{"id":288238,"date":"2025-11-12T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-11-12T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=288238"},"modified":"2025-11-12T15:53:48","modified_gmt":"2025-11-12T14:53:48","slug":"immunity-denied-singapore-court-upholds-enforcement-of-yukos-awards-against-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2025\/11\/12\/immunity-denied-singapore-court-upholds-enforcement-of-yukos-awards-against-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Immunity Denied: Singapore Court Upholds Enforcement of Yukos Awards against Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><em>Hulley Enterprises Ltd, Yukos Universal Ltd and Veteran Petroleum Ltd v Russian Federation<\/em> [2025] SGHC(I) 19<\/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>Hidaya El Karamaney, <\/strong>Master\u2019s Candidate in Economic Law at <strong>Sciences Po Paris<\/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-507cfc7d 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-507cfc7d\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 25 April 2025, the Singapore International Commercial Court (\u201c<strong>SICC<\/strong>\u201d) issued a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-hulley-enterprises-ltd-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-singapore-international-commercial-court-2025-sghc-i-19-friday-25th-july-2025#decision_82544\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">ruling [2025] SGHC(I) 19 in the case of <em>Hulley Enterprises Ltd and others v The Russian Federation<\/em><\/a>. The decision concerned the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/ru\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Russian Federation<\/a>\u2019s (\u201c<strong>Russia<\/strong>\u201d) application to set aside an <em>ex parte<\/em> order granting leave to the Claimants to enforce three final arbitral awards issued in July 2014 by a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-permanent-court-of-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration)<\/a> Tribunal seated in The Hague. The fundamental issue addressed was whether Russia was immune from the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts pursuant to the State Immunity Act 1979 (\u201c<strong>SIA<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Hulley Enterprises Ltd, Yukos Universal Ltd, and Veteran Petroleum Ltd (\u201c<strong>the Claimants<\/strong>\u201d) were majority shareholders in OAO Yukos Oil Company (\u201c<strong>Yukos Oil<\/strong>\u201d). They initiated arbitration proceedings against Russia in 2004, relying on the provisional application of the arbitration mechanism (Article 26) within the multilateral <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-the-energy-charter-treaty-the-energy-charter-treaty-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3DEnergy%2BCharter%2BTreaty&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Energy Charter Treaty (1994)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>ECT<\/strong>\u201d). The Claimants alleged that Russia breached Article 13 of the ECT by expropriating and failing to protect their investments in Yukos Oil. The Tribunal found that Russia had instigated taxation and enforcement measures with the aim of eliminating a potential political opponent and acquiring Yukos Oil assets. The Final Awards, delivered on 18 July 2014, awarded the Claimants significant damages (exceeding US$50 billion).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Procedure and the Parties\u2019 Legal Arguments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Russia consistently contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Following the Final Awards, Russia sought to set them aside before the Dutch courts, advancing four core jurisdictional arguments (the <em>\u201cArticle 45 Argument<\/em>\u201d, the \u201c<em>Investor\/Investment Argument<\/em>\u201d, the \u201c<em>Article 21 Purported Jurisdiction Argument<\/em>\u201d and the \u201c<em>Article 21 Mandate Argument<\/em>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Hague District Court initially set aside the awards. However, the Hague Court of Appeal quashed that judgment on <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-hulley-enterprises-ltd-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-hague-court-of-appeal-tuesday-18th-february-2020#decision_6822?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DHulley%2520Enterprises%2520Ltd%2520and%2520others%2520v%2520The%2520Russian%2520Federation%2520%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">18 February 2020<\/a>. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, by its <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-hulley-enterprises-ltd-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-netherlands-friday-5th-november-2021#decision_18193?