Summary

...

2. Facts

In this case the court of appeal will take the following facts as a starting point. These facts result from the unchallenged statements of the parties or the (sufficiently) contested content of productions to which they refer in support of their statements.

2.1 Between 1999 and 2004 Stati c.s. acquired (indirectly) the shares in two Kazakh companies, Kazpolmunay LLP, KPM, and Tolkynneftegaz LLP, TNG. KPM held the exploitation rights for the Borankol oil field and TNG for the Tolkyn oil field and the Tabyl Block, all located in Kazakhstan. TNG was to build a liquified petroleum gas installation at the Borankol field, further: the LPG installation. In 2010, following a dispute between the parties, the exploitation rights for the oil fields were terminated.

2.2 Stati c.s. have instituted arbitration proceedings before an arbitral tribunal under the Rules of Arbitration of the Arbitration Institute attached to the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, further: the arbitral tribunal and the SCC respectively. Article 26(3) of the Energy Charter Treaty of 17 December 1994, hereinafter: the ECT, was the basis for such arbitration. The arbitral tribunal rendered an arbitral award on 19 December 2013, which was supplemented by an arbitral award dated 17 January 2014. In its award the arbitral tribunal ruled that Kazakhstan had violated its obligations under the ECT towards Stati c.s. and ordered Kazakhstan to pay Stati c.s. damages after deduction of debts, USD 497,685,101. The included damage in respect of the LPG installation was set at an amount of USD 199 million. No appeal is possible against the arbitral awards.

2.4 Kazakhstan applied to the competent court in Stockholm (SVEA Hovratt) for the arbitral awards to be set aside. This Swedish court rejected Kazakhstan's claim by order of 9 December 2016. Kazakhstan lodged an extraordinary appeal against the award of the Swedish court (seeking the setting aside of the arbitral awards for gross procedural error), which was rejected by the Swedish Supreme Court by judgment of 24 October 2017. No further appeal has been lodged against the award dismissing the application for setting aside'.

...