The Supreme Court of Great Britain made a decision in favor of Ukraine in the case of a $3 billion bond loan. This review was initiated by the Russian Federation.
This was reported in the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine.
Judge Blair recognized the strong position of the defense of Ukraine regarding coercion and threats of force against Russia, which Russia used back in 2013 to force Ukraine to release these Eurobonds. Now the Kremlin must disclose all information regarding the actions against Ukraine in an open court hearing.
This decision allows Ukraine to claim that the bonds sold in 2013 during Yanukovychʼs rule were part of an illegal political and military aggression by Moscow.
The judge stated that Russiaʼs threats to use force in 2013 should be seen in the context of the actual use of force in 2014.
At this stage, the British Supreme Court did not take into account the facts of Russiaʼs illegal war against Ukraine, since the appeal was considered before the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine — in February 2022, but Judge Blair noted that the further behavior of the Russian Federation cannot be ignored. Until the final decision of the court, Ukraine is not obliged to pay the debt.
- In 2013, Ukraine received a $3 billion Russian loan after Viktor Yanukovychʼs trip to Moscow. After the escape of Yanukovych, the annexation of Crimea and the start of the war in Donbass in 2015, Russia filed a lawsuit against Ukraine for the collection of debts due to Eurobonds.
- In March 2017, the court approved the accelerated consideration of the said lawsuit, effectively rejecting Ukraineʼs main objections. Ukraine was ordered to pay Russia the face value of Eurobonds in the amount of $3 billion, the amount of the unfulfilled coupon payment in the amount of $75 million, penalty interest — $674 thousand for each day of delay, as well as part of the costs within the scope of the review. Ukraine filed an appeal.
- The Court of Appeal confirmed the legality of Ukraineʼs refusal to consider three of the four reasons it stated in order to avoid fulfilling its obligations under these Eurobonds. At the same time, the court stated that the fourth argument that the issue of Eurobonds was made under pressure from Russia cannot be rejected without a comprehensive trial. Both parties appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.