Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Eric De Brabandere (a1)

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All

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.

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

  • Eric De Brabandere (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed