Two Ukrainian companies ask the Dutch courts to enforce Ukrainian default judgments holding Gazprom International liable, as Russia’s alter ego, for war damage of about €95M. The District Court of The Hague declined jurisdiction, citing Russia’s state immunity. On June 9, 2026, the Court of Appeal of The Hague held that immunity does not apply and sent both requests back for review on the merits.
Latest development Jun 9, 2026
On June 9, 2026, the Court of Appeal of The Hague held that Russia’s state immunity does not bar Zhnyva’s and Slavutich-Invest’s requests to enforce Ukrainian judgments against Gazprom International. It set aside the district court’s decisions declining jurisdiction and sent both requests back for review on the merits. It allowed an interim appeal to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.
Why it matters
The Court of Appeal of The Hague held that Russia’s immunity does not block enforcement of Ukrainian war-damage judgments against a Gazprom company held liable as its alter ego. If the ruling stands, Gazprom group assets in the Netherlands could be used to satisfy such claims.
Background
Farm Syu Zhnyva, a Ukrainian agricultural company, says that grain in its silos in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson was looted or spoiled after Russian forces occupied those cities in 2022. Asset Management Company Slavutich-Invest says Russia unlawfully seized its eight plots of land in Melitopol. In 2023, the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Region gave each company a default judgment against Russia, holding that Russia had no immunity. In August 2024, the same court held three Gazprom companies jointly liable as Russia’s alter egos, also by default. Zhnyva’s judgment is for about €85M and Slavutich-Invest’s for about €10M.
Gazprom International, a Kaliningrad-registered company in the Gazprom group, holds a 50% stake in Wintershall Noordzee B.V. and other Dutch assets. In 2024, the two companies attached those shares. In October 2024 and January 2025, they asked the District Court of The Hague to enforce the Gazprom judgments under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention. The court declined jurisdiction on June 5 and July 17, 2025. It held that Russia’s immunity also covers an entity held liable only as its alter ego. On July 14, 2025, the court’s preliminary relief judge lifted the attachments.
On June 9, 2026, the Court of Appeal of The Hague set aside both decisions. It held that Russia is not a party to the enforcement requests. It also held that Russia is not indirectly impleaded, because enforcement against Gazprom International’s assets would not affect Russia’s property, rights, or liabilities. The court ruled that the Dutch courts have jurisdiction and sent both requests back to the district court for review on the merits. It allowed an interim appeal to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.
Other Ukrainian claimants are pursuing similar routes. On January 13, 2026, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam lifted attachments of Gazprom assets by Avtodorkomplekt, finding an abuse of rights and incomplete disclosure when leave was sought. On February 4, 2026, the District Court of The Hague upheld Russia’s immunity against a request by Luganskgaz. The gas supplier sought to enforce a Kyiv judgment of more than €85M against Russia itself.
Timeline 7 events
-
AppealCourt of Appeal of The Hague rejects immunity and sends requests back
The court held that Russia is not indirectly impleaded by enforcement against Gazprom International and allowed an interim appeal to the Supreme Court.
Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1843Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1876
-
HearingCourt of Appeal of The Hague hears Zhnyva’s appeal
The court heard Slavutich-Invest’s appeal on April 9, 2026.
Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1843Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1876
-
JudgmentHague court lifts attachments on Gazprom International’s Dutch shares
The preliminary relief judge found the claims of Zhnyva and Slavutich-Invest summarily unsound in light of the immunity ruling.
-
JudgmentDistrict Court of The Hague declines jurisdiction over Zhnyva’s request
The court held that Russia’s immunity extends to Gazprom International as an entity held liable only as Russia’s alter ego. It ruled the same way on Slavutich-Invest’s request on July 17, 2025.
Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:9883Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:14067
-
JudgmentZaporizhzhia court holds Gazprom companies liable as Russia’s alter egos
The default judgment held three Gazprom companies jointly liable with Russia for Zhnyva’s damages. Slavutich-Invest obtained a similar judgment on August 15, 2024.
Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1843Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1876
-
EnforcementSlavutich-Invest attaches Gazprom International’s Wintershall Noordzee shares
The attachment, made with leave of the District Court of The Hague, secured a claim provisionally put at €11.66M. Zhnyva attached the same shares on August 9, 2024.
-
JudgmentZaporizhzhia court orders Russia to compensate Zhnyva for lost grain
The default judgment held that Russia could not rely on immunity. Slavutich-Invest obtained a similar judgment on May 4, 2023.
Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1843Rechtspraak.nl: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:1876