Two of the claim, the beginning of the consideration that the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, filed in June 2015 the largest oil and gas company - "Ukrnafta" and 11 companies registered mainly in the Crimea and Dnepropetrovsk region (the main type of activity - retail trade of fuel and Real estate lease service). The content of the claims is not disclosed, the applicants refer to the international trade regulations and the Russian-Ukrainian intergovernmental agreement on protection of investments on November 28, 1998 The subject of the dispute is the property, which was in the Crimea should be clarification of the Russian Ministry of Justice in response to a request "Vedomosti". To participate in the arbitration, Russia refused.

In December 2015 the state company "Naftogaz Ukrainy" (owns 50% + 1 share "Ukrnafta", another 42%, according to Ukrainian media, belong to the structures of the former governor of Dnipropetrovsk Igor Kolomoisky) announced that it intends to achieve through the international court redress all the losses incurred due tojoining the Crimea to Russia. The cost of lost assets were estimated at 15.7 billion USD, losses only in 2014 - to 13.8 billion UAH. Sixth January Permanent Court of Arbitration said that took up the lawsuit filed a year ago, the company Kolomoisky and "Belbek Airport" to Russia (see. Incision). As follows from the Court in all three "Crimean" claims applicants' interests are represented by the same team of lawyers from the New York and Paris offices of the firm Hughes Hubbard and Reed.

Press-service of "Ukrnafta" on Monday to leave the question of "Vedomosti" without comment: the company's lawyers are preparing a position on the lawsuit, said the press service.

Russia does not recognize the jurisdiction of international arbitration, the press service of the Ministry of Justice. Claims Ukrainian companies and individuals submitted to international arbitration with Russia a reference to violation of Art. 9 intergovernmental agreement on encouragement and mutual protection of investments, according to which the term "investment" means all types of property and intellectual values ​​invested by an investor of one dogovarivParty taking on the territory of the other party in accordance with its legislation. The property which is the subject of the dispute is in the territory of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, which were part of the Ukraine - and, consequently, the corresponding relationships can not be governed by the agreement, Russia said.

The agreement provides for the protection of foreign investment, but that status seems doubtful in the case of companies operating in the Crimea, where he belonged Ukraine agree partner King & Spalding law firm Ilya Rachkov. According to him, this could be a strong argument in Russia's position. By refusing to participate in the case, Moscow has nothing to gain: it does not hurt to review the case in its absence (relevant precedents small, but they have one), and will only lead to the fact that Russia's position will not be heard and the decision will most likely be made not In our favor. In particular, the already appointed arbitrators (if it refuses to do one of the parties, the arbitrator appoints Secretary General of the Permanent Court). The same composition of arbitrators in both cases testifyie the intention to accept the arbitration decision, which would not contradict each other, said crustacean.