CEE Legal Matters

Author: admin

  • Eversheds Successful in mBank Appeal of Class Action Verdict

    Wierzbowski Eversheds reported today that the Court of Appeal in Lodz has dismissed the appeal by mBank (formerly BRE Bank SA) in the class action brought against the bank by a group of 1,247 consumers, which it represented.

    The court of appeal thus upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which found that mBank unlawfully charged a portion of loan installments from the consumers who are members of the class, and ruled that these amounts must be repaid with statutory interest.

    After 2 months of procedural matters relating to the formation and certification of the class following the initial statement of claim against mBank in the Regional Court in Lodz on December 20, 2010, the first hearing on the merits was held on June 19, 2013. At the hearing, the Regional Court rejected the evidence offered by the bank as irrelevant and filed in order to delay the proceedings. The attorneys for both parties then gave their closing statements. The court adjourned the announcement of the verdict to July 3, 2013. On that date, the court issued its judgment, thus concluding the proceedings at the first instance. The court ruled that mBank had unlawfully charged a portion of the loan installments from the consumers who were members of the group, and ordered that those amounts be reimbursed with statutory interest. Finally, on April 30, 2014, the Court of Appeal in Lodz dismissed the appeal on the merits by mBank.

    Eversheds Partner Iwo Gabrysiak, who represented the group of consumers, was pleased with the result. “The dismissal of the defendant’s appeal shows that by using the Class Actions Act, consumers can be just as strong as institutions like banks and other large enterprises, and can effectively enforce their rights,” he said, “This is the first ruling of its kind in Poland, considering the scale of the case and the number of plaintiffs in the group. I believe this may facilitate the use of class actions, which were introduced in Poland only quite recently.”

     

  • Lawin Persuades Supreme Court in Estonian Language of Instruction Dispute

    In a follow-up to the story initially reported by CEE Legal Matters on April 24, Lawin is reporting that it has successfully represented the Government of the Estonian Republic in a controversial and widely-covered dispute against the City of Tallinn, the City of Narva, and a father of a pupil from Narva, who demanded that upper secondary schools continue using Russian as a language of instruction. 

    The cities of Tallinn and Narva had applied for exceptions to adopting Estonian as the language of instruction in several schools, seeking instead to continue using Russian as the language of instruction. The Government of Estonia refused to grant the requests. The cities appealed, claiming that the Government’s decision violated their right to self-governance, and that the organization of studies in municipal schools was a local matter. The city governments also claimed that adoption of Estonian as the language of instruction requires additional financial resources, which had not been allocated to them. The appellants also argued that pursuant to the Estonian Constitution, the language of instruction in minority education institutions is to be selected by the respective institutions and that the orders of the Estonian were contrary to the provisions of international law and legislation. The father of the pupil from Narva requested that Russian be retained as the language of instruction for his son, as the boy’s native language is Russian and the abolishment of teaching in Russian would violate his right to preserve his national identity.

    The Government of the Republic considered the complaints unfounded and argued against them in full, noting that each application for an exception had been carefully considered, but that there was no reason to forego the adoption of Estonian as the language of instruction in the referred schools. Estonian as the official language has a special status and priority in its use also in education — making it its use as the language of instruction in schools a national issue. The opinion of the Government of the Republic was that the use of Estonian as the language of instruction does not jeopardize the preservation of the identity or the language of an ethnic minority, as it is still possible to continue learning in Russian for up to 40% of the mandatory volume of the curriculum. Furthermore, over the years, schools have been provided additional financial resources to prepare for the adoption of Estonian as the language of instruction.

    In its decision of April 28, the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court explains that determining the language of instruction in municipal secondary schools is a national issue and the local government does not have the right to decide on the language of instruction in secondary schools or to demand that Russian be retained as the language of instruction in municipal secondary schools.

    The Estonian Government was represented by Lawin Senior Associate Triinu Hiob, working under the supervision and guidance of Partner Liina Linsi. As reported previously, the Cities of Talinn and Narva were represented by Lextal Partner Karl Kask and attorney Margus Reiland.

     

     

  • Reed Smith Advises AMC on KinoweltTV Acquisition

    Reed Smith has advised AMC Networks on the acquisition of the German media company Kinowelt Television, including its film rights and licenses.

