Oschadbank has opened a new stage in the struggle for compensation for the loss of the Crimean assets, initiating litigation with Russia in international arbitration in Stockholm. According to experts, the Russian non-participation in the arbitration may allow further successfully appeal the decision if it is made not in favor of Russia. But for such a decision will have to accept arbitration Crimea Russian territory. The very amount of the claim in the $ 1 billion also raises questions of experts.

On Friday, Ukrainian Oschadbank issued a statement about the beginning of the proceedings in the Stockholm arbitration on the lawsuit to Russia $ 1 billion for "total destruction of investments in the Crimea because of the illegal occupation and de facto annexation of the territory of Russia". Said the bank the amount of claims includes the value of assets on the peninsula, damages for loss of business or interest to be assessed before a final decision and the actual receipt of the payment at the commercial rate, defined by the court. His bank requirements to substantiate a violation of the agreement between the Russian government and theabinetom of Ministers of Ukraine on the promotion and mutual protection of investments in 1998.

The plaintiff said that the Russian side informed about the lawsuit on July 8 2015, but in the end part of the arbitrators was formed without the participation of Russia. Interests Oschadbank in international arbitration will be law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which has already achieved that "all matters relating to the jurisdiction, the essence of the claim and the damage assessment will be heard in one sitting," which, according to the bank, will speed consideration spore. The press release also states, and that if Russia continues to refuse to participate in the arbitration, the Stockholm arbitration will have the right to consider the application of the bank on an expedited basis and will make a final decision in March 2017.

Partner of law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Alexei Panich said that Russian non-participation in the proceedings will reduce the chances of winning in arbitration, "but it can give a good opportunity to successfully challenge the arbitral award later if a lawsuit against Russia will be satisfied."

Lawyer believes hthen this position is absolutely correct in the case of non-recognition of the competence of arbitration to consider the dispute. "Most likely, Russia will not recognize the competence of the arbitration Yukos affair has shown that participation in the arbitration can further complicate the challenge of arbitration competence, from which it follows logically from the need to complete ignore." - Says Mr. Panich.

The very attempt to found a claim on an agreement on encouragement and mutual protection of investments also seems unpromising lawyers. "By investing in the understanding of the agreement refers to property and intellectual values ​​invested by an investor of one party in the territory of the other party in accordance with its legislation, - says lawyer Helen Kolomiets.- BGP Litigation Obviously, Oschadbank assets were not invested in the Russian economy in the Crimea in accordance with the procedures laid down in its legislation, and appeared on the territory of the Russian Federation de facto as a result of the proclamation of independence of Crimea from Ukraine and its subsequent AcConnections to Russia. "At the same time, Alexei Panich adds that for the recognition of the applicant's right to claim on the basis of Russian and Ukrainian agreement of 1998 the referees need to recognize Crimea Russian territory.

The lawyers have questioned and amount of the claim: "Without seeing the calculation, it is difficult to assess the validity of the amount of Oshchadbank requirements, - says Mr. Panich.- Rather, it is based on the plaintiff's assumptions and can be easily refuted by the defendant."