The Moscow Arbitration Court sided with Rostecha in yet another lawsuit filed by the German Siemens structures, and recognized as legitimate the supply of gas turbines for the construction of a TPP in the sub-station Crimea. In "Rosteha" they said that the court established a precedent proving the illegality of compliance with US and EU sanctions in Russia. But Siemens, apparently, will still use the right to challenge this decision.
The Moscow Arbitration Court denied on Wednesday the company Siemens Gas Turbine Technology (STGT, German joint venture Siemens (65%) and Power Machines (35%)) in satisfying the lawsuit against the structures of Rostek - OJSC and OOO Tehnopromexport (TPE ) - on the invalidation of contracts for the supply of four gas turbines SGT5-2000E and the return of these machines to the plaintiff.
The German company tried to prove in court that both TPE illegally delivered to the Crimea gas turbines initially bought for a technologically similar TPP project in Taman. The contract for the purchase of four turbines for the project in the Krasnodar Territory with the German concern was concluded by OAO TPE, but the tender for construction was canceled. After that, the turbine was bought by OOO TPE, which builds Balaklava and Tavricheskaya TPPs in Crimea for 940 MW, and, according to Rostekh, carried out their modernization at Russian enterprises.
The court's decision has not yet entered into legal force and can be appealed. Siemens told TASS that the company will continue to defend its interests. "We will wait for the arguments of the court, but we are still going to take all necessary steps to protect our interests," the company representative told the agency. "Rostegh" was pleased with the decision of the court. "In fact, a precedent is being created in Russia, which proves that it is illegal to demand compliance of Russian companies with US and EU sanctions sanctions in the territory of the Russian Federation," the state corporation said.
Alexander Ovesnov, head of projects at the MEF-Audit, believes that today's court decision on the already second case of Siemens gas turbines is predictable. "In principle, both statements of Siemens are aimed at the same thing, filing a second lawsuit is probably indicative of an attempt to try to challenge the contract from different sides. The first lawsuit was already rejected by the court. And since the arguments of the plaintiff were practically the same - about deception and misleading, - it would be strange if the same court made another decision, "says Mr. Ovesnov.
Recall, the first lawsuit filed by Siemens AG itself, but then the co-worker in this case was STGT. The plaintiffs challenged the contract of March 10, 2015, according to which STGT turbines were supplied to OAO TPE, as well as the contract for the sale of turbines to OOO TPE, which redirected the equipment to the Crimea. In addition, Siemens asked to apply the consequences of invalidity of transactions in the form of return of goods to the seller and money to the buyer. In the court, Siemens insisted that the contract was concluded under the influence of fraud and a significant error, and if the company knew that the equipment supplied would not be used in the territory specified by the contract (Taman), it would not sign the contract and supply the turbines. But the Arbitration Court of Moscow in December 2017 rejected the claim, finding it unproven that the STGT was misled. In the second lawsuit, the joint venture disputed only the contract with OAO TPE and asked to reclaim property from someone else's property.
Alexandra Ovesnova was surprised by the requirement of STGT to demand property. "In the first lawsuit, a clear and logical request was made to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction," says the lawyer. "In the second case, the demand for vindication, along with challenging the transaction, looks strange. Usually, the owner who lost possession of property against his will asks for property from someone else's illegal possession. Here, a deal was concluded for the supply, that is, the will was. " However, according to him, if Siemens referred to the fact that the contract with OAO TPE was signed by an unauthorized person, in this case the owner did not actually give consent to the disposal of the property and therefore can claim it.