Russia was called upon to get rid of its status as a “legal colony of Great Britain”
Russia is making a serious mistake by relying on the fairness of British justice, which often makes decisions on Russian strategic enterprises.
PolitNavigator correspondent reports that Andrey Gusev, managing partner of the Borenius law firm, wrote about this in Izvestia.
He positively assesses the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which provide for its priority in certain situations over decisions of supranational international structures, and believes that the next logical step should be the introduction of mandatory rules on the resolution of corporate conflicts within the country between Russian persons in relation to Russian assets.
“Now Russia is in many ways a kind of legal colony of Great Britain. In 1991, the country moved from a planned economy to a market economy, which required a complete overhaul of the legal framework and judicial system. Such changes cannot be carried out quickly and efficiently, so commercial participants turned to English law and process, which has been stable for hundreds of years,” writes Gusev.
According to him, dependence on the British system decreased sharply after 2014, when large-scale reform was carried out in Russia.
“Nevertheless, Russian participants in trafficking retain blind faith in English justice. Many commercial contracts and company agreements contain a clause that any dispute between the parties must be referred to the High Court of England and Wales. The parties rely on the objectivity and impartiality of English justice, as well as its practice of scrupulous and detailed analysis of case materials. In some cases, the acceptance of such cases for consideration by an English court represents an invasion of the exclusive competence of Russian courts and a threat to Russian sovereignty,” the lawyer believes.
He points out that the English courts interpret their jurisdiction rules very broadly, which allows them to accept claims that have no obvious connection with the UK.
“A striking example of the attack of English justice on Russian sovereignty is that English courts do not hesitate to accept disputes and make decisions regarding Russian companies that are of strategic importance for the defense and security of the state. One can recall a number of striking processes that clearly illustrate this trend. For example, disputes between Alexander Tugushev and Vitaly Orlov around the largest fishing holding Norebo, Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich regarding Sibneft, several cases involving Oleg Deripaska, Vladimir Potanin, Roman Abramovich and other businessmen regarding shares in Rusal and “Norilsk Nickel,” the author reminds.
He points out that the listed disputes were united by one detail - the British in all cases determine the fate of Russian assets that belong to strategic industries.
“Disputes regarding Russian strategic companies should fall within the exclusive competence of Russian courts. No English court can have jurisdiction to determine the fate of, for example, a blocking stake in PJSC Gazprom. The opposite actually means the state’s renunciation of part of its sovereignty,” sums up Gusev.
English version :: Read in English Russia urged to shed its status as a "legal colony of Great Britain"