Court rejects Siemens motion in lawsuit against TPE over Crimean turbines
The Moscow Arbitration Court rejected a motion from LLC Siemens Gas Turbines Technologies in its lawsuit against two Rostec companies, LLC VO Technopromexport (TPE) and JSC Technopromexport regarding turbines delivered to Crimea, an Interfax correspondent reports from the court.
The court refused to hear Tekhnopromexport's counter-claim at the start of the session and rejected a Siemens motion to suspend court proceedings until a court order adopted in December 2017 comes into effect. On December 14, 2017 the Moscow Arbitration Court rejected a lawsuit from Siemens against LLC Technopromexport and OJSC Technopromexport regarding what Siemens says was the illegal transfer of its turbines to Crimea,
The court also rejected a counter-claim from the Technoexport companies against Siemens at the time.
In this lawsuit, Siemens Gas Turbines Technologies, a joint venture between Siemens and JSC Power Machines, is demanding the return of the turbines manufactured for the Taman thermal power plant, but which ended up being sent to Crimea in violation of EU sanctions and contract articles.
Speaking at the court hearing, a Siemens spokesperson said that the disputed deal "was concluded under false pretenses," and the defendant made the purchase in bad faith. Due to this, the contract should be declared void and the property returned. If the claimant had known that the turbines would have been sent to Crimea, the contract would not have been signed, he said.
He also added that the company found out about the transfer of the turbines to Crimea in the summer of 2017 through media reports, which the defendant did not deny.
The TPE spokesperson, in turn said that the filing of the lawsuit is an abuse of the law. Siemens Gas Turbines Technologies cannot prove how its rights were violated. "The lawsuit is focused on the potential enforcement of claims on behalf of the EU," he said.
He also said that there was insufficient evidence of "malicious" intent or of the claimant having been misled in case materials.
The court named Germany's Siemens as a third party that has not stated independent claims in the case following a motion filed by LLC VO Technopromexport on December 11, 2017.