    Founded in 2004, KinoweltTV was the first German TV station completely dedicated to high-class feature films. With this acquisition AMC expands its European presence with full distribution across all platforms in German-speaking Europe. The transaction is subject to regulatory approval.  

    Reed Smith Partner Stephan Rippert, who led the firm’s team on the deal, commented that: “The successful completion of this acquisition enables AMC to expand its television business into Germany, Austria, and Switzerland for the first time. Our strong corporate, media, tax and employment expertise allowed us to provide a full service to the client, resulting in the smooth delivery of the deal.”  

    Rippert’s team advised AMC on all aspects of the acquisition, as well as advising on all related media regulatory issues and tax, labor, and employment law.  The full team consisted of, in addition to Rippert: Partner Thomas Gierath, and Associates Artur Korn, Katharina Weimer, Frank Mizera, and Claudia Rothlingshofer. Leonardo & Co and Osborne Clarke advised Kinowelt Television.

     

     

  • Schoenherr Advises on Largest M&A Transaction in Slovenia

    Schoenherr has advised a group of shareholders of Slovenia’s Helios Domzale and pledgees in Helios shares in the sale of a majority stake in Helios to Ring International Holding (RIH), a Vienna-based industrial group.

    Following the closing of the transaction in April, RIH — through its subsidiary Remho Beteiligungs — held 77.93% of the shares in Helios. The EUR 106 million transaction is the largest M&A deal in Slovenia and the country’s first successful privatization in recent years. 

    Ring International Holding is one of the leading groups in the areas of stationery products and coatings. RIH’s coatings division is structured as a separate business and manufactures a diversified range of high-end liquid and powder coatings for selected profitable niche markets across Europe. RIH sees potential for synergies between its coating division and Helios, with the two of them combined becoming one of Europe’s most dominant players in the coatings industry.

    Schoenherr attorneys Vid Kobe, Bojan Brezan, and Roman Perner advised the consortium of sellers – leading Slovenian financial institutions – on the transaction structure and negotiation of the share purchase agreement. Partner Christoph Haid assisted in obtaining merger control clearances in the relevant jurisdictions. 

     

     

  • Scholarship Contest: Students League of the Ukrainian Bar

    On April 23, 2014, the Students League of the Ukrainian Bar Association hosted the award ceremony celebrating finalists and winners of the Fourth Scholarship Contest, traditionally initiated and supported by the Vasil Kisil & Partners Law Firm. 

    55 students from 17 universities participated in the scholarship competition, which focused this year on issues related to intellectual property rights. The judges panel included VKP Partners Vasil Kisil, Oleg Makarov, Oleksandr Mamunya, Senior Associate Tetyana Kudrytska, and Leading Associate Andrey Nikolayenko. 

    The finalists in the 2014 competition were:

    • Vasiliy Kundrik, Oleg Stoev – the National Taras Shevchenko University of Kiev; 
    • Glib Demich, Daniel Parsae – the Yaroslav Mudriy National Law Academy of Ukraine; 
    • Dmitri Simbirev – the National University of Kiev Mohyla Academy; 
    • Kristina Nikerui – Ivan Franko National University of L’viv; 
    • Vladimir Chaban – Vasyl Stefanyk Subcarpathian National University

    The winners of the Fourth Scholarship Contest were: 

    • 1st place: Nikita Dahovsky from the National Taras Shevchenko University of Kiev for his paper on “Trends in the development of intellectual property rights in Ukraine and around the world: what shall the next decade bring?”; 
    • 2nd place: Maria Zaharchenko from the National Taras Shevchenko University of Kiev for her paper on “Specialized court to hear IP cases in Ukraine: a mistake or a necessity?”; 
    • 3rd place: Olexandr Melnik from the National Taras Shevchenko University for his paper on “Specialized court to hear IP cases in Ukraine: a mistake or a necessity?”. 

    Daria Sedyh, the organizer of the competition and Head of Legal Seminars, Conferences and Competitions Division of the UBA Students League, noted that “every year the Scholarship competition initiated by Vasil Kisil & Partners becomes more popular among students, because participation in such contests is a good start for young legal practitioners, helping them make the right choice regarding their specialization and embark on a successful career path.”

