You're reading: Russia refuses to pay $1.3 billion to Oschadbank in lost court case over Crimean assets (UPDATED)

Russia does not recognize the decision of the International Court of Arbitration in Paris as the court ruled in favor of Ukraine’s second largest state-owned bank, Oschadbank, on Nov. 26.

“The Russian Federation does not recognize the decision due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Arbitration over Oschadbank’s claim,” Russia’s Justice Ministry press service replied to Interfax news agency on Nov. 27.

Russia now has to pay $1.3 billion plus interest in compensation for the loss of the bank’s assets due to Russia’s illegal actions when it invaded and started to occupy the Ukrainian peninsula, the press release reads.

“(Oschadbank) urges other Ukrainian companies, both state-owned and private, to appeal to international arbitration in order to restore justice and to force the occupier to respond at least to Ukraine’s economic losses as a result of robbing our country,” said Andriy Pyshnyy, chairman of the management board at Oschadbank.

This is the first victory of a Ukrainian state enterprise in a case against Russia for losses incurred resulting from the occupation of Crimea by Russia.

The hearing of the bank’s 30,000-page case against Russia took place on March 27, 2017. Representatives of the occupying country refused to participate in the hearings, as the Kyiv Post reported previously.

“Based on this decision, Oschadbank received full approval of all claims against Russia regarding the seizure of the bank’s business and assets in Crimea,” said Alex Gerbi, a lawyer at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a U.S.-based law firm.

Back in 2014, Oschadbank, together with PrivatBank, which back then was privately owned by Ukrainian oligarchs Ihor Kolomoisky and Hennadiy Boholyubov, had the most extensive network of bank branches in Crimea. Four years ago, the two Ukrainian banks operated over 1,000 branches in Crimea, with assets worth some Hr 20 billion, or $1.2 billion.

“Our example shows that attempts to force the aggressor country to legally answer for the damage caused by the occupation of parts of Ukraine’s territory can have good prospects,” said Pyshnyy.