Examples of Yukos Capital in a sentence
It appears that a company Glendale Group Limited and Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. contested the decision of 12 November 2007 before the Appeal Court.
The appeal of Glendale Group was declared inadmissible for the failure to submit it on time, whilst the appeal of Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. has been accepted for examination.
That means, if the reported demand by an unnamed Belgian minister to “push back or sink” migrant boats in the Aegean is activated, the hands of every citizen of the EU will be metaphorically on the tiller of the ship that does it.
Investigation of such matters was not precluded by the act of state principle ( Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co (No 2) [2012] EWCA Civ 855, [2014] QB 458).
On the Yukos Capital ‘silhouette’ non-definition see text to n 137 above.
When, in Berezovsky (n 119) 2320 [97], Longmore LJ states that ‘I cannot think that any question of act of state can arise’ that should, in the context of the judgment as a whole, be read as an indication that the act of state doctrine was not applicable on Kirkpatrick grounds because facts rather than validity were at issue and not, as Yukos Capital maintains, that ‘the act of state doctrine was not involved’.
They rest rather on the power of the enforcing court under the New York Convention, article VII(1), to apply lawswhich are more generous to enforcement than the rules in the New York Convention: see Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2009), pp 2677- 2680; Gaillard, “Enforcement of Awards Set Aside in the Country of Origin” (1999) 14 ICSID Rev 16; and Yukos Capital SARL v OAO Rosneft, 28 April 2009, Case No 200.005.269/01 Amsterdam Gerechtshof.
Whilst the decision in Khan can, therefore, be interpreted as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Rahmatullah judgment the fact / validity, collateral illegality interpretation of Rahmatullah is, of course, inconsistent with Yukos Capital.
The utopianism which I favour in calling for a Luther v Sagor / Kirkpatrick approach, however, involves what Jameson labels ‘the coordination of the ideological with the Utopian’.249Because judges are anxious that their decisions cannot resolve the ‘social contradiction’ between political and legal power they have developed the strategies of the Buttes Gas / Yukos Capital doctrine(s) to contain the contradiction by deferring to and prioritising the wishes of the politically powerful.
In Yukos Capital the attempt, in A Limited and Berezovsky, to abolish the Buttes Gas, Sabbatino-type ‘strategies of containment’ or ‘narrative apparatus’ was quashed because it threatened to deprive judges of the ability to manage the ‘social contradiction’ between political and legal power in cases involving foreign state acts and foreign policy considerations by deferring to the government’s wishes whilst concealing the fact that they have done so.