Library

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

Swedish Court Dismisses Appeals Against US$ 53 Million Attachment Made by the Swedish Bailiff

A District Court in Stockholm dismisses Kazakhstan’s and NBK’s separate appeals against various attachment orders made by the Swedish bailiff concerning Kazakh state property in Sweden.

The assets in question represent proceeds of shareholdings and related economic rights in various Swedish listed companies owned by Kazakhstan as part of the savings portfolio of the National Fund. These proceeds are currently blocked in the Swedish bailiff’s escrow account in the sum of SEK 790,284,526 (approximately US$ 53 million) pending final resolution of the Swedish award enforcement proceedings before the Swedish Supreme Court.

Download

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