The Uniper International Commodities SE (Uniper) dispute highlights geopolitical and authorized dangers in risky markets. Uniper, as soon as Germany’s prime Russian gasoline importer, was nationalized after it confronted monetary chaos when Russia lower provides in 2022. Uniper then sought arbitration in opposition to Gazprom Export (Gazprom) to finish its contract and declare damages. Regardless of successful, a Russian courtroom shot again at Uniper with a $14 billion effective, elevating doubts about imposing arbitral awards in opposition to Russian state-owned entities, whether or not penalty judgments are enforceable exterior of Russia, and highlighting the chance of potential asset seizures, particularly for Uniper’s liquefied pure gasoline (LNG) vessels working world wide.
The Uniper case reveals how political tensions and sanctions can create unanticipated authorized dangers. Uniper ended its contracts with Gazprom after a Swedish arbitration tribunal awarded them €13 billion for undelivered gasoline. In return, a Russian courtroom (the Arbitrazh Court docket of St. Petersburg and Leningrad Area) countered with a €14 billion penalty, claiming overseas restrictions prevented Gazprom from getting access to justice, making the arbitration award unenforceable. The choice was based mostly on articles 248.1 and 248.2 of the Russian Arbitration Process Code, which permit Russian courts to assert unique jurisdiction over disputes involving Russian entities topic to overseas restrictive measures. Whereas the windfall of this a part of the Russian Arbitration Code could also be disputed, it’s definitely conceivable that involving sanctioned entities in an arbitration can impose sure obstacles—for instance, attorneys, arbitrators, or different counterparties might have to receive a particular license, equivalent to from an relevant authorities company, earlier than they could proceed with an arbitration involving a sanctioned entity. Within the Russian Arbitrazh Court docket, Gazprom argued that restrictive measures by overseas states rendered the arbitration settlement unenforceable, because it restricted the corporate’s entry to justice. The courtroom agreed with Gazprom and held that the restrictive measures imposed by overseas states certainly create limitations to justice for Russian entities, which justify the Russian Arbitrazh Court docket assuming jurisdiction of the dispute in arbitration. The imposition of such a penalty by a courtroom that Uniper didn’t conform to for resolving this dispute contradicts the specific phrases of the events’ settlement. Uniper might also contest the Russian Arbitrazh Court docket’s material jurisdiction over the dispute and its private jurisdiction over Uniper, and the applicability of the Russian Arbitration Process Code to the dispute between Uniper and Gazprom, amongst different points. Nonetheless, even when Uniper efficiently overcomes this ruling, imposing awards in opposition to state-linked entities like Gazprom to gather its damages could also be advanced. Within the meantime, Uniper is reportedly working, defensively, to guard its fleet of LNG tankers from seizure by nations pleasant to Russia. But, different firms have been profitable in navigating using arbitral awards in opposition to state-linked entities, together with Gazprom. As one instance, in November 2024, Austrian power firm OMV Fuel Advertising and marketing & Buying and selling GmbH (OMV) secured an arbitral award of greater than $230 million from the Worldwide Chamber of Commerce (ICC) on account of irregular gasoline provides from Gazprom to its German subsidiary. To implement this award, OMV offset the quantity in opposition to funds due underneath its Austrian gasoline provide contract with Gazprom. This self-enforcement technique successfully allowed OMV to recuperate the awarded sum with out initiating separate authorized proceedings. In fact, questions stay as as to whether Gazprom would problem such motion.
Story Continues
