APPEAL
Dear Mr. President of Russia,
Dear Mr. Chairman of the Government of Russia,
I demand a substantive response to my
arguments (rebuttals) presented in my open letter Appeal to the President of
Russia and the Chairman of the Government of Russia dated August 11, 2025,
registered on August 15, 2025, No. 73352 (Appendix 1), which, despite their
legality and validity, were ignored. I reiterate these arguments refuting the
officials' arguments, requesting a specific, substantive response from the
Government of Russia or the Presidential Administration of Russia on behalf of
the President of Russia. Based on the substantive response to my legal and
well-founded arguments, I will decide how to further defend my legitimate
rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution of Russia. For example, if none of
my arguments, based on documentary evidence and the law, are refuted by the
Russian Government and/or the Presidential Administration on behalf of the
President of Russia, then it follows logically and by common sense that the
reconciliation of the differences I am requesting must be unconditionally
carried out. If not, then depending on which of the documentary evidence and/or
my arguments, based on the law, the Russian Government and/or the Presidential
Administration on behalf of the President of Russia disagree with, I will
submit a request to the appropriate competent authority regarding the article
of the Russian Constitution or Russian and international laws. I will also
follow the advice given to me by the Presidential Administration on behalf of
the President of Russia and choose which court to defend my legal rights in.
For example, if the Russian Government and the Presidential Administration of
Russia, acting on behalf of the President of Russia, believe that I, a Russian
citizen, do not have the right to apply the articles of the Agreement between
the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Promotion and
Reciprocal Protection of Investments (Agreement) and/or the Treaty on the
Eurasian Economic Union (Treaty on the EAEU), to which I refer, then I request
that you indicate which articles of the Russian Constitution, from those I have
cited, do not apply to Russian citizens and compatriots who have returned to
their historical homeland (in this case, a request to the Constitutional Court
of Russia would be appropriate). If I do not have the right to apply any
specific articles of the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU, then which
articles, from those I have cited, are inapplicable to me and on what grounds
(a request to the Supreme Court of Russia would be appropriate, or, with the
consent of the Russian Government and the Presidential Administration of
Russia, on behalf of the President of Russia, I would prefer that the dispute
be heard by a competent ad hoc arbitration court of UNCITRAL). And so,
regarding all the specific objections raised by the Government of Russia and
the Administration of the President of Russia, acting on behalf of the
President of Russia, regarding my arguments (rebuttals) based on legal and
documented facts.
My
investments in Kazakhstan still exist. The company in which I invested is a
natural monopoly and, by law, break-even. However, my rights continue to be
violated by the joint-stock company and the Government of Kazakhstan. My
existence, as a Russian investor, is completely ignored by the joint-stock
company and the Government of Kazakhstan. I receive no dividends or
information, even though my address and account at Sberbank of Russia are well
known to the joint-stock company and the Government of Kazakhstan.
I want to
assure the Government of Kazakhstan, the Government of Russia, and the
Administration of the President of Russia, acting on behalf of the President of
Russia, that I will not cease fighting for my rights guaranteed to me by the
Constitution of Russia, given that my demands are absolutely justified and
based solely on the cited articles of law and the confirmed facts in the cited
documents.
For many
years, I have defended my conviction that the Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU
were concluded in the interests of the citizens of the participating countries,
and their articles must be unconditionally implemented by the parties to the
Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU.
As a reminder, the Government of Kazakhstan
illegally reduced my stake, a Russian investor, in the joint-stock company
Almatyteplokommunenergo by more than a hundredfold, misappropriating my share
of the company's equity. When I attempted to appeal the Government of
Kazakhstan's illegal actions in the UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration court, the
latter claimed I had no such right, since I acquired the shares while a citizen
of Kazakhstan, even though my rights were violated after I had already become a
Russian citizen and was permanently residing in St. Petersburg. In order to
protect my rights in court, it became legally necessary for the Russian
Government to agree that I still have the right to apply the Agreement. All
competent experts, both Russian and Eurasian Economic Commission, recognize my
right to apply the Agreement and the articles of the Treaty on the EAEU. Let me
reiterate: for me to have the legal right to apply the Agreement and Treaty on
the EAEU, it is necessary for any disagreements regarding the application of
the Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU between the Government of the Russian
Federation and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan to be resolved, as
stated therein, through consultations and negotiations. I approached the
Russian Government with a request to conduct such negotiations. The Russian
Government initially agreed to conduct them, but subsequently (following a
letter from the Administration of the President of Russia, Appendix 6) changed
its mind. In response to my long-standing requests to conduct such
consultations, Russian Government officials have come up with various excuses
that contradict fundamental concepts and laws: on joint-stock companies, on the
securities market, on investments, on independent registrars of securities
holders, articles of the Civil Code, articles of the Agreement and Treaty on
the EAEU, the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, and articles of the Russian
Constitution. All arguments by Russian government officials aimed at avoiding
their obligations and consulting with the Government of Kazakhstan were
convincingly refuted in my open letter, Appeal to the President of Russia and
the Chairman of the Russian Government, dated August 11, 2025, registered on
August 15, 2025, No. 73352.
In its new
response dated October 8, 2025, No. A26-02-73355291 (Appendix 2), the
Administration of the President of Russia reiterates the unlawful arguments of
the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, likely because it agrees with
them. It does not provide my refutation of these arguments, which contradict
fundamental concepts and laws: on joint-stock companies, on the securities
market, on investments, on independent registrars of securities holders,
articles of the Civil Code, articles of the Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU,
the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and articles of the Russian Constitution. It
does not, in essence, address my arguments (refutations).
The
Administration of the President of Russia, on behalf of the President of
Russia, cites the conclusion of the Russian Government, represented by the
Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, that:
"The
Ministry
of Economic
Development of Russia does not see any legal basis for making a decision to
hold negotiations on the interpretation and application of the EAEU Treaty in
this case."
This
conclusion violates my rights guaranteed to me as a Russian investor by Article
10 of the Agreement and Article 85 of the EAEU Treaty, and also violates my
rights guaranteed to me by Articles 2, 8, 17, 18, 19, 35, 45, 46, and 47 of the
Constitution of Russia.
The
arguments contained in the response dated June 11, 2025, No. A26-20-4071791 and
dated October 8, 2025, No. A26-02-73355291 cannot be called “legal grounds”
since they contradict the basic concepts and laws: on joint-stock companies, on
the securities market, on investments, on independent registrars of securities
holders, articles of the Civil Code, articles of the Agreement and Treaty on
the EAEU, the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, and articles of the Constitution of
Russia.
I have
previously provided and will provide again evidence (supported by documents and
references to specific articles of laws) of the existence of these specific
violations, having analyzed in detail (sentence by sentence) the so-called
“stated legal grounds” in the response of June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 and
October 8, 2025 No. A26-02-73355291, which are in fact erroneous.
1.
Regarding the first point, the response states:
"However,
by 'interpretation' of the provisions of the relevant international treaties,
the applicant understood it to mean providing it with information regarding the
applicability of these treaties in the circumstances described by it, which, in
essence, does not constitute interpretation."
I declare
that this is untrue (does not correspond to reality). I have always requested
the Russian Government to conduct consultations and/or negotiations to resolve
the parties' disagreements regarding the application (and in such a case,
interpretation is indispensable) of the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU.
The Government Office always forwarded my request to the Ministry of Economic
Development of Russia, which initially intended to conduct such negotiations.
Thus, in the letter from the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated
July 17, 2013, No. OG-D11-4136 (Appendix 3 on the USB flash drive), it states
verbatim:
"The
Department also reviewed your requests of July 1, 3, and 9, 2013, regarding
consultations with the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the
interpretation of certain provisions of the Agreement." The Department has
decided to officially submit a proposal to the Government of the Republic of
Kazakhstan to hold the aforementioned consultations in accordance with Article
12 of the Agreement.
We will
inform you of the results later.
Director of
the Department of Trade Negotiations M.Yu. Medvedkov
And in the
letter from the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated September 24,
2013, No. D11i-720 (Appendix 4 on the USB flash drive), it is stated verbatim:
"Dear
Konstantin Alekseevich!
In
connection with your letters of September 2 and 3, 2013, regarding
consultations with the Kazakh side regarding the interpretation of the term
"investor" in the Agreement between the Government of the Russian
Federation and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Promotion
and Mutual Protection of Investments, signed in Moscow on July 6, 1998, we
inform you of the following. At this time, the dates for consultations with the
Kazakh side have not yet been determined. A coordinated position is being
developed by the Russian side, after which a proposal for consultations on
interpretation will be sent to the Kazakh side.
Acting
Director of the Department of Trade Negotiations
A.G.
Zhuravlev
Copies of
the letters are provided on the attached USB flash drive; scanned copies are
also available in the publicly accessible cloud folder at:
The USB
flash drive and cloud files have been scanned using licensed Kaspersky
antivirus software.
Unfortunately,
after my complaint to the President of Russia regarding the Ministry of
Economic Development's delays in conducting the above-mentioned consultations,
I received a response from the Presidential Administration of Russia dated
October 10, 2014, No. A26-02-89333791 (Appendix 6), containing a number of
erroneous conclusions, the most fundamental of which was the following:
"In
this regard, we believe that without evidence confirming K.A. Nikitin's status
as a citizen of the Russian Federation or the Republic of Kazakhstan at the
time of his acquisition of shares in the Kazakhstani JSC, it does not seem
appropriate for the Government of the Russian Federation to hold consultations
with the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on this matter at this time,
in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement."
This
conclusion is essentially repeated in new responses from the Russian
Presidential Administration on behalf of the Russian President and, as stated
above, contradicts fundamental concepts and laws: on joint-stock companies, on
the securities market, on investments, on independent registrars of securities
holders, articles of the Civil Code, and articles of the Russian
Constitution—and this will be demonstrated below.
Following
the aforementioned letter from the Russian Presidential Administration dated
October 10, 2014, number A26-02-89333791, the Russian Ministry of Economic
Development suddenly began claiming that it does not have the authority to
conduct such consultations (despite this, the Russian Government Office has
sent my requests to conduct consultations to resolve disagreements with the
Government of Kazakhstan, specifically to the Russian Ministry of Economic
Development).
It should
be noted that the Ministry of Economic Development, despite the letter from the
Administration of the President of Russia, rightly recognized my right to apply
the Agreement and that disagreements between the governments participating in
the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU must be reconciled. Verbatim letter
from the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated May 24, 2017
(Appendix 7 on the USB flash drive):
"We believe that in the event of a dispute between a Russian
investor and the Republic of Kazakhstan, taking into account the provisions of
Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of May 23, 1969 and
paragraph 65 of the Protocol on Trade in Services, Establishment, Activities,
and Investments to the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter
referred to as the Protocol and the Treaty, respectively), the Protocol should
apply."
"According to paragraph 6 of the Protocol, an investor of a member
state is any person of a member state that makes investments in the territory
of another member state in accordance with the legislation of the latter, and
the concept of 'investments' includes, among other things, securities.
" Moreover, as follows from your appeal, your rights were violated
while you were a citizen of the Russian Federation.
In this
regard, we believe that you may initiate dispute resolution proceedings in
accordance with Subsection 6 of Section VII of the Protocol.
At the same
time, we note that if the interpretation of the Protocol's provisions by the
state authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan violates the rights and
legitimate interests of a citizen of the Russian Federation, the Russian
Federation has the right to demand appropriate consultations in accordance with
Article 112 of the Agreement.
Deputy
Director of the Department of Financial, Banking, and Investment Development
A.S. Ivanov
And verbatim from the letter of the Ministry of Economic Development of
Russia dated August 4, 2017 (Appendix 5 on the USB flash drive):
"We further inform you of the following.
" According to your appeal, the Government of the Republic of
Kazakhstan has stated that you cannot apply the Agreement between the
Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of
Kazakhstan on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments of July 6,
1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Agreement) because you acquired the
shares while being a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Currently, relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of
Kazakhstan related to the promotion and protection of capital investments are
regulated by the Protocol on Trade in Services, Establishment, Activities, and
Implementation of Investments (Appendix No. 16 to the Treaty on the Eurasian
Economic Union of May 29, 2014) (hereinafter referred to as the Protocol and
the Treaty, respectively). At the time when, according to you, your rights were
violated, you were a citizen of the Russian Federation and an investor
investing in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Therefore, in our opinion, you have
the right to utilize the dispute resolution procedures provided for by these
international treaties. Moreover, both the 1998 Agreement (Article 11) and the
Treaty (Article 112) provide for a mechanism for resolving disputes between the
Contracting Parties regarding their interpretation and application.
Deputy
Director of the Department of Financial, Banking, and Investment Development /
A.S. Ivanov
Copies of
the letters are provided on the attached USB flash drive; scanned copies are
also available in a publicly accessible cloud folder at:
2. The
second paragraph in the responses dated June 11, 2025, No. A26-20-4071791 and
October 8, 2025, No. A26-02-73355291, states:
"First,
the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia does not have the authority to
interpret international treaties of the Russian Federation. Only the parties to
the relevant treaty have such authority."
In reality,
I repeat, I sent my requests to the Chairman of the Russian Government, and the
Office of the Russian Government forwarded my letters to the Ministry of
Economic Development of Russia. The fact that the Office of the Government is
unaware of the Ministry of Economic Development's lack of authority on this
issue cannot be the fault of the investor, a Russian citizen.
The
introductory part of the Agreement clearly states:
"The
Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of
Kazakhstan, hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties."
Therefore, the Parties to the Agreement are clearly the Government of
Russia and the Government of Kazakhstan, while the Parties to the Treaty on the
EAEU are the Government of Russia, the Government of Kazakhstan, and the other
governments of the signatory countries.
It is the governments of the signatory countries to the Agreement and
the Treaty on the EAEU that have the Right (I emphasize once again that
investors do not have this right) and the obligation to, in the interests of
their investor citizens, not necessarily to immediately dispute the matter in
court, as stated in the responses cited in letters from the Administration of
the President of Russia on behalf of the President of Russia, in subparagraph
two, and in accordance with the Agreement, verbatim:
"Article
12 Consultations
The Contracting Parties shall, at the request of either of them, conduct
consultations on matters relating to the interpretation or application
of this
Agreement."
