Library

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

Amsterdam District Court denies National Bank of Kazakhstan claim for damages

The Amsterdam District Court denied a $118 million damages claim brought by the National Bank of Kazakhstan (NBK) against the Stati Parties.

NBK claimed it had suffered severe losses after rulings in a Dutch court and a Belgian court in 2017 led to the attachment of sovereign assets held by BNY Mellon worth $22.6 billion.

The court dismissed the claim in its entirety, arguing that “in this case there is no question of an unlawful attachment leading to risk liability,” and that “it cannot be held that the Stati parties abused their powers”. It also ordered NBK to cover the Statis’ legal costs.

Download English Translation
Download Dutch Original

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