"Schizophrenia in law"

What the Russian authorities tell in international arbitrations and the European court, defending herself from Yukos claims

So far, the SK conducts searches from Open Russia, not hiding that this is the answer “in connection with international trials aimed at compulsory recovery with the Russian Federation in the amount of more than 50 billion US dollars” (in 2014, Moscow ordered companies affiliated with the Yukos, the GAAGA, the position of the authorities themselves in these international proceedings is the same It remains extremely contradictory and absurd.

In the sense that in the only affairs of the claims of the oil company (whether it was the first tax business of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev or the claims of Yukosovo daughters and shareholders against the Russian Federation regarding the expropriation of assets), the Russian government insists that Yukos mined and sold oil, with which he allegedly did not pay taxes (about theft - not a word). And in other cases (mainly in the case of the complaints of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev in Strasbourg, the government actively insists that the oil and sold by Yukos was stolen, and it was stolen by Yukos.

That is, the position of the Russian Government is refuted by the position of the Russian government, depending on the current claim or complaint of Yukos.

At the same time, today there are dozens of decisions of Russian and foreign ships that have established the sale, and not the “theft” of oil. But the government, as a defendant in the ECHR, is not embarrassed even that Rosneft, which became in 2004-2007, is not embarrassed. The “owner” of the “victims” of Yukos’s daughters, still has not said anything at all in her international reporting on “embezzlement”. Because the theft is not there, instead - profit. And Judge Danilkin from the Khamovnichesky Court in his sentence about the "embezzlement of oil" could not but recognize the fact of profit, but the profit from the sale of oil was about $ 3 billion .

Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were given for this for 14 years.

It is noteworthy that the representative of the Russian Federation in the ECHR, Georgy Matyushkin personally in the first case, Yukos against the Russian Federation, insisted that there was oil sale. Now in Strasbourg, opposing the arguments of the former leaders of the Yukos to the complaint in the second case, the official representatives of Russia in the blue eye are said about the “theft”. And against this background at the same time, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation appeals to the Constitutional Court for the impossibility of enforcing the decision of the ECHR in the Yukos case on the payment of compensation to 1.9 billion euros (for the recovery of tax fines retroactively), but the Constitutional Court of the “embezzlement of oil” does not report anything. In January 2017, the KS decides not to “pay” these 1.9 billion euros, while knowing that there is a decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court, who upheld the sentence about the “theft of oil” ...

“Schizophrenia is in law,” as the former head of the Menatep MFIs Platon Lebedev claimed in his cassation appeal against the second sentence. His defense, together with the defense of Khodorkovsky, recently notified the Secretariat of the European Court about two more officially documented examples of the election position of the Russian government in the Yukos case (part 1, part 2).

Thus, the International Arbitration Court in Geneva, considering the claims to Russia by the Luxembourg company Yukos Capital SARL on the expropriation of its assets, in January 2017 issued a decision on jurisdiction, in which the plaintiff and the defendant converge in the fact that subsidiaries of Yukos NK carried out the production of oil and sold it to various trading companies of the group "Yukos". In the interim decision of the International Arbitration Court in Toronto dated March 2017, considering the claims to the Russian Federation of the Cyprus shareholder of the Yukos - Luxtona Limited, a quote from a statement to the court himself is given that from 1998 to 2003, Yukos's mining enterprises sold their oil to trading companies in Russia. ”

And not a word about theft again.

“All of the above convincingly confirms the position of the applicants (Khodorkovsky and Lebedev - ed. ) That the Government of the Russian Federation invariably received unscrupulous both in relation to the applicants and in relation to national and international courts and arbitration tribunals that considered them the decisions of the relevant disputes,” the lawyers of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev summarize them In his statement to the European Court.

What conclusions will eventually draw Strasbourg, who has already accumulated a lot of such examples in the framework of the complaint about the second sentence, will show in the near future.