against Aeroport Belbek LLC and another respondent. The first proceeding involves an application to revoke prior judgments of the Hague Court of Appeal and the Dutch Supreme Court under Article 382 Rv. The second proceeding seeks the revocation of underlying arbitral awards rendered in 2017 and 2019 pursuant to Article 1068 Rv. The respondents did not appear in the incidental proceedings.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The Court evaluated whether the two actions possessed sufficient legal nexus to warrant formal joinder under Article 222 Rv. The Court determined that the requisite threshold for consolidation was not met, reasoning that the two cases involve fundamentally distinct legal remedies. Specifically, the statutory framework for the revocation of domestic court judgments differs materially from the regime governing the revocation of arbitral awards. Consequently, the primary motion for formal joinder was denied.

However, to ensure procedural efficiency and synchronize the parallel proceedings, the Court granted the Russian Federation's subsidiary request for administrative joinder on the cause list (rolvoeging). The Court reserved its decision on the costs of the incidental proceedings until the final judgment in the merits phase and directed the matter to the roll for further procedural steps.