     

     

     

  • Tark Grunte Sutkiene Lawyer Elected to Council of Sworn Advocates Board

    Tark Grunte Sutkiene announced that one of its Partners, Ivars Grunte, has been re-elected as a member of the board of the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates.

    The decision on April 11 by the general meeting of sworn advocates represents the eighth time that the partner has been elected to the board. 

    The Latvian Collegium of Sworn Advocates, as the independent professional organization of the sworn advocates of Latvia, unites all sworn advocates practicing in the country. The Board is the executive institution of the Collegium of Sworn Advocates, which leads the work of the collegium.

     

     

  • Baker & McKenzie Advises on SES and iMAGOTAG Partnership

    Baker & McKenzie advised on a “New Strategic and Financial Partnership” between Store Electronic Systems (‘SES’) and iMAGOTAG.

    SES is the world’s leading company for electronic shelf labeling, and iMAGOTAG is an Austrian start-up. The two announced their strategic partnership on February 17, 2014. SES and iMAGOTAG’s shareholders also agreed on the acquisition of the totality of iMAGOTAG’s shares by SES over a two-year period. 

    Baker & McKenzie advised iMAGOTAG on the partnership. The firm’s team working on the deal was composed of Partners Raphaele Francois-Ponced and Francois-Xavier Naime in Paris and Partners Gerhard Hermann and Eva Segur-Cabanac and Associate Wendelin Ettmayer, all in Vienna. 

     

     

  • Gleiss Lutz Advises Sistema JSFC on Joint Venture with Fresenius Kabi and Zenitco Finance Management

    Gleiss Lutz advised Sistema JSFC on its joint venture with Fresenius Kabi to establish a pharmaceuticals joint venture for operations in Russia and the CIS.

    The joint venture will combine 100% of Binnopharm group, today held by Sistema and Zenitco, and 100% of Fresenius Kabi’s Russian and CIS business. Fresenius Kabi will hold 51% in the new company, while Sistema and Zenitco will own 37% and 12%, respectively. According to Gleiss Lutz, the transaction is subject to regulatory and antitrust approvals, including from the Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service and the Government Commission on Monitoring Foreign Investments. 

    Sistema JSFC is the largest publicly-traded diversified holding company in Russia and the CIS. Fresenius Kabi is a German pharmaceutical company which is part of the Fresenius SE & Co global health care group and Zenitco Finance Management. Fresenius Kabi entered the Russian market in 1994 and is one of the global leaders in segments of clinical nutrition and I.V. drugs.  Binnopharm is a Russian manufacturer and distributor of I.V. drugs, infusion solutions, and active pharmaceutical ingredients. Located in the Moscow area, Binnopharm has two manufacturing facilities and more than 350 employees. The joint venture is designed to combine Fresenius Kabi’s portfolio of products and its extensive marketing expertise with Binnopharm’s local production and distribution facilities.  

    Gleiss Lutz provided Sistema with advice on all aspects of the transaction. The Gleiss Lutz team was led by Partner Cornelia Topf and included Partner Stefan Mayer. Other lawyers working on the deal were Martin Viciano-Gofferje, Maximilian von Mangoldt, Carsten Walter, Alexander Molle, Herwig Lux, Moritz Holm-Hadulla, and Patrick Steinhausen.

    Gleiss Lutz advised Sistema together with a team from Akin Gump’s Moscow office, which was led by Partner Varun Gupta and Counsel Anthony Walker. Counsel Pavel Savitsky of the Borenius law firm also advised Sistema on Russian IP law.

     

     

  • The Reality Today: Sayenko Kharenko’s Crimea Desk in Unsettled Times

    The Reality Today: Sayenko Kharenko’s Crimea Desk in Unsettled Times

    The Ukrainian Sayenko Kharenko law firm claims to have unique Crimean capabilities and the strongest Crimea Desk of any firm in the country. CEE Legal Matters asked Vladimir Sayenko, one of the founding partners of the firm, to describe how the ongoing crisis in Crimea relating to the recent Russian annexation of the region has affected the firm’s Crimean practice and its clients. Mr. Sayenko’s comments were made to CEE Legal Matters on April 9, 2014. 

    Vladimir-Sayenko.jpg

       

    Vladmir Sayenko

     CEELM: I know your firm has rather unusual experience and expertise in Crimea. Can you describe it?

