Insights & news

Brussels Court of Appeal Upholds Attachment Order against Kazakhstan

  • 03/08/2021
  • Articles

On 29 June 2021, the Brussels Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) handed down a judgment in which it upheld a protective attachment order over more than USD 500 million worth of assets, owned by Kazakhstan, and held with the Brussels subsidiary of the Bank of New York Mellon (the BNYM).

Background

The proceedings before the Belgian courts result from the efforts of two Moldovan investors (Anatolie and Gabriel Stati (the Investors)) who seek to enforce an arbitral award handed down in their favour in 2013. The arbitral tribunal (chaired by Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel) had found Kazakhstan liable for a harassment campaign against the Investors which ultimately resulted in a violation of the Energy Charter Treaty provisions on Fair and Equitable Treatment. As a result, the arbitral tribunal had ordered Kazakhstan to pay USD 508 million to the Investors as compensation for the damage suffered.

In the absence of voluntary payment from Kazakhstan, the Investors sought a protective attachment order from the Brussels Court of First Instance in 2017 enabling them to freeze assets owned by Kazakhstan held with BNYM pending the outcome of the proceeding leading to the recognition and enforcement of their arbitral award in Belgium. The protective attachment order was obtained in ex parte proceedings (i.e., without notice to Kazakhstan). However, upon notice of the attachment order, Kazakhstan lodged a third-party opposition (tierce opposition / derdenverzet) challenging the validity of the protective order. After the Brussels Court of First Instance dismissed the third-party opposition, Kazakhstan appealed that decision before the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal Judgment

In its judgment of 29 June 2021, the Court of Appeal dismissed Kazakhstan's appeal, considering that the protective attachment order issued in 2017 was prima facia meritorious. In particular, the Court of Appeal found (i) that the Investors' claim against Kazakhstan was sufficiently certain and based on the arbitral award handed down in 2013; (ii) that the protective attachment order had been issued following Kazakhstan's refusal to comply with the arbitral award for several years and that the full recovery of the damages suffered by the Investors was thus at risk; (iii) that Kazakhstan only owned limited assets in Belgium and (iv) that courts in the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg had already ordered the freezing of Kazakhstan's assets in their respective territory.

In addition, the Court of Appeal found that the factual circumstances of the case showed that Kazakhstan had attempted to put its assets beyond the reach of the Investors. In particular, it found that Kazakhstan had attempted to conceal that it was the real owner of the assets held with BNYM by alleging that it was instead a separate entity (Kazakhstan's national bank) which was the owner of those assets. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed this argument and considered that such an allegation amounted to “simulation” and that Kazakhstan had to be regarded as the real and ultimate owner of the assets held at BNYM. The 2001 trust management agreement under which assets were held by the National Bank was “a mere pretence to the outside world and third parties”.

Finally, the Court of Appeal rejected Kazakhstan's argument that the attached assets were subject to State immunity. In that regard, it found that the assets were invested with the aim of maximising long-term returns and were therefore intended to be used for commercial purposes. As a result, the assets did not fall within the scope of the protection of State immunity.

Comment

It is worth noting that the present judgment of the Court of Appeal only adresses the issue of the protective attachment order aimed at freezing Kazakhstan's assets in Belgium.

The fact that the Court of Appeal has confirmed the validity of this freezing order is without prejudice to the outcome of the pending proceedings related to the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award issued in the Investors' favour. Although the award had been recognised in Belgium, Kazakhstan is appealing the earlier recognition order and a further hearing is scheduled for October 2021.

It is only upon completion of those recognition and enforcement proceedings that the effective release of the assets (to the benefit of the Investors) will take place. There is therefore also pending before the Brussels Court of First Instance separate garnishment proceedings for release of the funds held by BNYM.

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 10/11/2021
    • Articles

    BITs and FITs: Investment treaty claims arising out of Ukraine’s recent amendments to its FIT scheme

    On 28 October 2021, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) registered a new request for arbitration proceedings brought against Ukraine by SREW NV (SREW). SREW, which owns the 110-megawatt Dnepro-Bugsky wind power station in southern Ukraine, is claiming that Ukraine’s reforms to its tariff regime are in breach of the BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Ukraine bilateral investment treaty (BIT). This follows the claim earlier in the year by Modus Energy International (Modus Energy), a Lithuanian investor in three solar power plants in Ukraine, which filed SCC arbitration proceedings against Ukraine under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Modus Energy is claiming, by way of its Dutch subsidiary, that Ukraine has breached the ECT through the adoption of Law No. 810-IX, a legislative reform which reduced guaranteed feed-in tariffs (FITs). It is reported that Modus Energy is claiming damages of approximately EUR 11.5 million. Yet, the claims by SREW and Modus Energy may only be the first set of claims in a potential wave of investment treaty claims, under the ECT or other bilateral investment treaties, that Ukraine may face over recent amendments to its FIT regime. Elementum Energy, a UK investor, has already filed a notice of dispute under both the ECT and the UK-Ukraine BIT and it is reported that investors from Norway, South Korea and Turkey are also considering or have already filed similar trigger letters in response to Ukraine’s legislative reforms. In this Client Alert, we discuss the recent legislative reforms to Ukraine’s FIT regime which have already given rise to the disputes referred to above. We also consider the claims which Ukraine could face in the context of similar claims which other States have faced in response to the reduction in FITs.

    Read more
    • 04/11/2021
    • Articles

    Case C-109/20: an ad hoc arbitration agreement cannot be used to circumvent an invalid arbitration clause in an intra-EU BIT

    On 26 October 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) decided, in its judgment in Case C-109/20 Republic of Poland v PL Holdings, that where an investor-State arbitration clause in an intra-EU bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”) is invalid under European Union (“EU”) law, investors cannot rely on a tacit ad hoc arbitration agreement with identical content to the arbitration clause. Importantly, the CJEU clarified that EU Member States must contest the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in such a situation and national courts of the Member States must uphold an action to set aside an arbitration award made on the basis of an arbitration agreement that is contrary to EU law. Click on the link below to read our client alert on this matter.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *