{"id":288082,"date":"2025-11-05T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-11-05T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=288082"},"modified":"2025-11-05T15:56:10","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T14:56:10","slug":"russias-challenge-falls-flat-paris-court-confirms-oschadbank-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2025\/11\/05\/russias-challenge-falls-flat-paris-court-confirms-oschadbank-award\/","title":{"rendered":"Russia\u2019s Challenge Falls Flat: Paris Court Confirms Oschadbank Award"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\">Paris Court of Appeal, 1 July 2025, n\u00ba 24\/05336, <em>Oschadbank<\/em><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Padraic Mc Cafferty<\/strong>, Dual-qualified Solicitor in England &amp; Wales and Ireland, and Barrister at <strong>Lincoln\u2019s Inn<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-aa15e4c5 atbs-tabs-4e71e07f atbs-tabs-960ca043 atbs-tabs-ee00a60a atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-aa15e4c5\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The conflict between <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/ru?__hstc=118210966.6cdcb464d1ebc92909de7c2263a7c25b.1752853927710.1761832356357.1762175540202.78&amp;__hssc=118210966.1.1762175540202&amp;__hsfp=3091968188\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Russia<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/ua?__hstc=118210966.6cdcb464d1ebc92909de7c2263a7c25b.1752853927710.1761832356357.1762175540202.78&amp;__hssc=118210966.1.1762175540202&amp;__hsfp=3091968188\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Ukraine<\/a> continues not only on the battlefield, but also in arbitration and in the courts.\u00a0 On 1 July 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal (\u201c<strong>the Court<\/strong>\u201d) dismissed a set-aside application by Russia of a $1.1 billion award in favour of a Ukrainian state-owned bank, relating to the annexation of Crimea. The Court, on remand from the French <em>Cour de Cassation<\/em>, found, <em>inter alia,<\/em> that the arbitral tribunal did have jurisdiction under the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-agreement-between-the-governement-of-the-russian-federation-and-the-cabinet-of-ministers-of-the-ukraine-on-the-encouragement-and-mutual-protection-of-investments-russian-federation-ukraine-bit-1998-friday-27th-november-1998?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DRussia-Ukraine%2BBIT%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den%26document-types%5B0%5D%3Dtreaty&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Russia-Ukraine Bilateral Investment Treaty (1998)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>BIT<\/strong>\u201d) and that three other grounds to set aside were insufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the present case, a Ukrainian state-owned bank (\u201c<strong>Oschadbank<\/strong>\u201d) brought a claim against the Russian Federation (\u201c<strong>Russia<\/strong>\u201d) for the expropriation of assets it owned in Crimea, following the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. On 20 January 2016, Oschadbank commenced arbitration against Russia for expropriation pursuant to the BIT. On <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-oschadbank-v-russian-federation-none-currently-available-friday-1st-january-2016#decision_4484?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DOschadbank%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den%26document-types%5B0%5D%3Dtreaty%26document-types%5B1%5D%3Dcase\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">26 November 2018<\/a> (\u201c<strong>2018 Award<\/strong>\u201d), the Paris-seated tribunal, under the auspices of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-permanent-court-of-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Permanent Court of Arbitration<\/a> (\u201c<strong>PCA<\/strong>\u201d), ordered Russia to pay Oschadbank a sum in excess of $1.1 billion. Russia had not participated in the arbitration.\u00a0 On <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-oschadbank-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-paris-court-of-appeal-department-5-chamber-16-19-04161-tuesday-30th-march-2021#decision_62263?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DOschadbank%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den%26document-types%5B0%5D%3Dtreaty%26document-types%5B1%5D%3Dcase\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">30 March 2021<\/a>, the Court set aside the 2018 Award, on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, <em>viz.<\/em>\u00a0 that the temporal condition of the BIT had not been met.