And in
accordance with the EAEU Treaty:
"Article 112. Dispute Resolution
Disputes related to the interpretation and/or application of the
provisions
of this Treaty shall be resolved through consultations and
negotiations."
Further, in
paragraph two, subparagraph three, the responses provided by the Administration
of the President of Russia on behalf of the President of Russia state:
"Thirdly, the applicant's ability to seek protection of its rights
as an investor through independent arbitration tribunals, which are provided
for in both the EAEU Treaty and the 1998 Agreement, has been repeatedly
mentioned.
To implement the opportunities provided by these mechanisms,
declarations by the parties to the relevant treaties regarding the
interpretation of any provisions are not required."
This
assertion contradicts the fundamental provisions of the ad hoc arbitration
tribunal I have chosen, in accordance with the Agreement and the EAEU Treaty,
in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), which implies that
if I cannot
apply the Agreement and the EAEU Treaty (as the Government of Kazakhstan
claims), then I cannot invoke them as an arbitration agreement (arbitration
clause) under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules:
"UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules, Section I. Introductory Provisions. Scope of Application*
Article 1
1. If the
parties have agreed that disputes between them concerning a specific legal
relationship, whether contractual in nature or not, will be submitted to
arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, such disputes shall be
resolved in accordance with these Rules, subject to such modifications as the
parties may agree. ……hereinafter….
Notice of
Arbitration Article 3
3. The
notice of arbitration shall include: c) a reference to the relevant arbitration
agreement;
Statement
of Claim Article 20
3. The
statement of claim shall be accompanied by copies of any contract or other
legal instrument out of or in relation to which the dispute arises, as well as
a copy of the arbitration agreement.
UNCITRAL
Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration
Article 1.
Scope of Application Applicable Instrument in Case of Conflict
7. Where
the Rules on Transparency apply, they shall supplement any applicable
arbitration rules. In the event of a conflict between the Rules on Transparency
and the applicable arbitration rules, the Rules on Transparency shall apply. Notwithstanding
any provisions of these Rules, in the event of a conflict between the
Transparency Rules and an international treaty, the provisions of that treaty
shall apply."
I repeat:
therefore, since the Government of Kazakhstan (illegibly) asserts that I cannot
apply the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU, then without the consent of the
Government of Russia, and specifically, unless the Government of Russia, taking
into account its obligations to guarantee the constitutional rights of Russian
investors, convinces the Government of Kazakhstan otherwise, I cannot litigate
in an ad hoc arbitration court in accordance with the aforementioned provisions
of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
Furthermore,
in paragraph two, subparagraph three, the responses of the Administration of
the President of Russia on behalf of the President of Russia state:
"The
Treaty on the EAEU, like the 1998 Agreement, also provides for the possibility
for an investor to seek protection of their rights in the state court of the
party in whose territory the investment was made. In the case of an applicant,
this is the court of Kazakhstan."
I reiterate
that my right to apply the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU is recognized
by all competent experts in Russia (Appendix 7) and experts of the Eurasian
Economic Commission (Appendix 8 on the USB flash drive). Therefore, under the
Agreement:
"If the dispute is not resolved in this manner within six
months from the date of the written notice referred to in paragraph 1
of this Article, then, at the investor's option, it will be referred to:
c) an ad hoc arbitration tribunal in accordance with the Arbitration
Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
(UNCITRAL)."
and under the Treaty on the EAEU:
"85.
If the dispute cannot be resolved through negotiations within six months from
the date of written notice from either party to the dispute to conduct
negotiations, it may be referred, at the investor's option, to:
3) an ad
hoc arbitration tribunal, which, unless the parties to the dispute otherwise
agree, shall be constituted and governed by the Arbitration Rules of the United
Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL);
Therefore,
the investor—meaning me—chooses the arbitration court, and I have chosen the
UNCITRAL ad hoc tribunal. Any attempt to impose other dispute resolution
options on me is nothing less than a violation of the Agreement and the Treaty
on the EAEU, as well as Articles 45 and 46 of the Russian Constitution. And, I
repeat, since the Government of Kazakhstan claims (illegibly) that I cannot
apply the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU, then without coordinating this
issue with the Government of Russia, and specifically, unless the Government of
Russia, taking into account its obligations to guarantee the constitutional
rights of Russian investors, convinces the Government of Kazakhstan otherwise,
then I cannot litigate in an ad hoc arbitration court in accordance with the
above provisions of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
"Further,
in paragraph two, subparagraph three, in the responses provided by the
Administration of the President of Russia on behalf of the President of Russia,
it is stated:
K.A.
