Kazus Khristenko

Russia denies the receipt of the agenda to the Washington Court of the Russian Foreign Ministry of the Russian Foreign Ministry on Friday has distributed a message in which it denies the transfer of the Russian Federation through the US State Department of documents that make Russia the defendant in an American court. Considerations develop according to a familiar scenario, the first played by Viktor Khristenko. The plot is this: the tie is a loud denial of contacts with the judicial authority; climax is a quiet recognition of the failed fact and appeal to lawyers; The denouement is the court itself.

The following statement has been published on the Foreign Ministry website: “The US State Department Channel for the United States-the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs simply cannot be used to transfer any judicial documents, since since 2003 mutual legal assistance in civil and trade matters between the Russian Federation and the United States has been frozen.”

The Foreign Ministry refers to the dispute between Russia and the United States due to the application of the provisions of the 1965 Hague Convention on the practice of mutual execution of judicial assignments. The Convention, ratified by both Russia and the USA, requires that all its participants create a “centralized authorized body” on its territory, where the subpoenas and other documents from foreign states should be sent, and only then this body becomes responsible for the timely delivery of these documents to the defendant.

As an authorized body, Russia once called the Ministry of Justice. However, for several years, the Ministry does not accept documents from the United States, and Russia, within the framework of the Convention, considers itself free from obligations to this country. Russian officials explain this by the fact that the United States for the execution of judicial assignments to its centralized authorized body is charging. The legality of paid services was discussed at the recent conference of countries - participants in the Convention, and all countries except Russia and China agreed with it.

Then Moscow made the following statement: “The Russian Federation believes that according to Article 12 of the Convention, the process of presenting legal documents emanating from the state that signed the Convention should not entail any payments, tax compensations or reimbursement of the cost of expenses in connection with the delivery of documents by the Addish state. The collection of such a payment by the state that signed the Convention will be considered by the Russian Federation as a refusal to fulfill the norms of the Convention in relation to the Russian Federation. Accordingly, the Russian Federation will not apply to the norms of the Convention in relation to such a state. ”

It's not about money. In 2006, for example, the fee for the execution of court orders by the central authorized body in the United States would be only $ 95 for Russia. But here the principle and compliance with symmetry in contracts is important.

However, as the lawyer of the Yukos shareholders emphasizes Covington & Burling Thomas Johnson, the subpoena of the court and the statement of the plaintiffs were sent to the Russian Foreign Ministry not on the basis of the Hague Convention, but on the basis of the US Law on Foreign Sovereign Imminet (US Foreign Immunites Act). In the stingy comments of the Foreign Ministry, this law is not mentioned. “As for American legislation, the presentation of documents to Russia is considered to be in full accordance with the letter of the law,” Johnson says.

Meanwhile, there is a document directed by Madame Nancy Mayer-Vottingem (judge of the Federal District of Colombia), which is signed by the lawyer of the US State Department William Fritzlen. The meaning of the document is to confirm to the court the fact of delivery by the Russian Foreign Aquaries to the Washington Court. In accordance with the document, the agenda was sent to the Russian Foreign Ministry with diplomatic mail at number 2006-013. Sending took place on March 13, presentation (receipt) - March 14.

Now it makes sense to return to Viktor Khristenko. Why did he ultimately stop denying the fact of familiarization with the defendants and transferred the case to the American lawyer Michael Goldberg from Baker Botts? For a very convincing reason. Under American laws, the court recognizes the defendant, who received the summons to the court and refused to participate in the process, "declared default" for his obligations, after which the victory in the case is counted to the plaintiff.

The "feat" of Mr. Khristenko in all details was later repeated by Alexei Kudrin and Sergey Bogdanchikov. There is reason to argue that the Russian Federation will do the same. And the words of Johnson’s lawyer will become an incentive for her: “If the Russian Federation does not respond to the agenda and does not indicate its position on the plaintiffs before May 15, the Yukos minority shareholders will ask the court to make a decision on default of the defendant. And the court will satisfy their request. ”

03/26/2006 / Galina Antonova, the material was published in the newspaper No. 51 dated 03/27/2006.