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DHulley%2520Enterprises%2520Ltd%2520and%2520others%2520v%2520The%2520Russian%2520Federation%2520%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">judgement<\/a> of 5 November 2021, rejected Russia\u2019s grounds for cassation regarding the four arguments concerning the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction. The Claimants relied on these Dutch decisions, arguing that they had finally and conclusively dismissed Russia\u2019s jurisdictional claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the proceedings before the SICC, Russia sought a declaration of its immunity under Section 3(1) of the SIA. It argued that the exception to immunity provided under Section 11(1) of the SIA did not apply because it had not \u201c<em>agreed in writing to submit<\/em>\u201d the relevant dispute to arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Claimants countered that the final and conclusive decisions of the Dutch courts gave rise to transnational issue estoppel under Singapore law, hence precluding Russia from relitigating those jurisdictional issues before the SICC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Legal Issue<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The key preliminary issue for the SICC was to determine whether Russia was precluded, by the operation of transnational issue estoppel, from relitigating matters regarding the Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction previously decided by the Dutch Appellate Courts, and whether the application of that doctrine could determine the question of State immunity under the SIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Reasons for the Decision<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The SICC (comprising Andre Maniam J, James Allsop IJ, and Anthony Meagher IJ) held that Russia was precluded from arguing anything other than that it had agreed in writing to submit its dispute to arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court based its decision on the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel as applied under Singapore law. It followed the <em>ratio decidendi<\/em> of the Singapore Court of Appeal in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-deutsche-telekom-ag-v-the-republic-of-india-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2023-sgca-i-10-friday-15th-december-2023#decision_57334\">The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG (\u201c<strong>Deutsche Telekom (CA)<\/strong>\u201d), [2023] SGCA(I) 10, 15 December 2023<\/a><\/em> which held that this doctrine applies in the context of international commercial arbitration, even when its application is determinative of a question of State immunity arising under the SIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The SICC found that all the requirements for transnational issue estoppel to apply were satisfied: the Dutch Appellate Courts\u2019 decisions were final and conclusive on the merits, involved the same parties, and addressed the same subject matter (<em>i.e.<\/em>, Russia\u2019s consent to arbitration).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Consequently, the Court concluded that since the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel established Russia\u2019s written consent to submit the dispute to arbitration, the exception set out in Section 11(1) of the SIA applied. Section 11(1) provides that a State is not immune from proceedings in Singapore courts which \u201c<em>relate to the arbitration<\/em>\u201d if the State has agreed in writing to submit the dispute to arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court rejected Russia&#8217;s arguments that Singapore&#8217;s obligation to uphold State immunity requires a <em>de novo<\/em> review, excluding the use of issue estoppel. It noted that the inquiry under Section 11(1) focuses on a private law arrangement (the agreement to arbitrate) and should thereby be resolved using Singapore procedural law, including its principles of issue estoppel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, the SICC ruled that Russia did not have immunity from jurisdiction and dismissed its application to set aside the Leave Order on that ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The practical significance of the SICC decision now lies entirely in enforcement challenges. The most critical element concerns the disposition of frozen Russian assets in Europe, such as those managed by Euroclear in Belgium, whose generated income \u2013 making substantial annual interest \u2013 may be seen as an opportunity to execute the historic decision. With jurisdictional challenges conclusively settled by the Dutch seat courts and their enforcement confirmed by the Singapore courts, attention now focuses on how these assets will be mobilised to deliver effective \u2018justice\u2019 for the former Yukos shareholders.