Overview

Yuriy Rudyuk specialises in international trade law with a particular focus on anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard investigations, involving exporters from Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. 

Over more than a decade, Yuriy has represented key Ukrainian exporters in all major EU anti-dumping proceedings concerning a wide variety of products, including steel, seamless and welded tubes, ammonium nitrate, urea, ironing boards and ferro-alloys.   He also regularly represents CIS exporters in trade defence proceedings initiated by other jurisdictions such as Brazil, India, Pakistan, Taiwan and Turkey.

Languages

Ukrainian, English, Russian

Recommendations

  • Chambers Global – International Trade/WTO (Foreign expert for Ukraine)
  • International Who’s Who of Trade and Customs Lawyers
  • Best Lawyers – Trade Law

Education

  • University of Amsterdam, LL.M. in International Trade Law, 2000
  • University of Lviv Law School, Ukraine, Master of Laws, 1999

Publications

Contributor to Van Bael & Bellis, EU Anti-Dumping and Other Trade Defence Instruments (fifth edition, Kluwer, 2011), the standard work of reference in the field of EU trade law.

Bar Admissions

Ukraine
Brussels

Notable assignments

  • Representing MnChemical LLC, the sole producer of manganese oxides in Georgia, in the EU anti-dumping proceeding against imports of manganese oxide and obtaining a termination of the proceeding without imposition of anti-dumping measures.

  • Representing Metinvest, Ukraine’s largest steel group and one of the largest steel producers in the world, in the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of Hot-Rolled Coils initiated by Turkey and obtaining a termination of the proceeding without the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

Publications and 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
    • 16/07/2020
    • News

    Yuriy Rudyuk speaks at webinar organized by EUROMETAL “After COVID 19: Survival strategies for steel distribution, SSC and Steel Trade”

    On 9 July 2020, Van Bael & Bellis partner Yuriy Rudyuk spoke at the EUROMETAL webinar on the outcome of the second review of EU safeguard measures applicable to imports of certain steel products as well as other trade defence measures in the EU affecting trade in steel. Yuriy’s comments on further reviews of the safeguard measures and their likely outcome were reported by Kallanish Steel https://eurometal.net/eu-plans-two-more-safeguard-reviews/ .

    Read more
    • 08/04/2020
    • Articles

    Impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the EU

    On 13 March 2020, the European Commission published a Notice on the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on antidumping and anti-subsidy investigations (the Notice). Pursuant to the Notice, the COVD-19 outbreak will affect the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations carried out by the European Commission as follows: 1. Suspension of verification visits The Commission decided to suspend all verification visits to the affected areas until further notice. Instead, the Commission will carefully examine the information provided by interested parties in the framework of the investigations and cross-check it with information available from other sources. Moreover, if the Commission considers the information submitted inaccurate or incomplete, it will base its findings on verified or other proven facts on the record of the investigation. In view of this, it becomes essential for all exporting producers cooperating with the European Commission to provide a complete, accurate and substantiated questionnaire response supplemented by all necessary annexes and worksheets in order to enable the Commission to verify and reconcile the data without visiting the company’s premises. 2. Extended deadlines Due to the extraordinary circumstances, the Commission may grant a 7-day extension to companies located in areas affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Furthermore, the Commission will consider granting a longer extension if the requesting company is particularly affected by additional substantial safety measures (such as quarantine periods and/or mandatory factory closures). In order to qualify for an additional extension, the requesting company has to provide a sufficient explanation on how the additional time would help to prepare a more comprehensive questionnaire response. It is also necessary to describe how the additional substantial safety measures affect the requesting company’s capacity to provide the required information. It must be noted that the Notice does not address the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the on-going second review of the steel safeguard measures. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the timeframe of the review or any of its substantive aspects will be affected by the pandemic. Please click here to access the Notice.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *