Belgium and France became the first EU countries to seize Russian state assets there. The seizures’ list includes almost all the major Russian banks which are registered in Belgium, and all Russian representative offices with the exception of diplomatic missions, but including offices of NGOs and media as well as the Belgian office of the Russian Orthodox Church and its Archdiocese of Brussels.
These seizures of Russian assets are based on a 2014 decision of the Belgian Court of Arbitration. It held that Russia’s actions in the case of Yukos violated the Energy Charter and involved confiscating the oil company from its legal owners. By decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Russian government is to pay the former shareholders of Yukos 1.86 billion euros. Meanwhile, the Court of Arbitration in The Hague ordered Russia to compensate the company for damages amounting to more than 50 billion dollars.
At the same time, accounts of Russian companies in the local branch of a Russian state bank were frozen in France on June 18. Its authorities have also frozen cash deposits of Russian diplomatic missions, estimated at “tens of thousands euros,” as reported by RBC TV channel. This information was officially confirmed by Russia’s Presidential Aide Andrey Belousov and head of VTB bank Andrey Kostin.
The Day turned to international lawyer Volodymyr VASYLENKO for a comment on the seizures of Russian property in Europe and his suggestions on what conclusions Ukraine should draw from them.
“The Yukos contract provided that in case of any conflict arising around it, the dispute would be resolved via international arbitration. The Russians were forced to agree to it. They lost and the court ordered them to compensate the other party’s losses.
“However, the Russian side then refused to comply with the award. The Yukos shareholders turned to foreign courts, asking them to take measures to enforce the arbitration award. Now, the governments of those countries that have responded favorably to this request are seizing Russian property abroad. The property seizures are intended to ensure compliance with the award or compensate for Yukos’s losses, as identified by that decision. Such actions are usual and regular practice in the civilized world. Only sovereign property is not subject to seizure, including embassies, naval ships, etc. The rest, such as property of state enterprises, may be seized.
“Ukraine ought to seize Russian property as well, if found on our soil. In order to qualify for compensation for losses sustained due to Russia’s military aggression, we need to establish the fact of the aggression first. It should be confirmed with an official document. However, to the best of my knowledge, no Ukrainian government body is doing that, besides the Verkhovna Rada adopting a resolution recognizing Russia as an aggressor nation, and another resolution on resistance and elimination of consequences of aggression, which was passed in April. They now have to adopt a resolution that would set up a mechanism to ensure the preparation of Ukraine’s consolidated claim against Russia. It should include doing analytical work and recording legal facts of the aggression, damages incurred, and compensations claimed by Ukraine. When all is done, this claim should be presented to Russia. When it will refuse to honor it, we will have grounds for appealing to other nations and relevant international bodies.
“However, to implement this legal concept, we need a coordinated effort of all government bodies. This, in turn, requires establishing a specialized government body or institution formally tasked with it. Our lawsuits against Russia will have any chance in court only after it is done.
“The Russian Federation has violated international law. The only way to return lost property is through imposing international sanctions against Russia which would force it into compliance. Ukraine also has to outline a system of appropriate sanctions.”