<\/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>Hidaya El Karamaney<\/strong> is currently pursuing a master\u2019s degree in Economic Law at <strong>Sciences Po Paris<\/strong>, after completing her bachelor\u2019s degree in Politics and Government with a minor in law at the same institution. She also completed an exchange year at the National University of Singapore. Her professional experience includes internships in Luxembourg focusing on litigation and investment funds, and in Brussels specialising in EU trade and competition law. As a writer contributor for PBA, she analyses international arbitration and cross-border dispute resolution cases.<\/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-507cfc7d\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Immunit\u00e9 refus\u00e9e : la Cour de Singapour confirme l\u2019ex\u00e9cution des sentences Yukos contre la Russie<\/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><em><em>Hulley Enterprises Ltd et autres c. La F\u00e9d\u00e9ration de Russie<\/em><\/em> [2025] SGHC(I) 19<\/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\">Par un <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-hulley-enterprises-ltd-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-singapore-international-commercial-court-2025-sghc-i-19-friday-25th-july-2025#decision_82544\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">arr\u00eat [2025] SGHC(I) 19 rendu le 25 avril 2025<\/a>, la Cour Commerciale Internationale de Singapour (Singapore International Commercial Court, \u00ab <strong>SICC<\/strong> \u00bb) a statu\u00e9 dans l&#8217;affaire <em>Hulley Enterprises Ltd et autres c. La F\u00e9d\u00e9ration de Russie<\/em>. Cette d\u00e9cision portait sur la demande de la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/ru\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">F\u00e9d\u00e9ration de Russie<\/a> (\u00ab <strong>Russie<\/strong> \u00bb) visant \u00e0 annuler une ordonnance <em>ex parte<\/em> autorisant l&#8217;ex\u00e9cution \u00e0 Singapour de trois sentences arbitrales finales rendues en juillet 2014 par un tribunal arbitral de la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-permanent-court-of-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Cour Permanente d\u2019Arbitrage<\/a> (\u00ab\u00a0<strong>PCA<\/strong>\u00a0\u00bb) si\u00e9geant \u00e0 La Haye. La question fondamentale soulev\u00e9e \u00e9tait de savoir si la Russie b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiait d\u2019une immunit\u00e9 de juridiction devant les tribunaux de Singapour en vertu de la loi de 1979 sur l&#8217;immunit\u00e9 des \u00c9tats (<em>State Immunity Act 1979<\/em>, \u00ab <strong>SIA<\/strong> \u00bb).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Faits<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Hulley Enterprises Ltd, Yukos Universal Ltd, et Veteran Petroleum Ltd (\u00ab <strong>les requ\u00e9rants<\/strong> \u00bb) \u00e9taient actionnaires majoritaires de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 OAO Yukos Oil Company (\u00ab <strong>Yukos Oil<\/strong> \u00bb). Ils ont initi\u00e9 une proc\u00e9dure arbitrale en 2004 contre la Russie en vertu du <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/fr-traite-sur-la-charte-de-lenergie-traite-sur-la-charte-de-lenergie-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994?pdf=true#art_3096\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Trait\u00e9 sur la Charte de l&#8217;\u00e9nergie (1994)<\/a> (\u00ab <strong>TCE <\/strong>\u00bb), en se fondant sur l&#8217;application provisoire de son m\u00e9canisme d&#8217;arbitrage (Article 26). Les requ\u00e9rants all\u00e8guent que la Russie avait enfreint l&#8217;Article 13 du TCE en expropriant et en ne prot\u00e9geant pas leurs investissements au sein de Yukos Oil. Le Tribunal a conclu que la Russie avait instaur\u00e9 des mesures fiscales et coercitives dans le but d&#8217;\u00e9liminer un opposant politique potentiel et d&#8217;acqu\u00e9rir les actifs de Yukos Oil. Les sentences finales, d\u00e9livr\u00e9es le 18 juillet 2014, accordent aux requ\u00e9rants des dommages-int\u00e9r\u00eats consid\u00e9rables (plus de 50 milliards de dollars am\u00e9ricains).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Proc\u00e9dure et arguments juridiques des parties<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Russie a constamment soutenu que le Tribunal n\u2019\u00e9tait pas comp\u00e9tent. Apr\u00e8s le prononc\u00e9 des sentences finales, la Russie a introduit une proc\u00e9dure d&#8217;annulation devant les tribunaux n\u00e9erlandais en invoquant quatre arguments principaux (\u00ab<em>l&#8217;Argument de l&#8217;Article 45<\/em>\u00bb, \u00ab<em>l&#8217;Argument Investisseur\/Investissement<\/em>\u00bb, \u00ab<em>l&#8217;Argument relatif \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence pr\u00e9sum\u00e9e au titre de l&#8217;article 21<\/em>\u00bb et <em>\u00abl&#8217; Argument relatif au mandat au titre de l&#8217;article 21 \u00bb<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Initialement, le tribunal de district de La Haye avait annul\u00e9 les sentences. Cependant, la Cour d&#8217;appel de La Haye, par un <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-hulley-enterprises-ltd-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-hague-court-of-appeal-tuesday-18th-february-2020#decision_6822?