Kazakhstan will not enforce court decision on Naftogaz lawsuit against Gazprom

Kazakhstan will not enforce the decision of the court of the International Financial Center "Astana" (MFCA), which recognized the earlier decision of the international arbitration in Switzerland on the claim of Ukrainian Naftogaz against Russian Gazprom to recover $1.4 billion.

Minister of Justice of Kazakhstan Yerlan Sarsembayev stated that the case lacks connections with the jurisdiction of Astana.

"The Republic of Kazakhstan will not become a transit platform for the enforcement of decisions that have no legal connection with it. Thus, the legal mechanisms of the republic do not provide for the consideration of disputes not related to its jurisdiction," the minister clarified in an interview with Zakon.kz.

E. Sarsembayev noted that "the case lacks the basic elements of jurisdictional connection with the MFCA." In particular, "Gazprom is not a participant in the center, the disputed transaction was not concluded on the territory of the MFCA, and the dispute is not governed by the law of the MFCA."

At the same time, on May 21 the court of the International Financial Center "Astana" decided to recognize and enforce the decision of the International Arbitration, under which $1.4 billion was recovered from Gazprom in favor of Naftogaz, according to a document on the website of the instance. The dispute between Gazprom and Naftogaz concerns a five-year agreement from 2019. It provided for the transit of Russian gas to Europe through Ukrainian territory. In May 2022, Naftogaz declared force majeure, which does not allow gas supplies to Europe. Gazprom considered the justifications of the Ukrainian company insufficient to annul the contract.

Naftogaz filed a lawsuit in the International Arbitration in Zurich against the Russian company, accusing it of an amount of transit payment inconsistent with the contract. The plaintiff demanded compensation of $1.37 billion. The arbitration satisfied this claim. Gazprom attempted to challenge the decision in Switzerland, but the company was unsuccessful.

Source: Kommersant