Nikitin appealed to the courts of Kazakhstan, but did not appear at the court
hearings (letter from the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan dated January 6,
2011, No. 6-1-19/i-73). Therefore, K.A. Nikitin did not exercise his right to
defend his rights in the courts of Kazakhstan and in arbitration
proceedings."
The new
response dated October 8, 2025, No. A26-02-73355291 (Appendix 2), cites, as
evidence, the Decision of the Presnensky District Court of Moscow in case No.
02-3368/2021 (incidentally, "on the claim of Konstantin Alekseevich
Nikitin against the Government of the Russian Federation for compensation for
material damages"). However, the Court's Decision merely states, verbatim:
"It follows from the case materials that the plaintiff initiated
legal proceedings
in the courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan, however, to no avail."
I will add
that this is not denied by the court, in other cases, for a different reason,
with a different defendant. The connection between the two events in the new
response dated October 8, 2025, No. A26-02-73355291, like the assertion itself,
is, to put it mildly, untrue. The Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan, and
subsequently the Administration of the President of Russia, on behalf of the
President of Russia, together with the Russian Government, represented by the
Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, are disseminating unverified
information that is, in fact, very unsavory. Having received the letter from
the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan dated January 6, 2011, No. 6-1-19/i-73,
the Russian Government should have requested the case materials for which I
allegedly failed to appear in court. Or should they have believed the
documents, scanned copies of which have been repeatedly provided by Russian
citizen K. A. Nikitin.
All
information (and scanned copies of documents) regarding this court case is
contained in my folder "1." "Unfair Trial in Kazakhstan –
Justification" at:
The word "justification" in the folder title refers to my
reasons for never appealing to the Kazakh courts due to an unjust decision in
my case, a Russian citizen, in which my claims were supported by facts, yet an
unjust decision was made and the excessive fee I paid was misappropriated.
This case is my dispute with Almatyteplokommunenergo Joint-Stock
Company, or more precisely, my demand to buy back my shares in accordance with
the law on joint-stock companies, in connection with the company's
reorganization.
My stake in
the company had not yet been illegally reduced by the Kazakh government, and
therefore I had no grounds to sue the Kazakh government or, accordingly, to
apply the Agreement and the EAEU Treaty. This was a lawsuit against a
joint-stock company and has no connection to the case I am attempting to sue
the Kazakh government in the UNCITRAL ad hoc court.
A brief
summary of the (unfair) legal proceedings, in my opinion, involving a Russian
citizen against the joint-stock company Almatyteplokommunenergo, with copies of
documents.
The
assertion that I did not appear in the Kazakh courts as part of the arbitration
proceedings is untrue. The facts of the unfair legal proceedings in Kazakhstan
are as follows:
Now a
Russian citizen, I flew from St. Petersburg to Almaty for another meeting of
shareholders of Almatyteplokommunenergo, where I voted against the company's
reorganization. In accordance with the law on joint-stock companies of the
Republic of Kazakhstan, I demanded that the company repurchase my shares. The
joint-stock company (significantly, it is a natural monopoly with a state
stake) refused to repurchase my shares. I filed a lawsuit SPECIFICALLY against
the joint-stock company. The Almaty courts rejected my claim for a long time,
and at the time, I didn't understand why. Later, I learned that the Kazakh
government was preparing to dilute the shares of private individuals in the
natural monopoly joint-stock company. I was required to file not just a
lawsuit, but a property claim and pay a fee. I, a Russian investor, paid the
equivalent of $7,000 in tenge, plus hired a lawyer and paid for his services
(Appendix 9 on the USB flash drive). The district court heard a reorganization
case, and a representative of the joint-stock company argued that the process
was not a reorganization. To reach a decision, the judge demanded that I pay
for an audit of the company to determine the value of the shares. I told the
court that I was satisfied with the audit conducted by the joint-stock company
and the book value of the shares indicated therein. The judge insisted that I
pay for the audit (Appendix 10 on the USB flash drive). It's worth noting that
the share price upon repurchase by the company is a mandatory document of the
joint-stock company. I complained to the National Securities Commission of the
Republic of Kazakhstan, which upheld my assertion that such a document is
necessary for the company and issued a reprimand to the joint-stock company.
Incidentally, the law on joint-stock companies prescribes a methodology for
valuing shares upon repurchase by the company (the value is based on the
company's equity capital, the book value of the share, taking into account the
prospects for its increase).
The hearing
of my appeal in the Almaty City Court took place on the day the company decided
to reorganize and approved the methodology for determining the value of shares
during their repurchase by the company (the meeting notice with the agenda was
published a month in advance, and, apparently, the City Court was aware of
this, Appendix 11 on the USB flash drive). The court nevertheless upheld the
district court's decision that I must pay for an audit of the company to assess
the value of the shares (Appendix 12 on the USB flash drive), without
mentioning that the shares were legally required to be repurchased from me.