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DHulley%2520Enterprises%2520Ltd%2520and%2520others%2520v%2520The%2520Russian%2520Federation%2520%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">arr\u00eat du 18 f\u00e9vrier 2020<\/a>, a infirm\u00e9 cette d\u00e9cision. Par la suite, la Cour supr\u00eame des Pays-Bas, par un <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-hulley-enterprises-ltd-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-supreme-court-of-the-netherlands-friday-5th-november-2021#decision_18193?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3DHulley%2520Enterprises%2520Ltd%2520and%2520others%2520v%2520The%2520Russian%2520Federation%2520%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">arr\u00eat du 5 novembre 2021<\/a>, a rejet\u00e9 les pourvois en cassation de la Russie portant sur les quatre arguments relatifs \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence du tribunal arbitral. Les requ\u00e9rants se sont appuy\u00e9s sur ces d\u00e9cisions n\u00e9erlandaises, les consid\u00e9rant comme ayant d\u00e9finitivement \u00e9cart\u00e9 les arguments de la Russie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans le cadre de la proc\u00e9dure devant la SICC, la Russie cherchait \u00e0 faire d\u00e9clarer son immunit\u00e9 de juridiction en vertu de la Section 3(1) du SIA. Elle a fait valoir que l&#8217;exception \u00e0 l&#8217;immunit\u00e9 pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 la Section 11(1) du SIA ne s&#8217;appliquait pas, car elle n&#8217;avait pas <em>\u00ab convenu par \u00e9crit de soumettre <\/em>\u00bb le litige en question \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Les requ\u00e9rants ont r\u00e9torqu\u00e9 que les d\u00e9cisions d\u00e9finitives des juridictions n\u00e9erlandaises donnaient lieu \u00e0 une autorit\u00e9 de chose jug\u00e9e transnationale (<em>transnational issue estoppel<\/em>), qui emp\u00eachait la Russie de remettre en cause ces m\u00eames questions de comp\u00e9tence devant la SICC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Question juridique<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La question essentielle pour la SICC \u00e9tait de savoir si la Russie \u00e9tait emp\u00each\u00e9e, par l&#8217;effet de l&#8217;autorit\u00e9 de chose jug\u00e9e transnationale, de plaider \u00e0 nouveau des questions relatives \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence du Tribunal qui avaient d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 rejet\u00e9es par les juridictions d&#8217;appel n\u00e9erlandaises, et si l&#8217;application de cette doctrine pouvait d\u00e9terminer l&#8217;existence ou non de l&#8217;exception \u00e0 l&#8217;immunit\u00e9 de l&#8217;\u00c9tat en vertu du SIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Motifs de la d\u00e9cision<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La SICC (compos\u00e9e des Juges Maniam J, Allsop IJ et Meagher IJ) a estim\u00e9 que la Russie ne pouvait pas faire valoir d&#8217;autre argument que celui selon lequel elle avait accept\u00e9 par \u00e9crit de soumettre son litige \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour a fond\u00e9 sa d\u00e9cision sur la doctrine de l&#8217;autorit\u00e9 de la chose jug\u00e9e transnationale, telle qu\u2019elle est appliqu\u00e9e dans le droit singapourien. Elle a suivi la jurisprudence de la Cour d&#8217;appel de Singapour dans l&#8217;affaire <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-deutsche-telekom-ag-v-the-republic-of-india-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2023-sgca-i-10-friday-15th-december-2023#decision_57334\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">The Republic of India c. Deutsche Telekom AG (\u00ab <strong>Deutsche Telekom (CA) <\/strong>\u00bb)<\/a><\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-deutsche-telekom-ag-v-the-republic-of-india-judgment-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-singapore-2023-sgca-i-10-friday-15th-december-2023#decision_57334\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">, [2023] SGCA(I) 10, 15 d\u00e9cembre 2023<\/a>, jugeant que la <em>ratio decidendi<\/em> de cet arr\u00eat inclut l&#8217;application de cette doctrine, m\u00eame lorsqu&#8217;elle est d\u00e9terminante pour une question d&#8217;immunit\u00e9 de l&#8217;\u00c9tat en vertu du SIA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La SICC a estim\u00e9 que toutes les conditions requises pour l&#8217;application de l&#8217;autorit\u00e9 de la chose jug\u00e9e transnationale \u00e9taient remplies : les d\u00e9cisions des cours d&#8217;appel n\u00e9erlandaises \u00e9taient d\u00e9finitives et sans appel sur le fond, concernaient les m\u00eames parties et portaient sur le m\u00eame sujet (le consentement de la Russie \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En cons\u00e9quence, la SICC a conclu que, puisque les questions juridiques et factuelles