    V.S.: Indeed, historically Crimea has been a priority region for us due to the background of our team. About three years ago we merged with the largest law firm in Crimea. The core team from that firm, including the founding partner, Mr. Sergey Pogrebnoy, moved to Kiev and joined our office here. Some lawyers who wanted to stay in Crimea continued to operate independently and dealing with local matters in that region. Larger international projects were handled by our firm, but whenever a local presence was required, we had a reliable team on the ground that was effectively integrated into whatever we did in Crimea.

     CEELM: And how does Sayenko Kharenko operate in Crimea today?

    V.S.: Today we continue to operate under the same model, but responding to client demand we increased our capacity. We have a strong Crimean Desk within our firm – a group of five lawyers who moved from Crimea and became the core of our litigation practice, plus lawyers from our trade, corporate and banking teams. The lawyers who moved from Crimea have always been doing various things, even if it’s not litigation … if there was anything related to Crimea they would jump on it, because it’s their home region, they have the feel for where the problems may be, for example, when doing a due diligence of a real estate piece. And now with current political crises on a personal level they are very involved. Their families and friends are there, they follow all the developments closely, they know the background of all the key officials in Crimea and have a much better understanding of what’s going on there. We could not miss this opportunity to offer clients unique insights and local knowledge that make our legal advice and our solutions a lot more viable. In addition, we have started working a lot more with the lawyers in Crimea who used to be part of the same firm with our Crimean team, but are now independent for a number of years. And we still want them to be fully independent, because of the law currently under consideration in the Ukrainian parliament, which may restrict our ability, as a Ukrainian law firm from Kiev, to provide services to clients in Crimea. Hopefully, these restrictions won’t be implemented. But even in the worst case scenario, we won’t suffer because legally our colleagues in Crimea are completely independent and unaffiliated, yet fully reliable on a personal level. We work essentially as an integrated team, irrespective of the formal boundaries.

     CEELM: What about business and your clients?

    V.S.: Obviously, the clients are very concerned with the current legal uncertainties, and they come with numerous problems that arise in their day-to-day operations. It’s impossible to trade properly, it’s impossible to sell and register real property, it’s impossible to pay taxes and operate as a Ukrainian company in Crimea, so you have to incorporate as a new entity there or somewhere in “continental” Russia. The current situation there has created a lot of problems for businesses, and we’re doing our best to help solve them as quickly and efficiently as possible.

     CEELM: So are things on hold for now, or is there a new reality on the ground that you have to deal with?

    V.S.: Things are a mess at the moment, if I may say bluntly, without trying to be politically correct. We are facing a reality where, for a legal standpoint, Ukraine continues to treat Crimea as part of its territory, while at the same time Russia is doing the same thing – they view Crimea as part of their territory – and they physically control it. Russia has a clear advantage there now, despite the lack of international recognition of the accession. Businesses have to adapt to that somehow. These are Ukrainian businesses – all of the businesses that are in Crimea, they used to be Ukrainian companies, incorporated and operating within the framework of Ukrainian law. Many of them are branches of companies that are incorporated elsewhere in Ukraine. So for them to restructure their operations is a very difficult task. And at the moment it is still not entirely clear what the best solution will be in each particular case. So for a trading company, for instance, it is easier to transfer the assets to some Russian affiliate and operate as a Russian company in Crimea, than to continue the current operations. For someone else this may be impossible. 

    Those are the type of issues we are facing, and for which we are trying to come up with solutions, but for many problems the solutions are not there yet. Since Ukraine sees Crimea as part of its territory, there is no customs border, so you can not clear goods through customs. But then the Russians view it as Russian territory, so if you do not clear goods through customs you are not supposed to enter the country. Yet, today trucks can still go through the border and goods reach Crimea without any customs. That’s the reality today, but this may change tomorrow, as the situation evolves rapidly. As you can see, the reality is very different from the legal position, and we also have to take that into account, be practical on the one hand, but anticipate the legal risk on the other hand.

     CEELM: What’s the most common issue you’ve had to deal with involving Crimea in the past three weeks?

