LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Société Générale S.A.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bright |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2025 |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2022-000456 |
and
Mr Justice Bright
Case No: CL-2022-000456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, WC4A 1NL
Mr Justin Fenwick KC, Mr Tim Chelmick, Ms Marie-Claire O'Kane, Mr Emile Simpson, Ms Helena Spector (instructed by Vinson & Elkins RLLP) for the Claimants
Mr Richard Handyside KC, Mr James Duffy KC, Ms Natasha Bennett (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) for the First, Second and Third Defendants
Mr Neil Kitchener KC, Mr James Weale, Mr Robert Harris (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants
Mr Alan Maclean KC, Mr Tom Leary (instructed by McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP) for the Third Party
Hearing dates: 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25 June, 1, 2, 3 July 2025
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30am on 31/07/25 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Contents
| PART A: INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES [1]–[22] | 4 |
| I: Overall introduction [1]–[10] | 4 |
| II: The Claimants [11]–[17] | 5 |
| III: The Banks and Tecnimont [18]–[20] | 6 |
| IV: The new Kingisepp plant [21]–[22] | 6 |
| PART B: THE BONDS AND EUROCHEM NW2'S DEMANDS [23]–[45] | 7 |
| V: The Bonds [23]–[28] | 7 |
| VI: Designation under Regulation 269 [29]–[33] | 10 |
| VII: Termination of the Contracts [34]–[37] | 12 |
| VIII: EuroChem NW2's demands on the Bonds [38]–[40] | 12 |
| IX: Rejection of the demands [41]–[45] | 12 |
| PART C: THE ISSUES AND THE WITNESSES [46]–[98] | 14 |
| X: Outline of the main issues [46]–[58] | 14 |
| XI: The Claimants' EuroChem AG witnesses [59]–[66] | 15 |
| XII: The Claimants' EuroChem NW2 witness [67]–[73] | 16 |
| XIII: The Claimants' Trust witnesses [74]–[94] | 17 |
| XIV: The Banks' witnesses [95]–[98] | 21 |
| PART D: THE FACTS RE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL [99]–[211] | 21 |
| XV: The ownership structure before sanctions [99]–[109] | 21 |
| XVI: The ownership structure after sanctions [110]–[123] | 22 |
| XVII: Other group structural changes [124]–[144] | 24 |
| XVIII: Mr Melnichenko's involvement before March 2022 [145]–[151] | 27 |
| XIX: The Claimants' first pleading point [152]–[154] | 28 |
| XX: The date of the Deed of Retirement [155]–[165] | 29 |
| XXI: The role of Mrs Melnichenko [166]–[175] | 30 |
| XXII: Mr Melnichenko's involvement after March 2022 (1) [176]–[187] | 32 |
| XXIII: The Claimants' second pleading point [188]–[197] | 34 |
| XXIV: Mr Melnichenko's involvement after March 2022 (2) [198]–[204] | 35 |
| XXV: The Assignment [205]–[211] | 37 |
| PART E: REGULATION 269 [212]–[305] | 40 |
| XXVI: The provisions of Regulation 269 [212]–[219] | 40 |
| XXVII: The supplementary EU materials [220]–[225] | 41 |
| XXVIII: Decisions of the CJEU [226]–[229] | 42 |
| XXIX: How to interpret Regulation 269 [230]–[240] | 43 |
| XXX: Article 2(1) [241]–[248] | 48 |
| XXXI: Article 2(2) [249]–[259] | 48 |
| XXXII: “Ownership” [260]–[278] | 51 |
| XXXIII: The Claimants' third pleading point [279]–[282] | 55 |
| XXXIV: The MP Bank v Pugachev point [283]–[293] | 56 |
| XXXV: “Control” [294]–[305] | 58 |