\u00a0 On <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-oschadbank-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-french-court-of-cassation-wednesday-7th-december-2022#decision_39277\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">7 December 2022<\/a>, the <em>Cour de Cassation <\/em>overturned the decision of the Court, confirming that the Court had to verify only if the dispute had arisen after entry into force of the BIT. The case was then remanded back to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Russia put forward four pleas in law to set aside the 2018 Award, namely:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(1) Lack of jurisdiction;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(2) Breach of international public policy;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(3) Failure of the tribunal to comply with its mandate; and<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(4) Lack of independence and impartiality of co-arbitrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The first ground was the alleged lack of jurisdiction, and it contained three branches: <em>ratione temporis<\/em>; <em>ratione loci<\/em>; <em>ratione materiae<\/em>. With regard to jurisdiction <em>ratione temporis<\/em>, Russia argued that the investment preceded the BIT\u2019s effective date of 1 January 1992. With regard to jurisdiction <em>ratione loci<\/em>, Russia contended that the BIT excluded Crimea due to ambiguity as to whether the term \u201cterritory\u201d included Crimea.&nbsp; Russia also argued that \u201creciprocity\u201d was at issue. Oschadbank submitted that reciprocity represented a substantive condition, which is not a ground for setting aside the award.&nbsp; With regard to jurisdiction <em>ratione materiae<\/em>, Russia argued that the investment could not be considered \u201cforeign\u201d, asserting that it had been made by a Ukrainian company in Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The second plea to set aside the Award alleged a breach of international public policy. Russia claimed that Oschadbank had committed fraud by withholding documents from the Tribunal. The Court noted that Article 1520(5) of the French Code of Civil Procedure provides for setting aside an award on the basis of a breach of international public policy. Nevertheless, the Court held that the alleged procedural fraud had not been established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The third plea alleged that the arbitral tribunal failed to comply with its mandate. Russia alleged that the tribunal had devoted over 800 hours to the case, which they argued was insufficient, and that, as a result, the tribunal had acted in breach of its mandate.&nbsp; Russia further submitted that a claim seeking a review of the merits of the award would not be permissible under Article 1520(3) of the French Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The fourth plea alleged irregularity in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The plea relied on the fact that a co-arbitrator, <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/charles-n-brower\">Charles N. Bower<\/a>, had submitted an <em>amicus curiae<\/em> brief in a completely separate case in 2024, some five years after the 2018 Award, in opposition to Russia.&nbsp; The Court held that this did not constitute a ground for annulment under Article 1520(2) of the French Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court held that none of the four grounds pleaded was sufficient to set aside the 2018 Award and accordingly dismissed Russia\u2019s application for setting aside.&nbsp; Consequently, the dismissal granted the exequatur of the 2018 Award, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 1527 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.&nbsp; Russia was also ordered to pay Oschadbank \u20ac300,000 under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is likely that a number of Ukraine v Russia cases will continue to be brought, particularly in light of Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Therefore, the concepts of territory, reciprocity and \u201cforeign\u201d character of an investment will remain relevant. This case also underscores the risks associated with non-participation in arbitration, as it may lead to potential substantive arguments being inadmissible in subsequent set-aside proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the Biberon newsletter on<em> Wednesday November 5, 2025,<\/em> with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/lnkd.in\/erPdHfsB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Read It<\/strong> <strong>Here<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Padraic Mc Cafferty<\/strong> is a common law arbitration lawyer based in Paris completing a Double LL.M. with Queen Mary University of London and Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on Sorbonne. He is an Irish qualified solicitor, and on the Roll of Solicitors for England &amp; Wales and Northern Ireland.