Despre afacerea Yukos. "Russia and Putin's regime could not be two more different things." Oare?
Aceste cuvinte au fost rostite zilele acestea de Khodorkovsky, celebrul magnat rus (bagat in puscarie de Putin), fondatorul companiei Yukos, preluata ulterior de „stat”, printr-o schema extrem de dubioasa. Interviul cu magnatul rus il puteti citi aici.
E vorba de celebrul caz Yukos, in care atat PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) de la Haga, cat si ECtHR (European Court of Human Rights) de la Strasbourg s-au pronuntat de curand, Rusia fiind sanctionata cu 50 miliarde de dolari, respectiv 1, 8 mld euro.
Iata ce zice EctHR:
„Judgment on the question of just satisfaction in the Yukos v. Russia case
The Court held, by a majority:
that Russia was to pay the shareholders of Yukos as they had stood at the time of the company’s
liquidation and, if applicable, their legal successors and heirs 1,866,104,634 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage; and,
that Russia had to produce, in co-operation with the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers,
within six months from the date on which the judgment became final, a comprehensive plan for
distribution of the award of just satisfaction.
The Court further held, by a majority, that Russia was to pay EUR 300,000 in respect of costs and
expenses to the Yukos International Foundation.
The Court also held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Yukos”
Sa mai notam ca tot acum, iulie 2014, ECtHR decide :
„Unlawful arrest and detention of opposition leader following
political demonstration
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Nemtsov v. Russia (application no. 1774/11), which is
not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on
Human Rights;
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial);
a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security);
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment); and,
a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 3.
The case concerned the arrest and detention of Boris Nemtsov, a well-known opposition leader,
following his participation in a political demonstration, and his subsequent conviction for an
administrative offence.
The Court found in particular that the interference with Mr Nemtsov’s right to freedom of assembly
had been arbitrary and that the proceedings against him had the serious potential to deter others
from participating in demonstrations and open political debate.”
„The Court held that Russia was to pay Mr Nemtsov 26,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 2,500 in respect of costs and expenses.”
Desi discutam de o alta speta, avem de-a face tot cu un abuz al Rusiei. Rusia lui Putin, vinovata atat in cazul Yukos cat si in cazul Nemtsov.
Revenind la Yukos,In cazul judecat la PCA discutam de trei „reclamantii”:
Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation
Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation
Decizia Curtii este in favoarea lor, astfel:
„XIV. DECISION
1888. For the reasons set forth above, the Tribunal unanimously:
(a) DISMISSES the objections to jurisdiction and/or admissibility, based on
Article 21 of the Energy Charter Treaty;
(b) DISMISSES the objections to jurisdiction and/or admissibility, pertaining to
Respondent’s contentions concerning “unclean hands” and “illegal and bad faith
conduct”;
(c) DISMISSES the renewed objections to jurisdiction and/or admissibility based on
Article 26(3)(b)(i) of the Energy Charter Treaty;
(d) HOLDS that the present dispute is admissible and within the Tribunal’s
jurisdiction;
(e) DECLARES that Respondent has breached its obligations under Article 13(1) of
the Energy Charter Treaty;
(f) ORDERS Respondent to pay to Claimant Hulley Enterprises Limited damages in
the amount of USD 39,971,834,360;
(g) ORDERS Respondent to pay the amount of EUR 3,388,197 to Claimant Hulley
Enterprises Limited as reimbursement for the costs of the arbitration;
(h) ORDERS Respondent to pay the amount of USD 47,946,190 to Claimant Hulley
Enterprises Limited for a portion of the costs of its legal representation and
assistance in the arbitration proceedings; and
(i) ORDERS Respondent to pay to Claimant Hulley Enterprises Limited, if within
180 days of the issuance of this Award Respondent fails to pay in full the amounts
set forth in paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) above, post-award interest on any
outstanding amount starting from 15 January 2015, compounded annually.
Post-award interest shall be determined as the yield on 10-year U.S. treasury bonds
as of 15 January 2015 and then the dates of compounding yearly thereafter”
Cazurile au fost judecate de acelasi complet de judecatori:
“By agreement of the parties, the cases were heard together before identical arbitral tribunals. The arbitral tribunals were composed of The Hon. L. Yves Fortier PC CC OQ QC of Canada (as Chairman), Dr. Charles Poncet of Switzerland, and Judge Stephen M. Schwebel of the United States of America.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration served as registry.
In the Final Awards, the arbitral tribunals unanimously held that the Russian Federation had taken measures with the effect equivalent to an expropriation of Claimants’ investments in Yukos and thus had breached Article 13(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty. As a result, the Russian Federation was ordered to pay damages to compensate Claimants. At the same time, the arbitral tribunals found some contributory fault on behalf of Claimants, leading them to reduce the amount of damages awarded.”
http://www.pca-cpa.org/shownews.asp?nws_id=440&pag_id=1261∾=view
Sa notam ca decizia a fost luata in unanimitate, dupa 1o ani de analiza pe caz, mii de documnete studiate, de trei judecatori alesi, unul de reclamant, altul de reclamat si al 3-lea de primii doi numiti si agreat de PCA.
Speculatiile cum ca decizia (PCA avand sediul la Haga) ar avea vreo legatura cu evenumentele nefericite din Ucraina, inclusiv cu doborarea avionului civil, cu foarte multi morti din Olanda, nu-si au rostul, procesul a inceput in 2004, acum 10 ani, si era din ce in ce mai clar ca Rusia va pierde. De altfel Khodorkovsky remarca, pe buna dreptate, retragera Rusiei din Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) in 2009
„By 2009, 5 years of the arbitral proceedings, after it had become clear that the defendant’s situation was nothing like what it had thought it to be, the authorities announced withdrawal from the Energy Charter. They already understood back in 2009 that they had lost the case, long before the current conflict. For a few more years they remained active, but brutal sabotage didn’t start until about a year ago.”
„On 20 August 2009 the Russian Federation has officially informed the Depository that it did not intend to become a Contracting Party to the Energy Charter Treaty and the Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects. In accordance with Article 45(3(a)) of the Energy Charter Treaty, such notification results in Russia’s termination of its provisional application of the ECT and the PEEREA upon expiration of 60 calendar days from the date on which the notification is received by the Depository.”
http://www.encharter.org/index.php?id=414&L=0L%EF%BF%BD0%EF%BF%BD41#c1338
OK, am putea spune ca nici alti mari producatori de petrol nu sunt membri – SUA, Arabia Saudita, Kuweit, Venezuela, Iran etc, avand statut de observatori invitati , Tratatul fiind, in fond,o inventie europeana.
The Energy Charter Treaty and the Energy Charter Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects were signed in December 1994 and entered into legal force in April 1998. To date, the Treaty has been signed or acceded to by fifty-two states, the European Community and Euratom (the total number of its members is therefore fifty-four).
The Treaty was developed on the basis of the 1991 Energy Charter. Whereas the latter document was drawn up as a declaration of political intent to promote energy cooperation, the Energy Charter Treaty is a legally-binding multilateral instrument.
The fundamental aim of the Energy Charter Treaty is to strengthen the rule of law on energy issues, by creating a level playing field of rules to be observed by all participating governments, thereby mitigating risks associated with energy-related investment and trade.”
Dar pana la urma Rusia a “aplicat” din 17 decembrie 1994 pana in 18 octombrie 2009, in perioada cu pricina (2003-2004) fiind membru.
Ce efect va avea decizia PCA? Probabil ca Rusia o va ataca, lungind cu inca 10 ani tarasenia:
“Russia is expected to appeal, and Yukos’ former chief legal counselor Dmitry Gololobov was quoted by Bloomberg as saying the country could hire the best international lawyers, which would extend “the affair” by another ten years. –
Poate ca ar fi util sa ne amintim cronologia desfasurarii „afacerii” Yukos:
– aprilie 1993 – ia nastere Yukos,in urma unui decret prezidential din 1992, care pregatea, prin infiintarea de companii mai mici, privatizarea sectorului petrolier detinut de stat. Un moment foarte bun sa-ti tragi o bucata mare de cascaval. Pentru oligarhi, evident. Legal.
– decembrie 1995- Menatep, un grup financiar bancar, al carui co-fondator este Khodorkovsky, cumpara pachetul majoritar, 78%, in valoare de 5 miliarde cu doar…310 milioane USD. Khodorkovsky devine CEO, evident. Cat se poate de legal. Cam ca la noi, cu legi dedicate.
Sa ne amintim acea perioada, lipsa acuta de bani a guvernelor (s-a profitat la maxim, aruncand praf in ochi cu „privatizarea” care aduce bani la buget, da..dar extrem de putini), multe companii de stat din sectoare vitale , dar prost administrate de stat, scoase la vanzare , o evolutie similara am avut si in Romania, Ucraina. Un chilipir pentru cei „conectati”, dar si cu capital de cheltuit. Sectorul petrolier era perla coroanei.
