The verdict of the District Court of The Hague against the decision of the Hague tribunal as the recovery from Russia more than $ 50 billion in favor of the former shareholders of Yukos allows you to make some conclusions.
First of all, they were confounded advocates "political" interpretation of the Yukos case and those who wrote about that in the West, the courts also controlled by the state, as we have. Now only marginal conspiracy theorists believe that the Hague court's decision was the result of "agreements".
It turned out that Western courts still independent, and able to make independent decisions that are at odds with the political context.
The official Russian press and on the lips of the President, Dmitry Peskov, press secretary immediately came the word of the triumph of justice and hope for a similar resolution in the case of other jurisdictions. Curiously, now that political motives in the decision found the former owner of Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
The basis of the decision of the Hague as an arbitration and the decision of the Hague court lay the legal conflict is essentially a logical syllogism containing "reverse otsyku "to an international treaty. To put it simply, the referees and judges decided the arbitration clause in the Energy Charter Treaty could be applied if (ECT), taking into account the fact that the ECT has not been ratified and applied "temporarily". Resolving this issue depended on whether arbitration (arbitration) contrary to the resolution of investment disputes in effect at the time the domestic law. The internal Russian legislation allows the arbitral resolution of investment disputes only if such possibility is provided by international agreement. This brings us to the question of whether the international agreement of the ECT, even if not yet in force and is applied temporarily (for a detailed analysis of the legal argument, see here).
A similar logically (but not legal entities), the problem of "renvoi" has long been known for Private International Law, and in each it is the rule of law is permitted in many ways. Universal solution does not exist the problem, and it all depends on where in the "hack" the logic loop. That is why in the Yukos case is still too early to put tchku.
It is necessary to closely monitor both the appeal of the decision of the Hague Court on appeal, and for the enforcement of court decisions in other jurisdictions.
Without a doubt, the Yukos case will be an important and praktikooobrazuyuschim precedent in international arbitration, that also makes it unlikely that a politically motivated approach by the courts. Most importantly, how the matter will be decided in the UK, which is considered the standard of an independent and fair judicial system.
Pretty funny in connection with the decision looks claims previously put forward by some Russian lawyers against lawyers hired by the Russian Federation. As it turned out, foreign lawyers were hired not to lose the case, and in order to win it. Much more significant claims against the plaintiff's lawyers have put forward in this sense Yukos lawyers, and they are reduced, rather, to a violation of professional ethics, when lawyers are working against his former client in court, using the knowledge gained in the course of their work to the defendant at the beginning ofzero.
Apart from these claims, it must be noted that political statements and accusations rarely lead to a positive result, when it comes to proper legal procedure. Following this procedure, and professional work of lawyers, on the contrary, it can lead to significant success. Characteristically, Russia in recent years increasingly appealed to their "geopolitical Rights" and military force, and almost the only significant result found using legal means.
It is hoped that this precedent will make the right conclusions.