\u00a0 He has also been Called to the Bar of England and Wales (Lincoln&#8217;s Inn).\u00a0 He has worked with the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-hkiac-hong-kong-international-arbitration-centre\">HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre)<\/a> and the Court of Justice of the European Union. He is a Member of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-ciarb-the-chartered-institute-of-arbitrators\">CIArb (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-aa15e4c5\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Recours sans effet pour la Russie : la Cour d\u2019appel de Paris confirme la sentence Oschadbank<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Cour d&#8217;appel de Paris, 1er juillet 2025, n\u00b0 24\/05336, <em>Oschadbank<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le conflit entre la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/ru?__hstc=118210966.6cdcb464d1ebc92909de7c2263a7c25b.1752853927710.1761832356357.1762175540202.78&amp;__hssc=118210966.1.1762175540202&amp;__hsfp=3091968188\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Russie<\/a> et l&#8217;<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/ua?__hstc=118210966.6cdcb464d1ebc92909de7c2263a7c25b.1752853927710.1761832356357.1762175540202.78&amp;__hssc=118210966.1.1762175540202&amp;__hsfp=3091968188\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Ukraine<\/a> se poursuit non seulement sur le champ de bataille, mais aussi devant les tribunaux et les instances arbitrales. Le 1<sup>er<\/sup> juillet 2025, la Cour d&#8217;appel de Paris ( \u00ab <strong>la\u00a0 Cour<\/strong> \u00bb) a rejet\u00e9 une demande d&#8217;annulation d\u00e9pos\u00e9e par la Russie concernant une sentence arbitrale de 1,1 milliard de dollars en faveur d&#8217;une banque publique ukrainienne, relative \u00e0 l&#8217;annexion de la Crim\u00e9e. La Cour, saisie en renvoi par la Cour de cassation, a estim\u00e9 que le tribunal arbitral \u00e9tait notamment comp\u00e9tent en vertu du <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-agreement-between-the-governement-of-the-russian-federation-and-the-cabinet-of-ministers-of-the-ukraine-on-the-encouragement-and-mutual-protection-of-investments-russian-federation-ukraine-bit-1998-friday-27th-november-1998?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DRussia-Ukraine%2BBIT%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den%26document-types%5B0%5D%3Dtreaty&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">trait\u00e9 bilat\u00e9ral d&#8217;investissement entre la Russie et l&#8217;Ukraine (1998)<\/a> (\u00ab <strong>le\u00a0 TBI<\/strong> \u00bb) et que les trois autres motifs d&#8217;annulation \u00e9taient insuffisants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En l&#8217;esp\u00e8ce, une banque publique ukrainienne (\u00ab <strong>Oschadbank<\/strong> \u00bb) a engag\u00e9 une action en justice contre la F\u00e9d\u00e9ration de Russie (\u00ab <strong>la Russie<\/strong> \u00bb) pour expropriation des actifs qu&#8217;elle d\u00e9tenait en Crim\u00e9e, \u00e0 la suite de l&#8217;annexion de la Crim\u00e9e par la Russie en 2014. Le 20 janvier 2016, Oschadbank a engag\u00e9 une proc\u00e9dure d&#8217;arbitrage contre la Russie pour expropriation en vertu du TBI. Le <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-oschadbank-v-russian-federation-none-currently-available-friday-1st-january-2016#decision_4484?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DOschadbank%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den%26document-types%5B0%5D%3Dtreaty%26document-types%5B1%5D%3Dcase\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">26 novembre 2018<\/a> (\u00ab la sentence de 2018 \u00bb), le tribunal si\u00e9geant \u00e0 Paris, sous les auspices de la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-permanent-court-of-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Cour Permanente d&#8217;Arbitrage<\/a>, a condamn\u00e9 la Russie \u00e0 verser \u00e0 Oschadbank une somme sup\u00e9rieure \u00e0 1,1 milliard de dollars. La Russie n&#8217;avait pas particip\u00e9 \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage. Le <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-oschadbank-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-paris-court-of-appeal-department-5-chamber-16-19-04161-tuesday-30th-march-2021#decision_62263?