CL-2022-000456 - [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm)

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

COMMERCIAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building

Fetter Lane, London, WC4A 1NL

Before :

MR JUSTICE BRIGHT

Between :

Mr Justin Fenwick KC, Mr Tim Chelmick, Ms Marie-Claire O’Kane, Mr Emile Simpson, Ms Helena Spector (instructed by Vinson & Elkins RLLP) for the Claimants

Mr Richard Handyside KC, Mr James Duffy KC, Ms Natasha Bennett (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) for the First, Second and Third Defendants

Mr Neil Kitchener KC, Mr James Weale, Mr Robert Harris (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants

Mr Alan Maclean KC, Mr Tom Leary (instructed by McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP) for the Third Party

Hearing dates: 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25 June, 1, 2, 3 July 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30am on 31/07/25 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

.............................

Contents

PART A: INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES [1]-[22] 4

I: Overall introduction [1]-[10] 4

II: The Claimants [11]-[17] 5

III: The Banks and Tecnimont [18]-[20] 6

IV: The new Kingisepp plant [21]-[22] 6

PART B: THE BONDS AND EUROCHEM NW2’S DEMANDS [23]-[45] 7

V: The Bonds [23]-[28] 7

VI: Designation under Regulation 269 [29]-[33] 10

VII: Termination of the Contracts [34]-[37] 12

VIII: EuroChem NW2’s demands on the Bonds [38]-[40] 12

IX: Rejection of the demands [41]-[45] 12

PART C: THE ISSUES AND THE WITNESSES [46]-[98] 14

X: Outline of the main issues [46]-[58] 14

XI: The Claimants’ EuroChem AG witnesses [59]-[66] 15

XII: The Claimants’ EuroChem NW2 witness [67]-[73] 16

XIII: The Claimants’ Trust witnesses [74]-[94] 17

XIV: The Banks’ witnesses [95]-[98] 21

PART D: THE FACTS RE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL [99]-[211] 21

XV: The ownership structure before sanctions [99]-[109] 21

XVI: The ownership structure after sanctions [110]-[123] 22

XVII: Other group structural changes [124]-[144] 24

XVIII: Mr Melnichenko’s involvement before March 2022 [145]-[151] 27

XIX: The Claimants’ first pleading point [152]-[154] 28

XX: The date of the Deed of Retirement [155]-[165] 29

XXI: The role of Mrs Melnichenko [166]-[175] 30

XXII: Mr Melnichenko’s involvement after March 2022 (1) [176]-[187] 32

XXIII: The Claimants’ second pleading point [188]-[197] 34

XXIV: Mr Melnichenko’s involvement after March 2022 (2) [198]-[204] 35

XXV: The Assignment [205]-[211] 37

PART E: REGULATION 269 [212]-[305] 40

XXVI: The provisions of Regulation 269 [212]-[219] 40

XXVII: The supplementary EU materials [220]-[225] 41

XXVIII: Decisions of the CJEU [226]-[229] 42

XXIX: How to interpret Regulation 269 [230]-[240] 43

XXX: Article 2(1) [241]-[248] 48

XXXI: Article 2(2) [249]-[259] 48

XXXII: “Ownership” [260]-[278] 51

XXXIII: The Claimants’ third pleading point [279]-[282] 55

XXXIV: The MP Bank vPugachev point [283]-[293] 56

XXXV: “Control” [294]-[305] 58

PART F: THE NCAS [306]-[347] 61

XXXVI: The role of NCAs [306]-[311] 61

XXXVII: Firewalls and the NCAs [312]-[313] 64

XXXVIII: The French NCA: the DGT [314]-[326] 65

XXXIX: The Italian NCA: the CSF [327]-[332] 69

XL: The Swiss NCA: the SECO [333]-[337] 71

XLI: The Cypriot NCA: the SEOK [338]-[341] 71

XLII: The Dutch NCA: the BTI [342]-[347] 72

PART G: APPLYING REGULATION 269 [348]-[411] 74

XLIII: The burden of proof [348]-[359] 74

XLIV: Inferences [360]-[369] 76

XLV: Article 2(1) and the Bonds [370]-[378] 78

XLVI: The LIA v Maud point [379]-[399] 79

XLVII: Article 2(1) and the Assignment [400] 84

XLVIII: Article 2(2) and payment to EuroChem NW2 [401]-[403] 85

XLIX: Article 2(2) and payment to EuroChem AG [404]-[408] 85

L: The pending applications to the DGT and the CSF [409]-[411] 85

PART H: REGULATION 833 [412]-[473] 86

LI: Article 11 of Regulation 833 [412]-[415] 86

LII: Are the claims “in connection with” the Contracts? [416]-[429] 87

LIII: Are the claims by or on behalf of a Russian entity? [430]-[433] 91

LIV: Conclusion on Regulation 833 [434]-[435] 91

PART I: THE RULE IN RALLI BROTHERS [436]-[473] 91

LV: Would payment be illegal in France/Italy? [436]-[437] 91

LVI: The rule in Ralli Brothers [438]-[440] 92

LVII: The place of performance under the Bonds [441]-[461] 93

LVIII: Licence applications and Article 7 [462]-[465] 96

LIX: Public policy [466]-[470] 97

LX: Implied term [471]-[472] 98

LXI: Conclusion on the rule in Ralli Brothers [473] 99

PART J: OTHER ARGUMENTS [474]-[494] 99

LXII: Article 11 of Regulation 269 [474]-[475] 99

LXIII: The Bonds’ expiry dates [476]-[478] 99

LXIV: Validity of the Assignment [479]-[482] 100

LXV: The Assignment and Article 9 [483]-[486] 100

LXVI: The sanctioned Russian banks [487]-[491] 101

LXVII: ING’s Part 20 claim against Tecnimont [492]-[494] 102

PART K: CONCLUSION [495]-[514] 102

LXVIII: Overall conclusion and outcome [495]-[497] 102

LXIX: Coda: the Claimants’ disclosure [498]-[514] 103

Judgment Appendix 1 107

Judgment Appendix 2 108