In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Gazprom International v DTEK Krymenergo (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:181)</span>, decided on 24 February 2026, the Court of Appeal of The Hague (“<span class="news-text_medium">COA</span>”) dismissed an appeal by Gazprom International (“<span class="news-text_medium">Gazprom</span>”) against the refusal to lift a conservatory attachment over its 50% shareholding in Wintershall Noordzee BV, a joint venture with German company Wintershall Dea that operates offshore fields in the North Sea. The attachment had been levied by DTEK Krymenergo (“<span class="news-text_medium">DTEK</span>”), a Ukrainian energy company, in its efforts to enforce a USD 300 million investment treaty award against the Russian Federation.
DTEK had levied the attachment in 2025 on the basis that Gazprom could be equated with the Russian Federation itself, or alternatively that Gazprom was abusing the right to invoke its separate legal personality or indeed both. In September 2025, the District Court of The Hague rejected Gazprom's first application to lift the attachment. Gazprom appealed that decision, but the COA dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
On the question of DTEK's right of recourse against the attached shares, the COA found that this right was sufficiently plausible, considering it at least conceivable under the applicable Russian law that Gazprom had been abusing its separate legal personality. The COA reserved its definitive assessment of this issue for the substantive proceedings on the merits. Turning to the Russian Federation's claim to immunity from execution, the COA ruled that DTEK had furnished sufficient material to establish that the attached shares were specifically used, or intended to be used, for purposes other than public or governmental purposes, within the meaning of Article 19(c) of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property</span> (the “<span class="news-text_medium">UN Convention</span>”).
In reaching this conclusion, the COA noted that the assets in question belonged to commercial companies whose sole statutory purpose is to generate profit through the Wintershall project. The COA equally dismissed Gazprom's broader contention that all assets ultimately belonging to the Russian Federation serve a public purpose and should accordingly attract immunity from execution. The COA observed that accepting such an argument would render enforcement measures against foreign states virtually impossible in all circumstances beyond those specifically contemplated by Articles 19(a) and 19(b) of the UN Convention, thereby stripping Article 19(c) of any practical meaning.
Furthermore, the COA held that immunity from execution must in any event be refused on account of Russia's violation of jus cogens, a peremptory norm of international law admitting no derogation. In support of this conclusion, the Court cited the United Nations General Assembly's characterisation of Russia's actions in Ukraine as acts of aggression, as well as the International Court of Justice's orders requiring Russia to withdraw from Ukraine.
The COA accordingly dismissed the appeal in full, affirming the judgment of the District Court, with the result that the attachment over Gazprom's shares remains in place. The decision confirms that creditors retain the right to seek recovery of compensation owed to them, including where such compensation arises from investment treaty breaches committed by a foreign state.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case Reference:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Gazprom International v DTEK Krymenergo (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:181)</span> (Hague Court of Appeal, 24 February 2026)
