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), Oschadbank v. Russia (I), Summons, April 1, 2026

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

This document is a Summons filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, initiating proceedings by Joint Stock Company State Savings Bank of Ukraine (JSC Oschadbank) against the Russian Federation. The procedural posture reflects the commencement of a domestic court action, designating New York County as the proper venue for trial pursuant to CPLR 503(a) on the basis that neither party resides in the State of New York.

The Summons formally notifies the Russian Federation of the requirement to serve answering papers upon the Plaintiff’s counsel within the statutorily prescribed time period. It further provides explicit notice that a failure to respond or submit answering papers will result in a default summary judgment being entered against the Defendant for the relief demanded in the annexed notice of motion. As a preliminary procedural instrument, the document does not contain substantive legal analysis, jurisdictional findings, or merits-based reasoning.