In paranteza fie spus se putea si fara nu stiu ce capital, Patriciu fiind cel mai bun exemplu. Imi aduce aminte de aerele de mare om de afaceri, aroganta lui cand spunea ca orice prost stie sa faca afaceri cand are bani, spilul este sa faci afaceri fara bani. Am vazut apoi cat de iscusit a fost, cu bani lui, cand si-a pierdut „conexiunile”.
– Khodorkovsky pune compania pe picioare, trece pe profit, ajungand sa extraga 20% din petrolul rusesc, sau 2% din petrolul mondial. Nu e de colea, nu? Viitorul era teoretic roz, urma sa aiba loc o fuziune cu Sibneft( a 5–a mare companie ruseasca din domeniul petrolier), rezultand o companie mamut, a 4-a ca marime in lume( dupa BP, Exxon si Shell). Cu un Khodorokvsky putred de bogat, 15 miliarde USD, locul 16 in lume
Devine insa o potentiala prada, cu atat mai mult cu cat „seful” ei era pro-occidental. Si probabil ca nu „cotiza” unde trebuie. Cu atat mai mult cu cat Putin, un fost colonel KGB-ist, vine la putere in 1999. Un Putin expert in manipularea si aburirea „maselor”, numai bun sa se ia de gat cu oligarhii, spre mumtumirea poporului, satul de saracia lucie a anilor `90. Putin, un fel de „statul sunt eu” sovietic.
– 2002 Yukos este cotata ca fiind in top ten companii, dupa capitalizare, la nivel mondial.
– 2003, compania are peste 100.000 de angajati, 6 rafinarii si o valoare de piata de cca 33 miliarde USD.
– iulie 2013-Rusia incepe o „investigatie criminala” privitor la actiunile Yukos, hartuirea companiei, inclusiv amenintarea cu retragerea licentelor de exploatare.
– iulie-octombrie- sunt arestati doi „grei” ai companiei: Lebedev, condamnat la noua ani inchisoare in 2005 si Vasily Shakhovsky.
– octombrie 2003-Khodorkovsky este arestat, sub acuzatia de frauda si evaziune fiscala. Este condamnat la noua ani inchisoare in 2005. Alti executivi fug din tara, de frica. Printre ei si Leonid Nevzlin, membru in boardul Yukos.
– aprilie 2004- i se imputa 27 de miliarde USD, mult mai mult ca averea intreaga detinuta de el, si mai mult ca incasarile companiei din 2002 si 2003. Avocatilor li se pun la dispozitie cele 342 de dosare care argumenteaza frauda cu doar cateva ore inainte de proces.
– iulie 2004- Yuganskneftegaz, compania de baza a grupului , evaluata la cca 20 miliarde este confiscata de stat. Care refuza toate variantele propuse de Yukos, intentia vadita fiind aceea de a falimenta compania, si nu de a recupera „datoria”.
– decembrie 2004- Yuganskneftegaz este vanduta pe 9,5 milarde USD unei companii fantoma, infiintata cu cateva zile inainte de „licitatie”, evident una cu usile inchise. Comapnia fantoma, castigatoarea „licitatiei” se numea Baikalfinansgrup si era finantata de…compania de stat ruseasca Rosneft. Altfel spus statul confisca o propretate si si-o vinde apoi tot lui. Au ales 9,5 miliarde USD nu in urma unor calcule savante, valoarea activului net, sa zicem, ci pentru ca era mai putin ca datoria Yukos catre stat, putea fi oricat, atunci cand esti si vanzator si cumparator, in acelasi timp.
– noiembrie 2004- trei companii membre ale Yukos, inmaneaza presedintelui Putin o notificare privind incalcarea ECT, solicitand rezolvarea amiabila a disputei, conform art 26 (1) adin ECT.
– februarie 2005- trecand cele 3 luni de raspuns privind rezolvarea amiabila, conform art 26 (2) din ECT cele trei companii (Hulley,YUL si VPL, companii inregistrate in Cipru si Isle of Man, asa cum ii sta bine unui actionar rus care se respecta ) detinad pachetul de conrtol la OAO Yukos Oil Company (Yukos) astfel: 56.3% Hulley, YUL 2,6% si VPL 11.6% actioneaza solictand arbitrajul PCA si daune de 114 miliarde USD
Incepe procesul care va dura 10 ani, mii e pagini de dovezi si stenograme ale dezbaterilor. Costurile sunt de ordinul a zeci de milioane de dolari.
Citeste intreg articolul si comenteaza pe Contributors.ro
INTERVIURILE HotNews.ro