d\u00e9terminant le consentement de la Russie \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage \u00e9taient \u00e9tablies par l&#8217;application de la doctrine de l\u2019estoppel, l&#8217;exception pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 la Section 11(1) du SIA \u00e9tait satisfaite. La Section 11(1) dispose qu\u2019un \u00c9tat n&#8217;est pas immunis\u00e9 en ce qui concerne les proc\u00e9dures judiciaires \u00e0 Singapour qui \u00ab <em>se rapportent \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage<\/em> \u00bb lorsque ce dernier y a consenti par \u00e9crit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour a rejet\u00e9 les arguments de la Russie selon lesquels l&#8217;obligation de Singapour de donner effet \u00e0 l&#8217;immunit\u00e9 de l&#8217;\u00c9tat exigeait un examen <em>de novo<\/em> qui exclurait l&#8217;estoppel. Elle a not\u00e9 que la demande en vertu de la Section 11(1) porte sur un arrangement de droit priv\u00e9 (l\u2019accord \u00e0 l&#8217;arbitrage) et doit \u00eatre r\u00e9solue en appliquant le droit proc\u00e9dural de Singapour, y compris la doctrine&nbsp; d&#8217;estoppel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Par cons\u00e9quent, la SICC a statu\u00e9 que la Russie ne b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiait pas de l&#8217;immunit\u00e9 de juridiction et a rejet\u00e9 sa demande d&#8217;annulation de l&#8217;ordonnance d&#8217;ex\u00e9cution sur ce motif. La port\u00e9e pratique de la d\u00e9cision de la SICC se concentre d\u00e9sormais enti\u00e8rement sur les d\u00e9fis li\u00e9s \u00e0 son application. L&#8217;\u00e9l\u00e9ment le plus critique concerne la disposition des <em>assets<\/em> (avoirs) russes gel\u00e9s en Europe, comme ceux g\u00e9r\u00e9s par Euroclear en Belgique, dont les revenus g\u00e9n\u00e9r\u00e9s \u2013 des int\u00e9r\u00eats annuels substantiels \u2013 pourraient \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9s comme une opportunit\u00e9 pour ex\u00e9cuter la d\u00e9cision. Les enjeux juridictionnels ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9finitivement r\u00e9gl\u00e9s par les tribunaux n\u00e9erlandais et l&#8217;ex\u00e9cution confirm\u00e9e par Singapour, l&#8217;attention se porte d\u00e9sormais sur la mani\u00e8re dont ces <em>assets<\/em> seront mobilis\u00e9s afin de pouvoir rendre une \u00ab justice \u00bb effective aux anciens actionnaires de Yukos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\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>Hidaya El Karamaney<\/strong> is currently pursuing a master\u2019s degree in Economic Law at <strong>Sciences Po Paris<\/strong>, after completing her bachelor\u2019s degree in Politics and Government with a minor in law at the same institution. She also completed an exchange year at the National University of Singapore. Her professional experience includes internships in Luxembourg focusing on litigation and investment funds, and in Brussels specialising in EU trade and competition law. As a writer contributor for PBA, she analyses international arbitration and cross-border dispute resolution cases.<\/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>In a landmark decision, Singapore\u2019s court rejected Russia\u2019s immunity plea, confirming enforcement of the $50 billion Yukos awards under the Energy Charter Treaty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":288240,"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":"171","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"Immunity Denied: Singapore Court Upholds Enforcement of Yukos Awards against Russia","fb_description":"In a landmark decision, Singapore\u2019s court rejected Russia\u2019s immunity plea, confirming enforcement of the $50 billion Yukos awards under the Energy Charter Treaty.","fb_image":"288244","twitter_title":"Immunity Denied: Singapore Court Upholds Enforcement of Yukos Awards against Russia","twitter_description":"In a landmark decision, Singapore\u2019s court rejected Russia\u2019s immunity plea, confirming enforcement of the $50 billion Yukos awards under the Energy Charter Treaty.","twitter_image":"288244"},"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":[205,170,208,188,276,171,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-288238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-asia-pacific","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-singapore","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288238","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=288238"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288238\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":288247,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288238\/revisions\/288247"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=288238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=288238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=288238"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=288238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}