    V.S.: The most common issue is that many people want to sell their assets in Crimea, and if you’re talking about real estate, it’s impossible to do that. Because the register of the property is in Ukraine. However, Ukrainian notaries in Crimea are not able to work, they cannot access the register, for example. You can not really transfer property in Crimea at the moment without a register. Still there are some solutions. You can go to the Kherson region in Southern Ukraine and try to do this transaction … but the technical documents are in Crimea, and you cannot take them out to a Ukrainian notary in a different region. So what do you do, is a big question. Now we have developed some proposals and we are waiting for some solutions, and we think the local authorities in Crimea will allow access to the technical documentation, and this will allow transactions to take place. But it hasn’t happened yet. So when developing legal solutions we have to be practical and we have to take into account laws of two jurisdictions with local peculiarities of Crimea.

     CEELM: What was the name of the firm you merged with in Crimea?

    V.S.: ”Business Law Audit”. We merged only with the legal branch of that firm.

     CEELM: Would you say of the Ukrainian firms you have the largest Crimean practice? 

    V.S.: Well, I would say that we are the only large firm that has any systematic large-scale operations in Crimea. The big firms have never seen Crimea as an interesting market. That was exactly the reason we didn’t keep an office there. We kept the people – we incorporated them into our team in Kiev – but we said we don’t need the office in Crimea because commercially it is not attractive, it’s of no use to us. Well, it was of no use to us at the time, but who could have predicted what would happen! Now that Russia has established its jurisdiction over Crimea, we need to deal with client demands, so we are reestablishing the links to those people. 

     CEELM: Are those people on your Crimean Desk going back and forth often now?

    V.S.: Well, the Crimean Desk within our firm stays in Kiev. Obviously, our lawyers travel back and forth for personal reasons, for client matters, but they spend most of their time in Kiev. Our colleagues from Crimea also travel to Kiev occasionally. Unfortunately, soon there may be some limitations imposed on the ability of Ukrainians to travel to Crimea. We closely follow all the legal developments. Our partners participate in the working group within the Ukrainian parliament that is preparing the draft law governing the status of Crimea as an occupied territory for the second reading. If we are not able to convince the parliamentarians to relax the restrictions than we are fully prepared to continue our operations without putting our lawyers in Kiev or our Crimean colleagues at risk. 

     CEELM: Is there any suggestion that with all the confusion and uncertainty this could be good for business in the short term? You must have a lot of clients needing your help right now.

    V.S.: Frankly, I wish we did not have all this situation in Crimea. And even all the demand and all the clients with their current headaches related to asset protection. Again, we have always had more work in Crimea than any other firm, I suspect. And I wish we could continue that kind of work – transactional support and investment projects – rather than dealing with the current security issues. We prefer long-term relationships with clients, while the current restructurings will be completed quickly and the flow of legal work will dry out. 

     CEELM: What percentage of the firm’s work or clients would you say involve Crimea? 5%?

    V.S.: Yes, something like that, maybe slightly more. In real numbers that’s still quite significant, as we are one of the largest firms on the Ukrainian market. 

     CEELM: My last question for you is a personal one. Do you have strong feelings about what’s going on in Crimea? 

    V.S.: Well, I think most Ukrainians do. Speaking in layman’s language, it’s not a very pleasant situation when a country that has always told us that we are brothers almost, suddenly stabs you in the back and occupies part of your territory. It’s like having your good old buddy living in a very big house next door suddenly moving into one of the rooms in your house at the time when you were ill and could not get out of bed. I guess most people would take it personally. But as a lawyer I am also concerned with the issues of international security and rule of law. It looks like the good old Latin saying Pacta sunt servanda (“agreements must be kept”) is no longer relevant and international treaties can no longer be relied upon. It is very worrying to live in the age when on the international arena the one with the strongest army can do whatever he wants.

    Note: The “Kiev” spelling of the Ukrainian capital is used in this article, and across all CEE Legal Matters publications, instead of the “Kyiv” spelling. Mr. Sayenko was kind enough to accept that our editorial policy for the “Kiev” spelling simply reflects a commitment to consistency in such matters, and does not reflect any personal or political preference.

  • The Reality Today: Sayenko Kharenko’s Crimea Desk in Unsettled Times

    The Reality Today: Sayenko Kharenko’s Crimea Desk in Unsettled Times

    The Ukrainian Sayenko Kharenko law firm claims to have unique Crimean capabilities and the strongest Crimea Desk of any firm in the country. CEE Legal Matters asked Vladimir Sayenko, one of the founding partners of the firm, to describe how the ongoing crisis in Crimea relating to the recent Russian annexation of the region has affected the firm’s Crimean practice and its clients. Mr. Sayenko’s comments were made to CEE Legal Matters on April 9, 2014. 

