Go to ...

The Newspapers

News from Russia

RSS Feed

Monday, October 24, 2016

The expert assessed the arguments of the Ukraine, which contested the claim on the debt of Russia

Ukraine unveiled in London’s High court their objections to the claim of the company The Law Debenture Trust Corporation PLC, representing the interests of the Russian Federation. We are talking about penalty in favor of debt in Russia $ 3 billion, formed due to the refusal of the square to fulfill its obligations under the loan received in December 2013, the result of an agreement between Putin and Yanukovych. Our expert, Deputy head of Department of Ukraine of Institute of the CIS countries Vladimir Zharihin has assessed the prospects for further proceedings.

photo: morguefile.com

According to the joint statement of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of foreign Affairs of Ukraine of the objections in favor of the fact that the contract on borrowing is not valid can be reduced to two points.

First, Ukraine allegedly took out a loan, breaking the “borrowing limits”, exept at the time, and she didn’t have the “necessary capacity”.

Secondly, according to the Ukrainian side, the loan agreement concluded under Russian pressure, because Russia didn’t want the square concluded with the EU Association agreement.

So, questions to Vladimir Jarigina.

– Vladimir Leonidovich, I would like to understand whether to act arguments of the Ukrainian side in English judges?

– I am not an international lawyer, but nevertheless feel that from the point of view of jurisprudence, these arguments are rather weak. Too politicized, insufficiently substantiated the facts of the case.

But on the other hand, in a situation when we are not talking about a dispute of economic entities, as a dispute between countries, even impartial English court sometimes as if one narrows his eyes. So I wouldn’t predict the outcome of the proceedings.

– That is, it will be determined by the political situation?

– Well, Yes. Preferences of the British government known, and to say that the English high court is absolutely going to be absolutely indifferent to these preferences, it would be unacceptable to liberal optimism.

– Well, what can you say about the first argument of Kiev – outside borrowings? Maybe there is still some homespun truth? Maybe indeed the then Ukrainian government, taking a loan, violated certain then existing rules?

– Even if they have violated some internal rules, this does not apply to relations between the two countries. It’s their own problem.

They made the loan, got the money and happily spent them. In addition, for some reason, earlier Ukrainian media reported nothing about this argument: until now, there appeared mostly politicized arguments. The impression that it was “rolled out” just now. Anyway, I’m on the violation of any of the rules governing borrowing limits, hear for the first time.

Related posts:
Why Russia has a problem with attracting investment from China
The US President explained why oil should rise in price
Ukrainian GTS is coming to a critical degree of wear
Clarify the scheme of the gas pipeline "Turkish stream": it will bypass the EU ban


More Stories From Economy