Procedural Framework and Timetable

This Procedural Order No. 1, issued by the Arbitral Tribunal in the PCA-administered arbitration between JSC Oschadbank and the Russian Federation, establishes the comprehensive procedural framework for the proceedings. The Tribunal, constituted under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules, confirms Paris, France as the place of arbitration. A key feature of the order is its establishment of two distinct procedural timetables, contingent upon the Respondent's participation. Annex 1 provides an expedited schedule in the event the Russian Federation fails to participate, while Annex 2 sets out a more detailed timetable for a fully contested proceeding, including phases for written submissions, document production, and a hearing on jurisdiction, admissibility, and merits.

Evidence and Document Production

The Order provides detailed directives concerning written submissions, documentary evidence, and legal authorities. It specifies requirements for formatting, numbering, and the submission of both hard and electronic copies. For matters of evidence, the Tribunal notes that it may be guided by, but is not bound by, the 2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. The Order institutes a formal procedure for document production requests and objections, providing that unresolved disputes over production shall be submitted to the Tribunal for decision via a Redfern Schedule.

Witnesses, Experts, and Hearing Procedures

The Tribunal sets forth specific rules governing the content and submission of witness statements and expert reports, including requirements for affirmations of truth and statements of independence. The Order contemplates the potential for expert conferencing to produce joint statements on areas of agreement and disagreement. It also details the procedures for pre-hearing matters, such as the submission of an agreed chronology and list of issues, and outlines the protocol for the examination of witnesses and experts at the hearing, including direct, cross, and redirect examination, as well as questioning by the Tribunal. Provisions are made for live transcription of the hearing and the potential for post-hearing submissions if deemed necessary.

Procedural Background

This final award was rendered by an arbitral tribunal constituted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 1976, and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The dispute arose from claims brought by JSC Oschadbank, a Ukrainian state-owned bank, against the Russian Federation under the 1998 Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments (the “BIT”). The Russian Federation did not participate in the proceedings, aside from initial correspondence challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

The tribunal first addressed the primary jurisdictional question of whether the Claimant's investments in the Crimean Peninsula fell within the territorial scope of the BIT following the events of March 2014. The tribunal interpreted the term “territory” in Article 1(4) of the BIT in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It concluded that the term refers to an area where a State exercises jurisdiction and control. The tribunal found that by taking steps under its own domestic law to annex the Crimean Peninsula and assert sovereignty, the Russian Federation had brought Crimea within its “territory” for the purposes of the BIT. Consequently, the tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction over the dispute, also finding that the Claimant was a protected “investor” and its banking operations constituted a protected “investment” under the Treaty.

Liability and Merits

On the merits, the tribunal found that the Russian Federation had engaged in an unlawful expropriation of the Claimant’s investments, in breach of Article 5(1) of the BIT. The tribunal analyzed a series of measures undertaken by the Respondent and its instrumentalities, including the Bank of Russia and the Depositor Protection Fund. These measures included the imposition of an onerous and unworkable regulatory framework designed to expel Ukrainian banks, the termination of the Claimant's banking license, the seizure of its assets (including cash, property, and loan portfolios), and the effective destruction of its business operations in Crimea. The tribunal determined that these actions, viewed cumulatively, constituted a creeping expropriation that was unlawful because it was not for a public purpose, lacked due process, was discriminatory, and was not accompanied by prompt, adequate, and effective compensation.

Quantum and Relief

The tribunal awarded the Claimant damages in the total sum of USD 1,111,300,729. This amount comprised compensation for the loss of assets (USD 597,771,793), loss of future profits or goodwill (USD 484,616,757), and other heads of loss (USD 28,912,179). The tribunal accepted the Claimant's alternative valuation date of 31 March 2014. In addition to damages, the tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay pre-award and post-award interest, calculated at the six-month USD LIBOR rate plus 2%, compounded annually. The Respondent was also ordered to bear all costs of the arbitration and the Claimant's legal fees and expenses.

Procedural Posture

This document is a Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint filed by the Plaintiff against the Russian Federation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The motion is brought pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Sections 5303 and 3213, which provide an expedited procedural mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of foreign country money judgments.

Relief Sought

The Plaintiff seeks an order recognizing a judgment rendered on July 1, 2025, by the Cour d'appel de Paris. Consequently, the Plaintiff requests the entry of a monetary judgment against the Russian Federation comprising $1,111,300,729.00 in principal damages, $731,400.00 in arbitration costs, and $3,134,907.34 in legal fees, expert witness fees, and related expenses. The motion further seeks the recovery of any accrued and unpaid interest on these amounts, alongside any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

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.

This judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (Cour d'appel de Paris) addresses an application by the Russian Federation to set aside an arbitral award on costs dated 19 June 2024. The costs award was rendered in PCA Case No. 2016-14 and followed a decision by the same arbitral tribunal on 11 December 2023, which had rejected Russia's application for revision of the final award but reserved its decision on costs.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the annulment of the 11 December 2023 award on the revision application would, as a necessary consequence, lead to the annulment of the subsequent award on costs. The Russian Federation argued for such consequential annulment, asserting a direct dependency between the two awards. JSC Oschadbank, the respondent in the annulment proceedings, contended that the application should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal held that the principle of consequential annulment ("annulation par voie de conséquence") was applicable. It reasoned that the 19 June 2024 costs award was inextricably linked to, and dependent upon, the 11 December 2023 award on revision. Having annulled the award on revision by a separate decision of the same date, the Court found that the costs award must also be set aside.

Consequently, the Court granted the application and annulled the arbitral award of 19 June 2024. It further ordered JSC Oschadbank to bear the costs of the court proceedings and to pay the Russian Federation €50,000 under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.

Procedural Background

This Consent Order, issued by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Commercial Court), concerns enforcement proceedings brought by Joint Stock Company State Savings Bank of Ukraine (JSC Oschadbank) against the Russian Federation. The proceedings relate to the enforcement of a November 2018 arbitral award rendered in PCA Case No. 2016-14. The Defendant previously applied for a declaration of sovereign immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, and the English proceedings were subsequently stayed pending the outcome of set-aside proceedings at the seat of arbitration in France.

Court's Directions and Stay of Proceedings

Following the Paris Court of Appeal's dismissal of the Defendant's set-aside application on 1 July 2025, the Defendant initiated an appeal to the French Cour de cassation. By consent of the parties, Mr Justice Waksman ordered that the scheduled 24 July 2026 directions hearing be vacated. The Court further directed that the English enforcement proceedings remain stayed until the Defendant's appeal in cassation against the Paris Court of Appeal judgment is finally determined.

The Court expressly noted the parties' agreement that the Order constitutes an exercise of the Court's case management powers over the underlying jurisdiction application. Accordingly, the Order does not in itself amount to a submission to jurisdiction or a waiver of any pre-existing rights or sovereign immunities held by the Defendant. No order was made as to costs.