While I was in court, the Government of Kazakhstan diluted my stake, so I now
had to sue the Government of Kazakhstan over this dilution. Thus, these two
cases are completely different: one is with the joint-stock company, the other
is with the Government of Kazakhstan for different reasons, on different
grounds, with different defendants.
After I filed a Notice of Intent to Arbitrate
with the Government of Kazakhstan before an ad hoc (UNCITRAL) tribunal
regarding the illegal dilution of my stake, I received a telegram from the
district court resuming the proceedings (?????). I did not request this and I
perceive it as a provocation for my participation in a new trial with the
Government of Kazakhstan in the district court (Appendix 13 on the USB flash
drive). Had I appeared at this single hearing, the Government of Kazakhstan
would have interpreted this as my consent to have my Notice to the Government
of Kazakhstan considered by the district court. I, of course, did not appear at
this single hearing (or, more accurately, I did not fall for the Government of
Kazakhstan's provocative ploy). Incidentally, the $7,000 fee for the first
case, specifically against the joint-stock company, was never refunded to me, a
Russian citizen, despite the fact that my claims were fully upheld by the
shareholders' meeting. Having had such a sad experience with non-compliance
with the laws in the courts of Kazakhstan, I chose the international
arbitration court ad hoc (UNCITRAL) for a new case, on a different occasion,
with a different defendant.
3. In the
third paragraph of the responses provided by the Administration of the
President of Russia, it is stated on behalf of the President of Russia:
"In his appeal, citizen K.A. Nikitin points out the absence of a
responsible body for resolving disputes regarding the interpretation and
application of the EAEU Treaty in accordance with Article 112 thereof, when the
dispute, in interpretation and application, relates to investments in
accordance with Section VII "Investments" of Appendix 16 of the
Treaty.
This framing of the issue is incorrect. In accordance with Article 112
of the EAEU Treaty, such a body is the EAEU Court."
I declare
that I spoke about the absence of such a body exclusively to the Government of
Russia. The Ministry of Economic Development of Russia itself claims that it
does not have the authority to conduct such consultations. Despite this, the
Office of the Government of Russia has sent my requests to the Ministry of
Economic Development of Russia specifically, requesting consultations to
resolve disagreements with the Government of Kazakhstan. Regarding the EAEU
Court, it is the governments of the countries participating in the Agreement
and the Treaty on the EAEU that have the right to have disputes regarding
differences in interpretation and/or application heard in the EAEU Court (I
emphasize once again that investors do not have this right; Appendix 14 on the
USB flash drive; investors are individuals and legal entities investing in the
Republic of Kazakhstan). The EAEU Court's statement to my appeal, verbatim,
reads:
"The
Statute of the Court does not provide for the right of individuals to file
claims, petitions, or complaints against the governments of the member states
of the Eurasian Economic Union with the Court."
4. In the
fourth paragraph of the cited responses from the Administration of the
President of Russia, it is stated on behalf of the President of Russia:
"The
applicant also points to differences in the interpretation and application of
the treaty between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the
Government of the Russian Federation.
This
assertion is also incorrect. The materials previously submitted by the
applicant did not indicate any grounds for believing that the Russian
Federation and Kazakhstan understand any provisions of the EAEU Treaty or the
1998 Agreement differently. Rather, the applicant believes that Kazakhstan has
violated the 1998 Agreement and the EAEU Treaty against him. This in itself is
not a matter of interpretation.
This statement is untrue.
The validity of my claims to the right to apply the EAEU Agreement and
Treaty, as indicated in the above-mentioned documents, is currently recognized
by all competent experts from all Ministries of the Russian Federation
(Appendix 7), experts from the Eurasian Economic Commission (Appendix 8), and
is not recognized only by the Government of Kazakhstan (Appendix 15).
The problem is that no one in the Government of the Russian Federation
currently has the authority to initiate negotiations to resolve disagreements,
in the case of a specific Russian investor, between the Government of Russia
and the Government of Kazakhstan in the application of the Agreement and Treaty
on the EAEU (previously, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia made
such an attempt).
The discrepancies regarding my ability to apply the Agreement between
the Government of Russia and the Government of Kazakhstan have been confirmed
by documents I have repeatedly provided (and are included in the attached USB
flash drive, Appendix 15). Scanned copies of these documents can also be viewed
in a publicly accessible cloud folder at:
Unlike the
Russian party to the Agreement and the EAEU Treaty, the Kazakh party, on behalf
of the Government of Kazakhstan, asserts that I have no right to apply the
Agreement. Letters from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
No. 6-1-19/ and -73, dated January 6, 2011, and No. 6-1-19/4671, dated April
27, 2011, state verbatim:
"Considering
the fact that at the time of acquiring the shares of Almatyteplokommunenergo
JSC, you were a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan and permanently resided
in the Republic of Kazakhstan, your investments cannot be defined as
investments of an 'investor' of one Contracting Party, carried out in the
territory of the other Contracting Party in accordance with the Agreement.
