Other Trials & Proceedings

The legal systems of a number of countries, including Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, have found the cases brought by the Russian government under the international conventions for legal assistance in criminal matters against Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and others to be politically motivated and fundamentally flawed. These countries have refused to assist Russian authorities in requests relating to Khodorkovsky, his associates and related companies, extradition requests, or the validity of related legal cases in Russia.

In December 2009, an ad hoc arbitration tribunal, convened in The Hague, ruled that that YUKOS' former majority shareholders are entitled to seek compensation under the Energy Charter Treaty which it ruled, crucially, was fully binding on Russia at the time of the expropriation of YUKOS' assets. The case was brought by Hulley Enterprises and YUKOS Universal, subsidiaries of GML Ltd, together with Veteran Petroleum, a pension fund for the benefit of YUKOS employees; together, they are seeking damages in the order of $50 to $100 billion from the Russian Federation arising from the expropriation of YUKOS and that company's assets. The Tribunal's decision paves the way for a hearing on the merits of the claim.
In May of 2009, Russian prosecutors requested the extradition of former YUKOS executive Antonio Valdes-Garcia from Spain. Valdes-Garcia had been the head of Fargoil, a former YUKOS oil-trading subsidiary. Held under house arrest in his Moscow apartment, he fled Moscow to Spain in January of 2007 before being sentenced for an alleged embezzlement scheme. In April of 2009, defense attorneys for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev read in court a petition by Valdes-Garcia, in which he described threats, blackmail and torture inflicted upon him, with the intention of forcing him to provide false testimony against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. In August 2009, Spanish authorities announced that they would not satisfy Russia's request to extradite Valdes-Garcia.
On May 20, 2009, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Admissibility Decision on Khodorkovsky's first application, ruling that Khodorkovsky's argument that there had been fundamental violations of his human rights raised "serious issues of fact and law under the Convention" and must be considered for a final judgment.
In April 2009, an arbitration panel ruled that a claim from Spanish investors, who had filed a suit against the Russian Federation for compensation for their losses stemming from the expropriation of the YUKOS Oil Company, falls within the jurisdiction of a bilateral investment treaty between the two countries. The arbitration panel will hear arguments on the merits of the case against Russia.
In January 2009, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) determined that the principal aspects of a $34 billion total claim by YUKOS could be heard, notwithstanding that YUKOS has been liquidated. The claim relates to tax bills delivered by the Russian Federation regarding the years 2000 to 2003 inclusive, which ultimately forced YUKOS into bankruptcy. By declaring the claim partially admissible, the suit becomes the largest ever to be considered by the ECtHR involving a corporation. On March 4, 2010 the court heard the final arguments from both sides in the culmination of a case which took nearly 6 years to reach that stage. The ruling on the case is expected in the latter half of 2010.
YUKOS Capital had obtained four arbitral awards against Rosneft in Russia, which Russian courts have set aside (annulled). The Dutch courts must now decide whether they would grant leave to enforce the arbitral awards in The Netherlands in spite of the rulings of the Russian courts. Dutch courts are not obligated to recognize Russian judgments that are contrary to Dutch public policy. Enforceable Russian judgments have to be the result of a fair trial, and there is no fair trial if the foreign court is not impartial and independent. YUKOS Capital has adduced that the Russian courts are neither impartial nor independent. In April of 2009, The Court of Appeal concluded that it is so likely that the setting aside of these judgments was the result of partial and not independent court proceedings that these judgments cannot be recognized in The Netherlands, granting leave to enforce the arbitral awards. In March 2010 courts in the English High Court ruled to uphold the Dutch award and froze the assets of Rosneft. Corresponding orders were obtained in New York, Ireland and Jersey. Nearly a week later, Rosneft agreed to provide a mutually agreed security in order to unfreeze the £425 million order of the English High Court obtained by YUKOS Capital.
In April of 2008, the District Court in Nicosia, Cyprus, denied extradition to Russia of one of YUKOS' former managers. This followed a March 2008 decision not to assist Russian authorities on requests relating to YUKOS.
In October of 2007, the Netherlands found that tax cases brought by Russia against YUKOS violated due process principles under Dutch and European law, and that Russia had deprived YUKOS of a fair trial.
In August of 2007, the senior prosecutor in the Prosecutor's General Office of Lithuania refused to extradite Mikhail Brudno - a business partner of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev - finding that the YUKOS affair was politically motivated, and that Russia had not provided a fair trial to anyone associated with Khodorkovsky.
In August of 2007, the Swiss Federal Tribunal forbade Switzerland from cooperating with the government of Russia's request for legal assistance related to criminal cases against Khodorkovsky, noting that such assistance must be refused when a case is "a subterfuge to pursue a person for his political opinion." This was the first time that Swiss courts denied assistance because a case was political in nature.
On March 18, 2005, the Bow Street Magistrate Court in the UK concluded that Khodorkovsky was prosecuted for political reasons, and that - if extradited - persons related to YUKOS would suffer from politically motivated prosecution. The judge refused to extradite Dmitry Maruev and Natalya Chernysheva, and in fact discharged the defendants. In the same year, UK courts refused to extradite several other former associates of Khodorkovsky, having found that the charges against them were politically motivated.
In 2004, Russian authorities requested judicial assistance from the Liechtenstein State Prosecutor's Office, seeking assistance in obtaining documentation linking Alexei Dimitreivitch Golubovich to allegedly misappropriated shares of Apatit. The Liechtenstein Trial Court initially agreed to provide assistance, but overturned the order on appeal, and ultimately rejected Russia's request.