We propose to reduce the amount of debtors' obligations to the Russian Federation on a legal basis by using the instrument of offsetting counterclaims with a substantial discount.
The right of claim, duly recorded by a court decision, becomes the subject of an assignment agreement, i.e. the transfer of the right of claim with the possibility of further offsetting mutual homogeneous claims
1 The charity program is aimed at buying back the claims of Ukrainian citizens against the Russian Federation (secondary claims) for 100% of their value, providing them with free legal aid, and directing the funds received from the sale of the secondary claims obtained in this way to the same purpose.
which arises as compensation for property lost as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, according to the relevant decisions of Ukrainian courts, through the acquisition of the right to claim such debt from them at a discount by entering into a relevant assignment agreement.
In any scenario, the list of circumstances that the Russian side can refer to is quite limited, and each potential argument has reasonable counterarguments that make it impossible for Russia to succeed.
| Arguments of the russian federation | Our counterarguments |
| The existence of judicial immunity in the russian federation. | An aggressor state that has violated the sovereignty of another country and committed a military attack does not have the immunity guaranteed to it in court, which corresponds to parts 1 and 3 of Article 42 of the Convention on Legal Assistance in Matters of Damage of 22.01.1993. Details |
| Inconsistency between the debtor under the court decision (the state of the rf) and the debtor in the course of the recovery (state authorities of the rf). | According to the practice of international investment arbitration (the Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal), the state and state bodies are identical concepts, since state-owned companies and financial institutions are under the decisive control of the state to the extent that they are its "alter ego" and their property is managed by the state as its own. Details |
| Heterogeneity of counterclaims due to the difference between the currency of recovery under the court decision and the currency in the agreement (contract) with the rf, in which the set-off will take place. | Homogeneity implies a single legal nature of the subject matter of transactions between the parties, and accordingly, monetary liabilities, regardless of currency, are inherently homogeneous. There is a well-established case law in the courts of the United Kingdom. Details |
| Disagreement with the decision of the Ukrainian court on the merits. | The absence of judicial immunity of the russian federation, recognized in clause 1 of this list, inevitably leaves the only way for the aggressor state to appeal and/or cassation in Ukraine. |
| Arguments regarding the violation of the process of consideration and decision-making by the Ukrainian court. | The trial in the Russian Federation was conducted in compliance with all international norms and standards of justice: ensuring the defendant's access to justice and the right to defense; Procedural deadlines and reasonable timeframes for decision-making were met; Procedural documents were sent to the defendant in advance with a translation into Russian, and an interpreter was provided to attend court hearings, thus ensuring the right to understand the essence of the trial; Timely sending of the judgment to the defendant, which ensured the right to appeal the judgment, etc. Details |
| Futility of appealing a court decision. | Establishing the fact of damage caused by the military aggression of the Russian Federation at the highest international level and proving the causal relationship between this with proper evidence in compliance with all norms and standards in the competitive process reduces to zero the aggressor's prospects for reversal or even minor changes in the court decision. |
Consider other options for cooperation!