Consequently, there are no grounds for applying the provisions of the Agreement
and involving the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a defendant in
arbitration under Articles 7 and 10 of the Agreement."
Furthermore,
the representative on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan
repeatedly declared the dispute beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitration
tribunal (ref. No. MA/N-8/02 and ref. MA/N-8/04 dated November 12, 2011,
verbatim as follows:
"2. In
accordance with Article 13 of the Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Government of the Russian Federation on the
Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments (Moscow, July 6, 1998), this
Agreement shall apply to all investments made by investors of one Contracting
Party in the territory of the other Contracting Party beginning December 16,
1991. Therefore, the provisions of the Agreement would have been applicable if,
at the time of the acquisition of shares in Almatyteplokommunenergo JSC,
Nikitin K.A. had been a citizen of the Russian Federation;";
"This
case is not subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration court due to: a) the
absence of contractual or other relations between Nikitin K.A. and the
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and, accordingly, the absence of an
arbitration clause; ….. hereinafter referred to as…. c) Nikitin K. A. does not
fall under the definition of "investor" as set out in Article 1 of
the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the
Government of the Russian Federation "On the Promotion and Reciprocal
Protection of Investments" (Moscow, July 6, 1998), ……hereinafter …… e) in
accordance with Article 13 of the Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Government of the Russian Federation "On
the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments" (Moscow, July 6,
1998), governs relations that arose on December 16, 1991, and Nikitin K. A. was
a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan at the time of his acquisition of
shares in Almatyteplokommunenergo JSC."
The above
is clear confirmation of the fact that the Government of Kazakhstan insists
that I have no right to apply the Agreement. The absurdity of the Government of
Kazakhstan's assertion is also obvious and contradicts the laws of Kazakhstan
itself, as I will demonstrate below. That I am a Russian investor and that my
rights were violated when I became a Russian citizen and permanently resided in
St. Petersburg, and therefore have the right to apply the Agreement and Treaty
on the EAEU, is beyond doubt and is recognized by all experts, including those
of the Eurasian Economic Commission (Appendix 8). This is recognized by
everyone except the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It should be
noted that failure to recognize the right of a Russian citizen to apply
treaties concluded in the interests of Russian citizens is a clear violation of
Articles 2, 8, 17, 18, 19, 35, 45, 46, and 47 of the Constitution of Russia.
Therefore,
the existence of disagreements regarding the application of the Agreement and
Treaty of the EAEU, in the case of a specific Russian investor, between the
Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of
Kazakhstan is a fact and, in accordance with the Agreement and Treaty on the
EAEU, must be resolved by the Government of Russia through consultations and
negotiations with the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The fourth
point in the cited responses from the Russian Presidential Administration also
states, on behalf of the Russian President:
"The
Russian Federation also follows a practice that excludes Russian citizens from
receiving protection under international treaties with third countries with
respect to assets they invest in the Russian Federation."
To put it
mildly, it must be understood that this statement has no bearing on my case,
given the obvious difference from my own: a Russian citizen has the right to
receive protection under international treaties concluded by the Russian
Federation in the interests of Russian citizens, and, in particular, with
respect to their investments in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Denying this right
to a Russian citizen violates Articles 2, 8, 17, 18, 19, 35, 45, 46, and 47 of
the Russian Constitution.
The fourth
paragraph of the responses from the Russian Presidential Administration, on
behalf of the Russian President, also states:
"Furthermore,
based on the aforementioned letter from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic
of Kazakhstan dated January 6, 2011, No. 6-1-19/i-73, this Ministry informed
the applicant that his claims under the 1998 Agreement cannot be supported, since
at the time of the investment, he was a citizen of Kazakhstan, not the Russian
Federation, which does not meet the criteria for the term "investor"
contained in Article 1.2 of the 1998 Agreement. Therefore, the investments that
are the subject of the dispute between the applicant and Kazakhstan are, in
fact, investments by a citizen of Kazakhstan on the territory of
Kazakhstan."
The letter
from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan indicates that I
cannot apply the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU, as I acquired the shares
while a citizen of Kazakhstan. (It should be noted once again that my rights
were violated when I was already a citizen of Russia and permanently resided in
St. Petersburg. According to the logic of the Government of Kazakhstan, it
should be added that they will continue to be violated, even when my
great-grandchildren, who are Russian citizens, inherit the shares.) The
citation of the letter from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of
Kazakhstan should probably be understood as confirmation by the Administration
of the President of Russia, acting on behalf of the President of Russia and the
Government of Russia, of the legally illiterate assertion of the Government of
Kazakhstan (???), which violates the constitutional rights of Russian citizens,
namely, Articles 2, 8, 17, 18, 19, 35, 45, 46, and 47 of the Constitution of
Russia.
