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 Court of Appeal, October 14, 2025

14 Oct 2025
NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine and others v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2017-16
View case details
Decision of the Helsinki Court of Appeal
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Decision of the Helsinki Court of Appeal
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
Tarja Raiskinen, Jaana Hemminki, Pekka Niemelä
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 Court of Appeal
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

This document is a decision by the Helsinki Court of Appeal (Helsingin hovioikeus) concerning an application by the Russian Federation for leave to appeal a provisional measures order issued by the Helsinki District Court on June 17, 2025. The underlying District Court order granted provisional measures in favor of several Ukrainian energy companies, including Naftogaz of Ukraine and its subsidiaries. The Russian Federation sought the annulment of the provisional measures or, alternatively, the remittal of the case to the District Court for reconsideration.

Court's Analysis

The Court of Appeal evaluated the application under Chapter 25, Section 5 of the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure, which requires an appellant to obtain leave for continued consideration. The Court analyzed the statutory criteria under Chapter 25, Section 11, which mandates granting leave if there is reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's outcome, if the correctness cannot be assessed without such leave, if a precedent is necessary for the application of the law, or if another weighty reason exists.

Decision

Upon reviewing the grounds presented by the Russian Federation, the Court of Appeal concluded that none of the statutory prerequisites for granting leave for continued consideration were met. Consequently, the Court denied the application for leave to appeal, rendering the Helsinki District Court's decision on provisional measures final and enforceable.