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

Privatbank and Finilon v. Russia, Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal, July 21, 2026

21 Jul 2026
PJSC CB PrivatBank and Finance Company Finilon LLC v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2015-21
View case details
Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Hague 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
Paul Glazener, Dina Adriana Schreuder, A.J. Swelheim
Claimant's counsel
Isabelle P.M. van den Nieuwendijk
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Marnix Leijten
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
PJSC CB PrivatBank, Finance Company Finilon LLC, Russia
Country
Netherlands
Print reporter
Document Summary
Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This document is an interlocutory judgment rendered by the Hague Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof Den Haag) concerning an incidental claim for joinder under Article 222 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv). The Russian Federation sought to formally join the present proceedings with another pending case against JCS CB Privatbank.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The principal procedural issue addressed was whether the two parallel proceedings exhibited sufficient legal and factual nexus to warrant formal joinder. The Court observed that in the first proceeding, the Russian Federation sought the revocation of prior appellate judgments and a Supreme Court decision pursuant to Article 382 Rv. Conversely, the second proceeding concerned an application for the revocation of underlying arbitral awards pursuant to Article 1068 Rv. The Court determined that despite both actions involving revocation mechanisms, they constituted fundamentally distinct legal remedies governed by different statutory frameworks. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was insufficient legal coherence between the matters to justify a formal joinder under Article 222 Rv.

Decision

The Court denied the primary incidental claim for formal joinder. However, to ensure procedural efficiency and synchronization, the Court granted the subsidiary request to align the cases on the docket (rolvoeging). The determination of costs for the incident was reserved until the final judgment in the principal proceedings, and the Respondent was directed to submit its statement of defense.