| PART F: THE NCAS [306]–[347] | 61 |
| XXXVI: The role of NCAs [306]–[311] | 61 |
| XXXVII: Firewalls and the NCAs [312]–[313] | 64 |
| XXXVIII: The French NCA: the DGT [314]–[326] | 65 |
| XXXIX: The Italian NCA: the CSF [327]–[332] | 69 |
| XL: The Swiss NCA: the SECO [333]–[337] | 71 |
| XLI: The Cypriot NCA: the SEOK [338]–[341] | 71 |
| XLII: The Dutch NCA: the BTI [342]–[347] | 72 |
| PART G: APPLYING REGULATION 269 [348]–[411] | 74 |
| XLIII: The burden of proof [348]–[359] | 74 |
| XLIV: Inferences [360]–[369] | 76 |
| XLV: Article 2(1) and the Bonds [370]–[378] | 78 |
| XLVI: The LIA v Maud point [379]–[399] | 79 |
| XLVII: Article 2(1) and the Assignment [400] | 84 |
| XLVIII: Article 2(2) and payment to EuroChem NW2 [401]–[403] | 85 |
| XLIX: Article 2(2) and payment to EuroChem AG [404]–[408] | 85 |
| L: The pending applications to the DGT and the CSF [409]–[411] | 85 |
| PART H: REGULATION 833 [412]–[473] | 86 |
| LI: Article 11 of Regulation 833 [412]–[415] | 86 |
| LII: Are the claims “in connection with” the Contracts? [416]–[429] | 87 |
| LIII: Are the claims by or on behalf of a Russian entity? [430]–[433] | 91 |
| LIV: Conclusion on Regulation 833 [434]–[435] | 91 |
| PART I: THE RULE IN RALLI BROTHERS [436]–[473] | 91 |
| LV: Would payment be illegal in France/Italy? [436]–[437] | 91 |
| LVI: The rule in Ralli Brothers [438]–[440] | 92 |
| LVII: The place of performance under the Bonds [441]–[461] | 93 |
| LVIII: Licence applications and Article 7 [462]–[465] | 96 |
| LIX: Public policy [466]–[470] | 97 |
| LX: Implied term [471]–[472] | 98 |
| LXI: Conclusion on the rule in Ralli Brothers [473] | 99 |
| PART J: OTHER ARGUMENTS [474]–[494] | 99 |
| LXII: Article 11 of Regulation 269 [474]–[475] | 99 |
| LXIII: The Bonds' expiry dates [476]–[478] | 99 |
| LXIV: Validity of the Assignment [479]–[482] | 100 |
| LXV: The Assignment and Article 9 [483]–[486] | 100 |
| LXVI: The sanctioned Russian banks [487]–[491] | 101 |
| LXVII: ING's Part 20 claim against Tecnimont [492]–[494] | 102 |
| PART K: CONCLUSION [495]–[514] | 102 |
| LXVIII: Overall conclusion and outcome [495]–[497] | 102 |
| LXIX: Coda: the Claimants' disclosure [498]–[514] | 103 |
| Judgment Appendix 1 | 107 |
| Judgment Appendix 2 | 108 |
PART A: INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES [1]–[22]
I: Overall introduction [1]–[10]
This judgment is concerned with six on-demand bonds (“the Bonds”), each governed by English law, issued by the First to Third Defendants (“SocGen”) and the Fourth to Fifth Defendants (“ING”) (together “the Banks”), in favour of the First Claimant (“EuroChem NW2”) as beneficiary.
The total value of the Bonds was over €280 million. They were issued on various dates in 2020 and 2021, in connection with the construction for EuroChem NW2 of a major fertiliser plant in Kingisepp, Russia.
On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. On 9 March 2022, the EU imposed sanctions on the founder of the EuroChem Group, Mr Andrey Melnichenko. On 3 June 2022, the EU imposed sanctions on his wife, Mrs Aleksandra Melnichenko. The EU sanctions include, in particular, designation by being listed under Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014 (“Regulation 269”).
EuroChem NW2 made demands under the Bonds on various dates in August 2022. The Banks have declined to pay, on the basis that to do so would be illegal because of the EU sanctions.
