In a decision dated 1 July 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal, ruling on an appeal following a decision by the French Supreme Court, dismissed the Russian Federation’s appeal for annulment of an arbitral award in favor of the Ukrainian bank Oschadbank.
This award, handed down under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, had ordered Russia to pay more than $1 billion in compensation for the alleged expropriation of the bank’s assets in Crimea. The Russian Federation challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, in particular with regard to the timing of the investments covered by the 1998 Russia-Ukraine bilateral investment treaty (BIT).
The French Supreme Court had already pointed out, in a decision dated 7 December 2022, that neither the arbitration offer in Article 9 of the BIT nor the definition of investment in Article 1 of the same BIT provided for any temporal restriction. It had ruled that the temporal application clause (Article 12) was a purely substantive provision and did not govern consent to arbitration nor, therefore, the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
In accordance with this approach, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the temporal jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal must be assessed solely in relation to the date on which the dispute arose, which in this case was after the BIT came into force. It also dismissed the other arguments raised by Russia (lack of jurisdiction ratione loci and ratione materiae, infringement of international public policy, failure of the arbitrators to fulfill their duties, and doubts about their independence).
This ruling is a significant step forward in the Oschadbank v. Russia saga. From a doctrinal standpoint, it merely restates the now well-established principle according to which the arbitration offer contained in a BIT must be interpreted strictly in light of its provisions alone, without adding any external conditions.
