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(II)

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 (II)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal (II)
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 (II)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture and Background

This document is an interlocutory judgment (arrest in incident) issued by the Hague Court of Appeal in the Netherlands. The Russian Federation, acting as the claimant in the present domestic proceedings, filed an incidental motion under Article 222 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv) seeking the formal joinder of two pending actions against Aeroport Belbek LLC and another party. The underlying actions concern the Russian Federation's applications for the revocation (herroeping) of prior arbitral awards (pursuant to Article 1068 Rv) and the revocation of prior domestic court judgments (pursuant to Article 382 Rv).

Court's Analysis and Findings

The Court evaluated whether the two proceedings exhibited sufficient legal and factual nexus to warrant a formal joinder under Article 222 Rv. The Court determined that the requisite threshold for joinder was not met, reasoning that the two actions involve fundamentally distinct legal remedies and statutory frameworks. Specifically, the Court highlighted the procedural divergence between an action seeking the revocation of arbitral awards and an action seeking the revocation of domestic appellate and Supreme Court judgments.

Decision and Operative Directions

Consequently, the Court denied the Russian Federation's primary request for formal joinder. However, to ensure procedural efficiency and synchronize the proceedings, the Court granted the subsidiary request to join the cases on the docket (voeging op de rol). The decision on the costs of the incident was reserved until the final judgment in the principal proceedings.