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

Oschadbank v. Russia (I), Notice of Removal, April 29, 2026

29 Apr 2026
Joint Stock Company "State Savings Bank of Ukraine" (JSC Oschadbank) v. Russian Federation (I), PCA Case No. 2016-14
Notice of Removal
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Notice of Removal
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
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
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Notice of Removal
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Notice of Removal filed by the Respondent, the Russian Federation, seeking to remove an enforcement action initiated by Joint Stock Company State Savings Bank of Ukraine (JSC Oschadbank) from the Supreme Court of the State of New York to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The removal is effectuated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), predicated on original federal question jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

Positions of the Respondent

The Russian Federation asserts that, as a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a), the FSIA provides the exclusive basis for subject matter and personal jurisdiction in United States courts. In executing this removal, the Respondent explicitly preserves all defenses, expressly noting that it does not waive sovereign immunity or its right to demand proper service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a).

Furthermore, the Respondent characterizes the state court action as a strategic maneuver by the Claimant to circumvent the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Respondent highlights that a parallel proceeding involving the same nucleus of operative facts and seeking identical relief—specifically, the confirmation of a $1.11 billion arbitral award alongside associated costs and interest—has been pending before the D.D.C. since March 2023. Consequently, the Russian Federation indicates its intent to seek a transfer of the present action to the D.D.C. or, alternatively, its dismissal pursuant to the FSIA’s exclusive venue provisions.