I
demonstrate the legal illiteracy of this assertion by the Government of
Kazakhstan (the Russian Presidential Administration and the Russian Government
would benefit from using evidence when consulting with the Government of
Kazakhstan to resolve disagreements regarding the interpretation and/or
application of the Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU).
In the Law
of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 8, 2003, No. 373-II "On
Investments" (as amended and supplemented as of December 1, 2015), the
concept of "the moment of investment" does not exist, but rather:
"Investment
activity - the activity of individuals and legal entities participating in the
authorized capital of commercial organizations or creating or increasing fixed
assets used for entrepreneurial activity."
And the
concept:
"Investor
- individuals and legal entities investing in the Republic of Kazakhstan."
Thus,
investment activity is not a one-time process. I was initially an investor as a
citizen of Kazakhstan; later, when I became a Russian citizen, I participated
in general meetings of Almatyteplokommunenergo and, as a Russian citizen,
participated in its authorized capital. A scanned copy of my personal account
statement, prepared by the independent registrar of Almatyteplokommunenergo
Joint-Stock Company at a time when my rights were not yet violated, is attached
to the USB flash drive (Appendix 16). It indicates the number of shares owned
by me, a Russian citizen, their percentage of the outstanding and voting
shares, and my Russian passport. In accordance with the laws: Law of the
Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 2, 2003, No. 461-11 "On the Securities
Market"
Chapter 7.
Registration of Transactions with Equity Securities and Confirmation of Rights
Thereto
Article 36.
Registration of Transactions with Equity Securities
7. In the
event of a unilateral transaction with equity securities on the unorganized
securities market, its registration shall be carried out based on an order from
a participant in the transaction, accompanied by documents confirming their
rights to the securities.
9. The
registrar (nominee holder) shall not have the right to independently make
entries in the personal accounts of holders of equity securities in the absence
of grounds established by this Law and other legislation of the Republic of
Kazakhstan. Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (General Part)
Section 1, General Provisions
Chapter 4. Transactions
Article 147. Concept of a Transaction
Transactions
are actions of individuals and legal entities aimed at establishing, modifying,
or terminating civil rights and obligations.
Similar
Article 153 in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
Article
148. Unilateral Transactions and Contracts
1.
Transactions may be unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral (contracts).
2. A
unilateral transaction is one in which, in accordance with legislation or
agreement of the parties, the expression of intent by one party is necessary
and sufficient.
Similar
Article 154 in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
I, a
Russian citizen, entered into a transaction not prohibited by law and became
the owner of shares in the Kazakhstani joint-stock company
Almatyteplokommunenergo as a Russian investor, as confirmed by the independent
registrar of the joint-stock company's statements. Who the owner (primary
investor) was before I became a Russian investor is of no legal significance,
since my rights as a Russian investor have already been violated. Additional
arguments are contained in a letter from a competent expert of the Eurasian
Economic Commission (Appendix 8).
Based on
the above, the facts confirmed in the attached documents, and references to
specific legal articles, the statement in the letter from the Russian
Government, represented by the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia,
cited in letters from the Administration of the President of the Russian
Federation on behalf of the President of Russia:
"Considering
the above, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia does not see any
legal basis for making a decision to conduct negotiations on the interpretation
and application of the EAEU Treaty in this case."
is
erroneous, due to the allegedly unsubstantiated justification of the Ministry
of Economic Development of Russia. Which contradicts the fundamental concepts
and laws: on joint-stock companies, on the securities market, on investments,
on independent registrars of securities holders, articles of the Civil Code,
articles of the Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU, the UNCITRAL arbitration
rules, the cited articles of the Constitution of Russia and violates the
constitutional rights of a citizen of Russia.
I request:
Mr.
Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation,
In order to
fulfill the obligations of the Government of the Russian Federation to Russian
citizens under the Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU, to hold consultations with
the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan to resolve obvious discrepancies
in the interpretation and/or application of the Agreement and Treaty on the
EAEU.
I request:
Mr.
President of the Russian Federation,
In order to
guarantee the observance of the constitutional rights of Russian citizens,
To instruct
the authorized body of the Administration of the President of the Russian
Federation to oversee the Government of the Russian Federation's
consultations
with the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan to resolve discrepancies in
the interpretation and/or application of the Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU.
Appendix:
Everything
stated above (the entire history of the issue) is supported by documents and
emails recorded over more than 14 years. Some copies are provided on a USB
flash drive. All materials and their scanned copies are freely accessible in a
cloud folder scanned by an antivirus program at:
Permission
to copy and use the information is permitted.
**This
letter in Word format is provided in Appendix 200 for easy reference.
***
Appendix 17 contains the Eurasian Economic Commission's explicit response to my
information letter dated August 11, 2025.
Konstantin
Alekseevich Nikitin
April 2,
2026
