Library

An archive of the key court rulings in the Tristangate dispute.

Brussels Court of Appeal rejects Kazakhstan’s challenge to $530 million attachment order

The Brussels Court of Appeal has rejected Kazakhstan’s challenge to a $530 million attachment of assets held via its National Fund with BNY Mellon in Brussels.

The asset attachment, originally at a value of $22.6 billion, is an enforcement measure against Kazakhstan’s continued failure to pay more than $500 million awarded to the Stati Parties by a Swedish arbitral tribunal in 2013. The Stati Parties later agreed to limit the attachment to $530 million, reflecting the approximate value of the Energy Charter Award at the time. The attachment value has since grown with interest to over $540 million.

Download English Translation
Download Original Dutch Ruling

Search Our Library

The Award is Upheld by a Swedish Appellate Court

Date: December 9, 2016
Jurisdiction: Sweden
Status: Closed
In favour of: Tristan Oil

The Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden upholds the award in full by dismissing all of the challenges (including based on the fraud allegations) brought by Kazakhstan against the award and refuses the right to appeal its judgment to the Swedish Supreme Court.

Download

The Stati Parties Secure an Arbitral Award Requiring Kazakhstan to Pay Compensation of More Than US$ 500 million

Date: December 19, 2013
Jurisdiction: Sweden
Status: Closed
In favour of: Tristan Oil

The Tribunal holds that Kazakhstan has violated its obligations under the ECT and awards the Stati Parties damages of approximately US$ 500 million, plus costs and interest.

In its 414-page reasoned award the Tribunal holds that:

“[Kazakhstan’s] measures, seen cumulatively in context to each other and compared with the treatment of the Claimants’ investments before the Order of the President of the Republic [Nursultan Nazabayev] on 14/16 October 2008, constituted a string of measures of coordinated harassment by various institutions of [Kazakhstan]. These measures must be considered as a breach of the obligation to treat investors fairly and equitably, as required by Art 10(1) ECT”.

Download