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

6 Oct 2019
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
Ian Binnie
Arbitrator(s)
Charles Poncet, Maja Stanivuković
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
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
Schellenberg Wittmer, Ivanyan & Partners, Gaffney Cline & Associates, Ryder Scott Company, NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, Russia
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Decision of the Helsinki Court of Appeal
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This Procedural Order addresses applications filed by the Respondent, the Russian Federation, following the Tribunal's issuance of a Partial Award on jurisdiction and liability. Having previously declined to participate in the proceedings, the Respondent formally appeared and requested that the Tribunal reconsider its jurisdictional findings, stay the arbitration pending set-aside proceedings before the Dutch courts, and grant an extension of time to file its Counter-Memorial on Quantum.

Tribunal's Analysis on Jurisdiction

The Tribunal evaluated its authority under the UNCITRAL Rules to reopen the jurisdictional phase. The Respondent argued that under mandatory Dutch law, the Partial Award constituted an interim award lacking res judicata effect, thereby obligating the Tribunal to reconsider its jurisdiction. The Claimants maintained that the Partial Award was final and binding. The Tribunal determined that while Article 15(2) of the UNCITRAL Rules grants broad procedural discretion to conduct the arbitration, it firmly declined to exercise any such discretion to reopen the jurisdictional phase. The Tribunal emphasized that the Respondent had been repeatedly invited to participate in the jurisdictional hearings but had declined to do so, and had presented no change in circumstances justifying a rehearing of issues already comprehensively canvassed in the Partial Award.

Decision on Procedural Timetable

Regarding the quantum phase, the Tribunal granted a modified extension for the Respondent's Counter-Memorial on Quantum. Balancing the Respondent's need for adequate preparation time against the potential disruption to the Claimants' schedule, the Tribunal established a revised procedural calendar. The Tribunal directed the Respondent to file its Counter-Memorial by 6 December 2019, with subsequent rounds of submissions scheduled to ensure the preservation of the May 2020 hearing dates.