Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:34:40.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric De Brabandere
Eric De Brabandere*
Affiliation:
International Dispute Settlement, Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Leiden University; Attorney-at-Law, Member of the Ghent Bar (Belgium)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On July 31, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered its final decision on a claim brought by the liquidated Russian company OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (Yukos) against the Russian Federation (Russia), a decision that is the last in a series of three decisions in this case relating respectively to the admissibility of the application, the merits, and just satisfaction.

A couple weeks prior to the ECtHR’s decision, three arbitral tribunals established under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and functioning under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules had issued their final awards based on claims brought by three former shareholders of Yukos under the Energy Charter Treaty. The dispute, while brought by the shareholders of Yukos, in essence is the same as the one brought by Yukos against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights.

Type
International Legal Materials
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , June 2016 , pp. 474 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Endnotes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the European Court of Human Rights website (visited June 17, 2016), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-145730.

1 These decisions are different from the one of the same Court brought by Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev in their personal capacities. See Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-122697 [hereinafter Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev].

2 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, Decision as to the Admissibility of Application No. 14902/04, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-91378&filename=001-91378.pdf [hereinafter ECtHR, Yukos, Admissibility].

3 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, Judgment, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2011), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-106308 [hereinafter ECtHR, Yukos, Merits].

4 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, Judgment, Just Satisfaction, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-145730[hereinafter ECtHR, Yukos, Satisfaction].

5 The cases referred are: Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227 [hereinafter Arbitration, Yukos, Final Award]; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, Case No. 2005-03/AA226 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2014), https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/418; and Veteran Petroleum Ltd. (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, Case No. 2005-05/AA228 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2014), https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/422.

6 Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Mar. 20, 1952, E.T.S. 155, (entered into force Nov. 1, 1998).

7 ECtHR, Yukos, Admissibility, supra note 2, ¶¶ 439-44.

8 Id. ¶¶ 448-73, 474-99.

9 ECtHR, Yukos, Merits, supra note 3, ¶¶ 523-24.

10 Id. ¶¶ 551, 664.

11 See, e.g., Marckx v. Belgium, App. No. 6833/74, 2 Eur. Ct. H.R. Rep. 330, ¶ 63 (1979), available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57534; Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 5 Eur. Ct. H.R. Rep. 35, ¶ 60 (1982), available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57580.

12 ECtHR, Yukos, Merits, supra note 3, ¶ 554.

13 Id. ¶ 558.

14 Id. ¶¶ 573-75.

15 Id. ¶ 607.

16 Id. ¶¶ 642-54.

17 Id. ¶ 647.

18 Id. ¶¶ 654-58.

19 Id. ¶ 661.

20 Id. ¶ 666.

21 ECtHR, Yukos, Satisfaction, supra note 4, ¶ 9.

22 Id. ¶ 18.

23 Id. ¶¶ 20-26.

24 Id. ¶ 28.

25 Id. ¶ 29.

26 Id. ¶ 32.

27 Id. ¶¶ 30-35.

28 Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev, supra note 1, ¶¶ 900-09; ECtHR, Yukos, Merits, supra note 3, ¶¶ 665-66.

29 Arbitration, Yukos, Final Award, supra note 5, 756.

30 Id. ¶ 1580.

page 495 note 1 Translation from Russian: ê.. . Суд не может удовлетворитьтребования лиц, не являющихся непосредственными заявителями в деле, которое он рассмотрела. Нина Вайич, Григорий Диков. Пилотные постановления и групповые иски: что делать с систематическиминарушениями прав человека? // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение (Comparative Constitutional Review). 2012. № 5(90). C. 99.

page 495 note 2 One of the biggest private audit firms in the world.