![[2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
The ECJ Decision
The ECJ Decision
Given my findings above, I do not find that that the ECJ decision delivered in September 2023 takes matters any further. Mr Gutseriev claimed to have divested himself of the majority of his shares in Neftisa on 21 June 2021 and the judgment records that “first…he became a minority shareholder in certain companies holding Russneft and Neftisa…”, (although it does not record exactly when). It goes on to state “…he has not relinquished any financial gain as he may make therefrom, and second, he remained involved in the management of and even controlled those companies.” The judgment does not specifically address the position in November 2021. In reaching its findings, the judgment relied upon an updated document on the Safmar Group’s old website, which was archived on 21 August 2021 – see paragraph 16 of Mr Emilianou’s witness statement. It therefore does not appear to relate to a period after that.
- Heading
- Mr ANDREW HOCHHAUSER KC
- The Hearing, representation and the evidence
- The Expert Evidence
- The Relevant Factual Background
- The Issues
- The EPS Sanctions Clause
- The Claimant’s submissions on the proper construction of the EPS Sanctions Clause
- The Claimant’s submissions on “reasonable judgment” and the burden of proof
- The Claimant’s submissions on the evidence that can be considered when determining reasonableness of the Claimant’s decision
- The Defendant’s submissions on the proper construction of the EPS Sanctions Clause
- The Defendant’s submissions on sub-clause (C) of the EPS Sanctions Clause
- The Defendant’s submissions on “reasonable judgment” and the burden of proof
- The Defendant’s submissions on the evidence that can be considered when determining reasonableness of the Claimant’s decision
- Discussion and conclusion in relation to the proper construction of the EPS Sanctions Clause and burden of proof
- Discussion and conclusion on the evidence that can be considered when determining reasonableness of the Claimant’s decision
- On the facts did the Claimant satisfy the provisions of sub-clause (C) of the EPS Sanctions Clause i.e. did the Claimant make an objectively reasonable judgment that there was an exposure to sanctions
- EU Sanctions Laws
- The EU Regulations
- The EU Best Practices Guidance
- The UK Sanctions Laws
- The UK provisions in relation to control
- The case law on control
- The Evidence
- The letter on Neftisa headed paper dated 16 November 2021
- The Kommersant Newspaper article dated 22 July 2021
- The Three Legal Opinions drafted by Herbert Smith and Baker and McKenzie which the Defendant provided to the Claimant in November 2021 (the “Legal Opinions”)
- Discussion and conclusion in relation to whether the Claimant made an objectively reasonable judgment that there was an exposure to sanctions, in that the listed persons were subject to the risk of sa
- The ECJ Decision
- Conclusion on the Claimant’s Claim
- Is the Claimant’s Claim time barred?
- The Claimants’ submissions on the Time Bar Clause
- The Defendant’s submissions on the Time Bar Clause
- Conclusions