    Vladimir-Sayenko.jpg

       

    Vladmir Sayenko

     CEELM: I know your firm has rather unusual experience and expertise in Crimea. Can you describe it?

    V.S.: Indeed, historically Crimea has been a priority region for us due to the background of our team. About three years ago we merged with the largest law firm in Crimea. The core team from that firm, including the founding partner, Mr. Sergey Pogrebnoy, moved to Kiev and joined our office here. Some lawyers who wanted to stay in Crimea continued to operate independently and dealing with local matters in that region. Larger international projects were handled by our firm, but whenever a local presence was required, we had a reliable team on the ground that was effectively integrated into whatever we did in Crimea.

     CEELM: And how does Sayenko Kharenko operate in Crimea today?

    V.S.: Today we continue to operate under the same model, but responding to client demand we increased our capacity. We have a strong Crimean Desk within our firm – a group of five lawyers who moved from Crimea and became the core of our litigation practice, plus lawyers from our trade, corporate and banking teams. The lawyers who moved from Crimea have always been doing various things, even if it’s not litigation … if there was anything related to Crimea they would jump on it, because it’s their home region, they have the feel for where the problems may be, for example, when doing a due diligence of a real estate piece. And now with current political crises on a personal level they are very involved. Their families and friends are there, they follow all the developments closely, they know the background of all the key officials in Crimea and have a much better understanding of what’s going on there. We could not miss this opportunity to offer clients unique insights and local knowledge that make our legal advice and our solutions a lot more viable. In addition, we have started working a lot more with the lawyers in Crimea who used to be part of the same firm with our Crimean team, but are now independent for a number of years. And we still want them to be fully independent, because of the law currently under consideration in the Ukrainian parliament, which may restrict our ability, as a Ukrainian law firm from Kiev, to provide services to clients in Crimea. Hopefully, these restrictions won’t be implemented. But even in the worst case scenario, we won’t suffer because legally our colleagues in Crimea are completely independent and unaffiliated, yet fully reliable on a personal level. We work essentially as an integrated team, irrespective of the formal boundaries.

     CEELM: What about business and your clients?

    V.S.: Obviously, the clients are very concerned with the current legal uncertainties, and they come with numerous problems that arise in their day-to-day operations. It’s impossible to trade properly, it’s impossible to sell and register real property, it’s impossible to pay taxes and operate as a Ukrainian company in Crimea, so you have to incorporate as a new entity there or somewhere in “continental” Russia. The current situation there has created a lot of problems for businesses, and we’re doing our best to help solve them as quickly and efficiently as possible.

     CEELM: So are things on hold for now, or is there a new reality on the ground that you have to deal with?

    V.S.: Things are a mess at the moment, if I may say bluntly, without trying to be politically correct. We are facing a reality where, for a legal standpoint, Ukraine continues to treat Crimea as part of its territory, while at the same time Russia is doing the same thing – they view Crimea as part of their territory – and they physically control it. Russia has a clear advantage there now, despite the lack of international recognition of the accession. Businesses have to adapt to that somehow. These are Ukrainian businesses – all of the businesses that are in Crimea, they used to be Ukrainian companies, incorporated and operating within the framework of Ukrainian law. Many of them are branches of companies that are incorporated elsewhere in Ukraine. So for them to restructure their operations is a very difficult task. And at the moment it is still not entirely clear what the best solution will be in each particular case. So for a trading company, for instance, it is easier to transfer the assets to some Russian affiliate and operate as a Russian company in Crimea, than to continue the current operations. For someone else this may be impossible. 

    Those are the type of issues we are facing, and for which we are trying to come up with solutions, but for many problems the solutions are not there yet. Since Ukraine sees Crimea as part of its territory, there is no customs border, so you can not clear goods through customs. But then the Russians view it as Russian territory, so if you do not clear goods through customs you are not supposed to enter the country. Yet, today trucks can still go through the border and goods reach Crimea without any customs. That’s the reality today, but this may change tomorrow, as the situation evolves rapidly. As you can see, the reality is very different from the legal position, and we also have to take that into account, be practical on the one hand, but anticipate the legal risk on the other hand.

