Summary

1. The course of the appellate proceedings

In a writ of summons dated 2 February 2018, Samruk lodged an appeal against a judgment by the court in preliminary relief proceedings in the District Court of Amsterdam dated 5 January 2018, rendered in this case under the above-mentioned case number/role number between Samruk as plaintiff and Stati et al. as defendants.

Samruk, Kazakhstan and Stati et al. then submitted the following documents:
- statement of appeal on behalf of Samruk, with productions;
- motion for the joinder of parties on behalf of Kazakhstan;
- defense on appeal on behalf of Stati et al., with exhibits.

Samruk, Kazakhstan and Stati et al. pleaded their case at the hearing on March 13, 2019, with Samruk represented by their aforementioned attorney and by J. van den Brande, attorney at law in Amsterdam, Kazakhstan by its aforementioned attorney, and Stati et al. by their aforementioned attorney, as well as by B.F. Assink, attorney based in Amsterdam, all with memoranda of oral pleading which they have submitted to the proceedings. Kazakhstan and Stati et al. have also been granted permission to submit further exhibits to the court.

Finally, a judgment has been requested.

Samruk has concluded, in short, that the court of appeals should, by provisionally enforceable judgment, set aside the judgment against which the appeal has been lodged and should primarily lift the attachment of the shares in the capital of KMG Kashagan B.V., or alternatively order Stati et al. - subject to the payment of a penalty - to lift the attachment against Samruk (or to have it lifted), with a decision on the costs of the proceedings, including subsequent costs and statutory interest.

Kazakhstan has petitioned for the judgment it has lodged an appeal against to be set aside, together with an order as to costs.

Stati et al. have concluded, in short, that the court of appeals should primarily uphold the judgment against which the appeal has been lodged, or alternatively in the event that the court of appeals should lift the attachment or cause it to be lifted - shall declare the judgment to be rendered provisionally unenforceable, or at least make it subject to the condition that Samruk should provide security up to the amount for which the permission to impose the attachment was granted (the order by the court in preliminary relief proceedings of the District Court of Amsterdam dated 8 September 2017), with a decision on the costs of the proceedings, including subsequent costs and statutory interest.

...