On 23 December 2024, EuroChem NW2 entered into a Deed of Assignment and Assumption (“Assignment”) by which it assigned the proceeds of the Bonds to the Second Claimant (“EuroChem AG”).
The issues that I have to determine largely focus on whether either EuroChem NW2 or EuroChem AG is owned or controlled by Mr or Mrs Melnichenko, for the purposes of Regulation 269. The provision within Regulation 269 that is at the heart of the case is Article 2. This has two limbs:
(1) Article 2(1) provides: “All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by” anyone listed in Annex I “shall be frozen.”
(2) Article 2(2) provides: “No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of” anyone listed in Annex I.
As already stated, Mr and Mrs Melnichenko are both listed in Annex I to Regulation 269. The case therefore is principally concerned with whether the Bonds are frozen under Article 2(1), because they must be considered funds or economic resources that belong to, or are owned, held or controlled by Mr or Mrs Melnichenko; and whether payment under the Bonds is prohibited under Article 2(2), because it would make funds or economic resources available to Mr or Mrs Melnichenko.
The Banks say that one or both of Article 2(1) and Article 2(2) apply. They say that payment under the Bonds therefore would be illegal under the law of France or Italy, or any other relevant EU country; and that this foreign illegality renders the Bonds unenforceable as a matter of English law. The Claimants deny this, and also say that illegality under the law of any EU country is irrelevant.
There are also issues as to a separate EU sanctions provision, Council Regulation (EU) No. 833/2014 (“Regulation 833”); implied terms; the Bonds' expiry dates; and as to the validity and effectiveness of the Assignment.
The Claimants' case was primarily presented by Mr Justin Fenwick KC, with assistance from others including Mr Tim Chelmick. SocGen's case was primarily presented by Mr Richard Handyside KC, with assistance from others including Ms Natasha Bennett. ING's case was presented by Mr Neil Kitchener KC, with assistance from others including Mr James Weale. The Third Party's case was presented by Mr Alan Maclean KC. I am very grateful to them all, and to the extensive teams of barristers and solicitors behind the lead advocates, for their assistance. The trial was conducted on all sides with great skill and professionalism.
II: The Claimants [11]–[17]
The EuroChem group was founded by Mr Melnichenko in Russia in 2001. Since its foundation, the group has grown considerably and is now one of the largest fertiliser manufacturers in the world. Most of its manufacturing and production continues to take place in Russia. However, it has interests in many countries around the world. Some are in the EU; in particular, there are fertiliser production...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
PJSC VTB Bank (A Company Incorporated in the Russian Federation) v HM Treasury
...the antecedent EU Regulation on which it was based, encourages a wide view (see for example LCC EuroChem North-West-2 v Societe General [2025] EWHC 1938 at [250]–[251]: ‘ making funds ‘indirectly’ available … encompasses all the acts necessary under the applicable national law if that perso......
-
McLaren Indy LLC v Alpa Racing USA LLC
...he “ is no longer employed by Credit Suisse and there is no reason to expect Credit Suisse to call him”. In LLC EuroChem North-West-2 v Societe Generale SA [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm), Bright J declined to draw an inference from a party's failure to call a witness with knowledge in relation to ......
-
FH Holding Moscow Ltd (a company incorporated in the Republic of Cyprus) v AO Unicredit Bank (a company incorporated in the Russian Federation)
...but being aware that the participation may have that object or effect and accepting that possibility.” 50 In LLC EuroChem North-West-2 v Societe Generale SA [2025] EWHC 1938 (Comm), Bright J stated at [469], in the context of considering a public policy objection to enforcement of certain b......
-
Tecnimont S.P.A and v LLC Eurochem North-West-2
...majority owner of MTR. NW2 is a company which, it has been held by Mr Justice Bright in LLC EuroChem North-West 2 v Société Générale SA [2025] EWHC 1938 Comm, is owned and controlled by Mr Melnichenko, who is a wealthy Russian and a designated person under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) R......