     CEELM: What’s the most common issue you’ve had to deal with involving Crimea in the past three weeks?

    V.S.: The most common issue is that many people want to sell their assets in Crimea, and if you’re talking about real estate, it’s impossible to do that. Because the register of the property is in Ukraine. However, Ukrainian notaries in Crimea are not able to work, they cannot access the register, for example. You can not really transfer property in Crimea at the moment without a register. Still there are some solutions. You can go to the Kherson region in Southern Ukraine and try to do this transaction … but the technical documents are in Crimea, and you cannot take them out to a Ukrainian notary in a different region. So what do you do, is a big question. Now we have developed some proposals and we are waiting for some solutions, and we think the local authorities in Crimea will allow access to the technical documentation, and this will allow transactions to take place. But it hasn’t happened yet. So when developing legal solutions we have to be practical and we have to take into account laws of two jurisdictions with local peculiarities of Crimea.

     CEELM: What was the name of the firm you merged with in Crimea?

    V.S.: ”Business Law Audit”. We merged only with the legal branch of that firm.

     CEELM: Would you say of the Ukrainian firms you have the largest Crimean practice? 

    V.S.: Well, I would say that we are the only large firm that has any systematic large-scale operations in Crimea. The big firms have never seen Crimea as an interesting market. That was exactly the reason we didn’t keep an office there. We kept the people – we incorporated them into our team in Kiev – but we said we don’t need the office in Crimea because commercially it is not attractive, it’s of no use to us. Well, it was of no use to us at the time, but who could have predicted what would happen! Now that Russia has established its jurisdiction over Crimea, we need to deal with client demands, so we are reestablishing the links to those people. 

     CEELM: Are those people on your Crimean Desk going back and forth often now?

    V.S.: Well, the Crimean Desk within our firm stays in Kiev. Obviously, our lawyers travel back and forth for personal reasons, for client matters, but they spend most of their time in Kiev. Our colleagues from Crimea also travel to Kiev occasionally. Unfortunately, soon there may be some limitations imposed on the ability of Ukrainians to travel to Crimea. We closely follow all the legal developments. Our partners participate in the working group within the Ukrainian parliament that is preparing the draft law governing the status of Crimea as an occupied territory for the second reading. If we are not able to convince the parliamentarians to relax the restrictions than we are fully prepared to continue our operations without putting our lawyers in Kiev or our Crimean colleagues at risk. 

     CEELM: Is there any suggestion that with all the confusion and uncertainty this could be good for business in the short term? You must have a lot of clients needing your help right now.

    V.S.: Frankly, I wish we did not have all this situation in Crimea. And even all the demand and all the clients with their current headaches related to asset protection. Again, we have always had more work in Crimea than any other firm, I suspect. And I wish we could continue that kind of work – transactional support and investment projects – rather than dealing with the current security issues. We prefer long-term relationships with clients, while the current restructurings will be completed quickly and the flow of legal work will dry out. 

     CEELM: What percentage of the firm’s work or clients would you say involve Crimea? 5%?

    V.S.: Yes, something like that, maybe slightly more. In real numbers that’s still quite significant, as we are one of the largest firms on the Ukrainian market. 

     CEELM: My last question for you is a personal one. Do you have strong feelings about what’s going on in Crimea? 

    V.S.: Well, I think most Ukrainians do. Speaking in layman’s language, it’s not a very pleasant situation when a country that has always told us that we are brothers almost, suddenly stabs you in the back and occupies part of your territory. It’s like having your good old buddy living in a very big house next door suddenly moving into one of the rooms in your house at the time when you were ill and could not get out of bed. I guess most people would take it personally. But as a lawyer I am also concerned with the issues of international security and rule of law. It looks like the good old Latin saying Pacta sunt servanda (“agreements must be kept”) is no longer relevant and international treaties can no longer be relied upon. It is very worrying to live in the age when on the international arena the one with the strongest army can do whatever he wants.

    Note: The “Kiev” spelling of the Ukrainian capital is used in this article, and across all CEE Legal Matters publications, instead of the “Kyiv” spelling. Mr. Sayenko was kind enough to accept that our editorial policy for the “Kiev” spelling simply reflects a commitment to consistency in such matters, and does not reflect any personal or political preference.