Njsc Naftogaz of Ukraine v. Russian Federation

At a glance

Parties

NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine and other Ukrainian companies (petitioners) v. the Russian Federation (respondent)

Case no.

Civil Action No. 23-1828 (JDB), United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Forum and rules

Petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention; sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)

Treaty

Russia–Ukraine BIT

Court

United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Judge John D. Bates

Underlying award(s)

Partial Award on jurisdiction and liability; Final Award of April 2023

Sector

Oil and gas (natural gas production, transportation and distribution in Crimea)

Outcome

Russia's renewed motion to stay was denied (17 July 2026). The stay was lifted and Russia's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was revived.

Amount

Final Award: over $4.2 billion in compensation.

The dispute

The petitioners are Ukrainian oil and gas companies. They were the largest operators in natural gas production, transportation and distribution in Crimea. After Russia took control of Crimea in 2014, they began arbitration in 2016 under the Russia–Ukraine BIT, claiming compensation for the expropriation of their investments. The tribunal issued a Partial Award on jurisdiction and liability and, in April 2023, a Final Award of over $4.2 billion. In June 2023 the petitioners asked the District Court to confirm the Final Award under the New York Convention. Russia moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA and later sought to renew a stay pending its set-aside action in The Hague Court of Appeal and two certiorari petitions in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Key holdings

1. The pending set-aside proceedings in The Hague Court of Appeal do not justify a stay. Under D.C. Circuit precedent, the validity of an award is a merits question. It has no bearing on the court's jurisdiction under the FSIA, which is the only issue now before the court. pp. 7–8
2. Russia's claim that the litigation may become moot is speculation and is not enough for a stay. The jurisdictional motion is already briefed, so deciding it involves no outsized use of judicial resources. Deciding jurisdiction also creates no imminent prospect of confirming or executing the award. pp. 8–9
3. The timing of the Dutch proceedings weighs against a stay. The arbitration began a decade ago, the Hague Court may extend its deadline, and Russia may appeal again to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. Waiting would contravene judicial economy and the first two Europcar factors. pp. 9–10
4. The request for a stay based on the certiorari petitions in Stabil and Blasket is moot. The U.S. Supreme Court denied both petitions on 29 June 2026, leaving NextEra in place: the scope of an arbitration agreement is a merits question, not a jurisdictional one. p. 10
5. The balance of hardships favours the petitioners. Russia showed no clear case of hardship, since further briefing is not an onerous burden. Further delay would harm the petitioners' ability to recover at all, given other creditors' confirmation actions against Russia and sanctions on Russia. pp. 11–14
6. The motion to stay is denied and the stay is lifted. The motion to dismiss is revived. Russia may file any supplement by 7 August 2026 and the petitioners by 21 August 2026. p. 14, Order

Procedural history

1. 2016The petitioners began arbitration against Russia under the Russia–Ukraine BIT over the 2014 expropriation of their Crimean investments.
2. Not statedPartial Award on jurisdiction and liability. On Russia's application, the Hague Court annulled it in part, limiting jurisdiction to investments made on or after 1 January 1992. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands dismissed Russia's appeal.
3. April 2023Final Award: all investments found to have been made after 1992; over $4.2 billion awarded. Russia then brought a set-aside action against the Final Award in the Hague Court.
4. June 2023Petition to confirm the Final Award filed in the District Court. Russia later moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA.
5. Not statedOn the parties' joint request, the court stayed the action until 1 April 2026.
6. 29 June 2026The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Russian Federation v. Stabil LLC and Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Investments.
7. 17 July 2026Memorandum Opinion and Order: Russia's renewed motion to stay denied, the stay lifted and the motion to dismiss revived.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• John D. Bates Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Naftogaz
• Crimea
• expropriation
• Russia–Ukraine BIT
• New York Convention
• FSIA arbitration exception
• sovereign immunity
• stay of enforcement
• set-aside
• Hague Court of Appeal
• Europcar factors
• enforcement
• confirmation of award
• natural gas
• NextEra
• Stabil
• certiorari
• oil and gas

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.