Moscow court rejects Siemens claim on return of "Crimea turbines"

Representatives of the parties refused to comment on whether the court decision would be appealed, RBC wrote.

At the trial, a company representative reported that Siemens was ready to return EUR 150 million received under the deal with Technopromexport, provided the turbines be returned.

Siemens and co-plaintiff Siemens Gas Turbine Technology (STGT) filed two lawsuits on the supply of turbines to Crimea in July and September 2017. The defendants in the case are PJSC Technopromexport and Technopromexport LLC. The German Concern had earlier asked for the arrest of turbines but the court rejected the motion. It was considering the July lawsuit of the German concern.

Read alsoRussian court rejects Siemens' plea to seize its turbines in Crimea – ReutersSiemens asked to recognize as illegal the two contracts for turbine supplies: the first one - on the supply of four SGT5-2000E gas turbines concluded in March 2015 between the Siemens Gas Turbine Technology plant and PJSC Technopromexport, and another one - on the resale of the said turbines to Technopromexport LLC ". Noteworthy, Siemens owns 65% in joint venture Siemens Gas Turbine Technology, while the rest belongs to Rostec Power Machines.

Siemens said that it had been misled by Russian partners, as the contract was concluded on the supply of the turbines to Krasnodar Krai, while they eventually turned out to resurface in Crimea, Forbes wrote. RBC sources reported earlier that the turbines had been redesigned at Rostec plants before delivery to the peninsula.

Read alsoSiemens to change work with Russian customers after Crimean turbine disputeIn addition, PJSC Technopromexport and Technopromexport LLC filed a counterclaim with the Moscow Arbitration Court against Siemens and STGT. Russian companies ask to recognize as insignificant three provisions of the contract concluded in March 2015, according to which the plant was to supply seven gas turbines. Those provisions implied that the turbines had to be installed only in Krasnodar Krai. However, Technopromexport considered that the terms of the contract violated the principle of unity of the economic area, which presupposes the free movement of goods within Russia, including Crimea, as the claimant believes.