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DOschadbank%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den%26document-types%5B0%5D%3Dtreaty%26document-types%5B1%5D%3Dcase\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">30 mars 2021<\/a>, la Cour a annul\u00e9 la sentence de 2018, au motif que le tribunal n&#8217;\u00e9tait pas comp\u00e9tent, la condition temporelle du TBI n&#8217;\u00e9tant pas remplie. Le <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-oschadbank-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-french-court-of-cassation-wednesday-7th-december-2022#decision_39277\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">7 d\u00e9cembre 2022<\/a>, la Cour de cassation a infirm\u00e9 la d\u00e9cision de la Cour, confirmant que celle-ci devait uniquement v\u00e9rifier si le litige \u00e9tait survenu apr\u00e8s l&#8217;entr\u00e9e en vigueur du TBI. L&#8217;affaire a alors \u00e9t\u00e9 renvoy\u00e9e devant la Cour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Russie a pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 quatre moyens de droit pour annuler la sentence de 2018, \u00e0 savoir&nbsp;:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(1) L&#8217;incomp\u00e9tence du tribunal&nbsp;;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(2) La violation de l&#8217;ordre public international&nbsp;;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(3) Le non-respect du mandat par le tribunal et&nbsp;;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(4) Le manque d&#8217;ind\u00e9pendance et d&#8217;impartialit\u00e9 d\u2019un co-arbitre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le premier moyen invoqu\u00e9 \u00e9tait l&#8217;absence de comp\u00e9tence et comprenait trois branches : la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>, la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione loci<\/em> et la comp\u00e9tence<em> ratione materiae<\/em>. En ce qui concerne la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>, l&#8217;investissement avait \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9alis\u00e9 avant la date d&#8217;entr\u00e9e en vigueur du TBI, soit le 1er janvier 1992. En ce qui concerne la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione loci<\/em>, la Russie affirmait que le TBI excluait la Crim\u00e9e en raison de l&#8217;ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 territoriale quant \u00e0 savoir si le \u00ab territoire \u00bb incluait la Crim\u00e9e.&nbsp; La Russie a \u00e9galement fait valoir que la \u00ab r\u00e9ciprocit\u00e9 \u00bb \u00e9tait en cause, tandis que Oschadbank soutenait que la r\u00e9ciprocit\u00e9 constituait une condition substantielle qui ne pouvait servir de motif d&#8217;annulation. En ce qui concerne la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em>, l&#8217;investissement n&#8217;\u00e9tait pas \u00ab \u00e9tranger \u00bb, selon la Russie, puisqu&#8217;il avait \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9alis\u00e9 par une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 ukrainienne en Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le deuxi\u00e8me moyen invoqu\u00e9 pour demander l&#8217;annulation \u00e9tait une violation all\u00e9gu\u00e9e de l&#8217;ordre public international. La Russie a all\u00e9gu\u00e9 que l&#8217;Oschadbank avait commis une fraude en dissimulant des documents au tribunal. La Cour a not\u00e9 qu&#8217;il existait une disposition en vertu de l&#8217;article 1520, 5\u00b0, du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile fran\u00e7ais permettant l&#8217;annulation pour violation de l&#8217;ordre public international, mais elle a estim\u00e9 que la fraude proc\u00e9durale n&#8217;\u00e9tait pas \u00e9tablie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le troisi\u00e8me moyen soutenait que le tribunal arbitral n&#8217;avait pas respect\u00e9 son mandat. La Russie a all\u00e9gu\u00e9 que le nombre d&#8217;heures consacr\u00e9es \u00e0 l&#8217;affaire, sup\u00e9rieur \u00e0 800 heures, n&#8217;\u00e9tait pas suffisant et que le tribunal avait manqu\u00e9 \u00e0 son mandat, ajoutant qu&#8217;un argument en faveur d&#8217;un r\u00e9examen du bien-fond\u00e9 de la sentence ne serait pas admis en vertu de l&#8217;article 1520, 3\u00b0, du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile fran\u00e7ais.