PAO Tatneft v Ukraine

PAO Tatneft v Ukraine

Ukraine is not entitled to state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 in respect of these proceedings because it agreed in writing to arbitrate disputes in connection with investments under the BIT, and the present claims fall within that agreement. The FET issue and abuse of rights are matters of merits or admissibility, not jurisdiction, and were for the arbitral tribunal to decide. Tatneft's acquisition of Amruz and Seagroup shares constituted a qualifying investment under the BIT. There was no material non-disclosure by Tatneft on the ex parte application sufficient to set aside the enforcement order.

Parties
Claimant: PAO Tatneft; Defendant: Ukraine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / State Immunity Application / Application by Ukraine to Set Aside Ex Parte Order Granting Leave to Enforce Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, State Immunity From Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Bilateral Investment Treaties, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Investment Arbitration, Non Disclosure on Ex Parte Applications
Arbitration State Immunity International Investment Law Enforcement of Arbitral Awards State Immunity From Jurisdiction Interpretation of Bilateral Investment Treaties Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Investment Arbitration +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PAO Tatneft

Claimant

Ukraine

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / State Immunity Application / Application by Ukraine to Set Aside Ex Parte Order Granting Leave to Enforce Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ukraine is entitled to state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 in respect of enforcement proceedings for an arbitral award under the BIT
  2. 2 Whether the BIT arbitration clause covers the disputes in question, including claims relating to fair and equitable treatment and indirect shareholdings
  3. 3 Whether Tatneft's acquisition of Amruz and Seagroup shares constituted a qualifying investment under the BIT

Ratio Decidendi

Ukraine is not entitled to state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 in respect of these proceedings because it agreed in writing to arbitrate disputes in connection with investments under the BIT, and the present claims fall within that agreement. The FET issue and abuse of rights are matters of merits or admissibility, not jurisdiction, and were for the arbitral tribunal to decide. Tatneft's acquisition of Amruz and Seagroup shares constituted a qualifying investment under the BIT. There was no material non-disclosure by Tatneft on the ex parte application sufficient to set aside the enforcement order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Ukraine's application to set aside the enforcement order is dismissed
  • Tatneft's enforcement order stands