Cases
Oleksandr Yanukovych filed suit against Ukraine
The resolution of the National Bank of Ukraine dated 27 November 2014 on adjudication of the All-Ukrainian Bank of Development as a bankrupt bank has become the cause of an action. As a result, Oleksandr Yanukovych lost title to 100% of shares of the financial institution. The son of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych filed a suit to the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg), arguing that Ukraine regularly violated his human rights. He is seeking the compensation of the cost of All-Ukrainian Bank of Development, which was declared bankrupt.
Linkedin to pay USD 13 million for mail-out
LinkedIn Corp. has agreed to pay about USD 13 million to conclude legal proceedings in the multi-party action regarding intrusive mail-out of invitations to join the social network.
The suit was filed in 2013 and the charges were related to the Add Connections function in the social network to maintain business connections of LinkedIn. This function allowed adding as a friend all users of the social network, whose data were already in the contact list of the e-mail.
In the lawsuit it was stated that users, who have not yet registered, without their consent, at first received invitations to join LinkedIn, and if they ignored them they would get a few more reminders. According to the plaintiffs, it was impossible to unsubscribe.
Out of the amount of USD 13 million, about USD 3.25 million will be spent on the fee of attorneys, who during the last two years have been involved in this case. The sum of compensation to be received by each plaintiff will depend upon their total number and may be as high as USD 1,500. However, if the compensation is less than USD 10,000 LinkedIn will add another USD 750,000 to the total amount.
Court blocked accounts of 14 offshore companies belonging to Serhiy Kurchenko
The Pechersk District Court of Kiev has blocked the accounts of 14 offshore companies connected with Serhiy Kurchenko in two Latvian banks, ABLV Bank and Regionala investiciju banka, in a case regarding liquefied gas.
Serhiy Kurchenko bought liquefied gas at specialized auctions at preferential prices (for public needs) through the companies Ukrkhorkovrgaspostachannia-2009, Luganskpropangaz, Kharkiv-SPBT, GazUkraina-2009, LLC GazUkraina-2020, Zaporizhgaz-2000, Cherkasy-Gazsnab and other structures and sold at the market price. As a result, Mr. Kurchenko, in previous collusion with employees of NJSC Naftogaz Ukraine and other persons, caused damages to the state totaling more than UAH 1 billion.
The Pechersk Court blocked the accounts of offshore companies under the Council of Europe Convention On Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism of 2005, as well as pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance and Legal Relations Treaty with Latvia. The Prosecutor-General’s Office was also granted an authorization for seizure from Latvian banks of all documents related to account activity after a request for assistance in the investigation was filed to the law-enforcement agencies of Latvia.
The EU equated Bitcoin to traditional currencies
At the present moment cryptocurrency Bitcoin can be a payment instrument on EU territory on a par with traditional currencies. Such a decision was adopted by the European Court of Justice.
All transactions related to the exchange of Bitcoin will be taxed the same way as traditional currency transactions. The European Court stated that the exclusion of cryptocurrency exchange from the list of transactions that are subject to tax concessions on the exchange would enable the avoidance of difficulties associated with the assessment of amounts liable to VAT.
After the relevant request of Swedish authorities for explanations of whether Bitcoin is money or a commodity, the European Court established that since Bitcoin was created only “as a payment instrument” it should be treated as traditional currency and not as commodities.
Portnov vs. the EU Council
The European Court of Justice has passed a Resolution in the case Portnov vs. the EU Council in the action of the ex-deputy head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine, Andrey Portnov. The court upheld the lawsuit of Portnov and lifted sanctions from him (such as property seizure). The court ordered the European Union to reimburse all expenses to the Ukrainian politician. The court also found that the only reason for the imposition of sanctions against Andrei Portnov was a letter from the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine, in which the prosecutor’s office asserted that the information uncovered by an investigation suggested that Mr. Portnov was, among others, allegedly implicated in the “embezzlement of a significant amount of public funds and their illegal withdrawal abroad”.
However, the letter from Ukraine contained no other details regarding the facts the plaintiff was allegedly guilty of. This was insufficient grounds for the imposition of sanctions against civil servants.
It should be mentioned that the same wording (and similarly, in the absence of evidence) was applied for the imposition of sanctions against other representatives of Viktor Yanukovych regime, including the ex-President himself.
This Resolution may be used as a pilot in cases brought by other Ukrainians, who aim to contest sanctions imposed against them.