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le quatri\u00e8me moyen invoquait une irr\u00e9gularit\u00e9 dans la constitution du tribunal arbitral. Ce moyen reposait sur le fait qu&#8217;un co-arbitre, <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/charles-n-brower\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Charles N. Bower<\/a>, dans une affaire totalement distincte, avait pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 un m\u00e9moire <em>d&#8217;amicus curiae<\/em> \u00e0 l&#8217;encontre de la Russie en 2024, soit environ cinq ans apr\u00e8s la sentence de 2018. La Cour a estim\u00e9 que cela ne constituait pas un motif au sens de l&#8217;article 1520 2\u00b0 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile fran\u00e7ais.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour a estim\u00e9 qu&#8217;aucun des quatre moyens invoqu\u00e9s n&#8217;\u00e9tait suffisant pour annuler la sentence de 2018 et a donc rejet\u00e9 la demande d&#8217;annulation de la Russie. En cons\u00e9quence, le rejet accorde l&#8217;exequatur de la sentence de 2018, conform\u00e9ment au deuxi\u00e8me alin\u00e9a de l&#8217;article 1527 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile fran\u00e7ais. La Russie a \u00e9galement \u00e9t\u00e9 condamn\u00e9e \u00e0 verser 300 000 euros \u00e0 Oschadbank en vertu de l&#8217;article 700 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile fran\u00e7ais.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Il se peut que plusieurs affaires opposant l&#8217;Ukraine \u00e0 la Russie continuent d&#8217;\u00eatre port\u00e9es devant les tribunaux, voire davantage compte tenu de l&#8217;invasion de l&#8217;Ukraine par la Russie en f\u00e9vrier 2022. Par cons\u00e9quent, les concepts de territoire, de r\u00e9ciprocit\u00e9 et d&#8217;\u00e9tranger resteront pertinents. Cette affaire souligne \u00e9galement les dangers li\u00e9s \u00e0 la non-participation \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage, qui peut entra\u00eener l&#8217;irrecevabilit\u00e9 d&#8217;arguments de fond potentiels dans le cadre d&#8217;une proc\u00e9dure d&#8217;annulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans la newsletter Biberon le mercredi 5 novembre, 2025, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/lnkd.in\/eCEPU3in\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Lire dans le Biberon<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Padraic Mc Cafferty<\/strong> is a common law arbitration lawyer based in Paris completing a Double LL.M. with Queen Mary University of London and Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on Sorbonne. He is an Irish qualified solicitor, and on the Roll of Solicitors for England &amp; Wales and Northern Ireland.\u00a0 He has also been Called to the Bar of England and Wales (Lincoln&#8217;s Inn).\u00a0 He has worked with the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-hkiac-hong-kong-international-arbitration-centre\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre)<\/a> and the Court of Justice of the European Union. He is a Member of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-ciarb-the-chartered-institute-of-arbitrators\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">CIArb (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Russia\u2019s $1.1 billion challenge over Crimea assets fails in Paris, as the Court of Appeal confirms Oschadbank\u2019s arbitral award and rejects all jurisdictional objections.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":288091,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"179","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"Russia\u2019s Challenge Falls Flat: Paris Court Confirms Oschadbank Award","fb_description":"Russia\u2019s $1.1 billion challenge over Crimea assets fails in Paris, as the Court of Appeal confirms Oschadbank\u2019s arbitral award and rejects all jurisdictional objections.","fb_image":"288089","twitter_title":"Russia\u2019s Challenge Falls Flat: Paris Court Confirms Oschadbank Award","twitter_description":"Russia\u2019s $1.1 billion challenge over Crimea assets fails in Paris, as the Court of Appeal confirms Oschadbank\u2019s arbitral award and rejects all jurisdictional objections.","twitter_image":"288089"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,167,179,208,188,276,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-288082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-europe","category-france","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288082","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=288082"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288082\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":288093,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288082\/revisions\/288093"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=288082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=288082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=288082"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=288082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}