Open letter Appeal to
the President of the Russian Federation and
to the Chairman of the
Government of the Russian Federation
APPEAL
Dear Mr. President of
Russia,
Dear Mr. Chairman of
the Government of Russia,
Unfortunately, to my written Complaint registered on 18.04.2025 No. 407172 with a request to “authorize the relevant government agency to initiate consultations and negotiations in accordance with Articles 11 of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) and Article 112 of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter referred to as the Treaty on the EAEU), since the existence of disagreements in the application of the Agreement and the Treaty of the Eurasian Economic Union between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan in my case is a fact” , your Administration sent me a response dated June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 (text of the letter in Appendix 1 on a USB flash drive), allegedly prepared on the basis of documents and materials of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, which concludes that:
"the Ministry of
Economic Development of Russia does not see any legal grounds for making a
decision to hold negotiations on the interpretation and application of the
Treaty on the EAEU in this case."
Such a response (dated
June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791) violates my rights guaranteed to me, as a
Russian investor, by Article 10 of the Agreement and Article 85 of the Treaty
on the EAEU, and also violates my rights guaranteed to me by Articles 2, 8, 17,
18, 19, 35, 45, 46, 47 of the Constitution of Russia. The arguments contained
in the response dated June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 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, 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 dated June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791, which are
in fact erroneous. 1. Regarding the first point, the response dated June 11,
2025 No. A26-20-4071791 states:
“In this case, the
applicant understood the “interpretation” of the provisions of the relevant
international treaties as providing him with information regarding the
applicability of these treaties in the conditions described by him, which in
essence is not an interpretation.” I declare that this is not true (does not
correspond to reality), I have always asked the Government of Russia to hold
consultations and/or negotiations to resolve the disagreements of the parties
in the application (and in this case, one cannot do without interpretation) 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
was originally going to conduct such negotiations, so in the letter of the
Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated 17.07.2013 under number
OG-D11-4136 (Appendix 2 on USB flash memory) it is literally stated:
"The Department also considered your requests of 1, 3 and 9 July 2013 regarding holding consultations with the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the issue of interpreting individual provisions of the Agreement. The Department has made a decision to officially send to the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan a proposal to hold the aforementioned consultations in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement. We will inform you about the results additionally. Director of the Department of Trade Negotiations M.Yu. Medvedkov"
And in the letter of
the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated September 24, 2013 under
number No. D11i-720 (Appendix 3 on USB flash memory) it is literally stated:
"Dear Konstantin Alekseevich! In connection with your letters dated 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 encouragement and mutual protection of investments, signed in Moscow on July 6, 1998, we inform you of the following.
At the moment, the dates of consultations with the Kazakh side have not yet been determined. An agreed position of the Russian side is being developed, after which a proposal to hold 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 in the attached USB flash drive, their scanned copies can also be
viewed in a freely accessible cloud folder at:
and the USB flash drive
and cloud files have been scanned by a licensed Kaspersky antivirus program.
Unfortunately, after my
complaint to the President of Russia about the delay by the Ministry of
Economic Development of Russia in conducting the above consultations, I
received a response from the Administration of the President of Russia dated
10.10.2014 under number No. A26-02-89333791, with erroneous conclusions, the
most important of which was the following:
"In this regard,
we believe that without the presence of facts confirming K.A.Nikitin's status
as a citizen of the Russian Federation or the Republic of Kazakhstan at the
time of acquisition of shares of the Kazakh JSC, it does not seem appropriate
to conduct consultations between the Government of the Russian Federation and
the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on this issue in accordance with
Article 12 of the Agreement." Such a conclusion is repeated, in essence,
in a new response from the Administration of the President of Russia dated June
11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 and, as mentioned above, contradicts 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 Constitution of Russia - and this will be proven by
me below. After the said letter from the Administration of the President of
Russia dated 10.10.2014 under number No. A26-02-89333791, the Ministry of
Economic Development of Russia suddenly began to claim that it does not have
the authority to conduct such Consultations (despite this, the Office of the
Government of Russia sends my requests to conduct consultations on eliminating
disagreements with the Government of Kazakhstan, namely, to the Ministry of
Economic Development of Russia. Strange!?)
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 agreed upon, verbatim letter
of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated 24.05.2017, Appendix 4
on USB flash memory:
“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 shall apply.
"According to paragraph 6 of the Protocol, an investor of a member state is any person of a member state that carries out 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. At the same time, as follows from the appeal, your rights were violated during the period when you were a citizen of the Russian Federation. In this regard, we believe that you can initiate the dispute resolution procedure in accordance with subsection 6 of section VII of the Protocol. At the same time, we note that if the interpretation of the provisions of the Protocol 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 that appropriate consultations be held in accordance with Article 112 of the Treaty. Deputy Director of the Department of Financial and Banking Activities and Investment Development A.S. Ivanov"
And verbatim the letter
of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated 04.08.2017, Appendix 5
on USB flash memory:
"We additionally
inform you of the following.
According to the
appeal, the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan 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 Mutual Protection
of Investments dated July 6, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 1998
Agreement), since you acquired 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 dated 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 making investments in the territory of the Republic
of Kazakhstan. In this regard, in our opinion, you have the right to use the dispute
resolution procedures provided for by the said international treaties. At the
same time, both the 1998 Agreement (Article I) and the Treaty (Article 112)
provide for a mechanism for resolving disputes between the Contracting Parties
on the issue of their interpretation and application.
Deputy Director of the Department of Financial and Banking Activities
and Investment Development / A.S. Ivanov"
Copies of the letters
are provided in the attached USB flash drive, their scanned copies can also be
viewed in a freely accessible cloud folder at:
2. The second paragraph in the response dated June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 states: "Firstly, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia does not have the authority to give its interpretation of international treaties of the Russian Federation. Only the parties to the relevant treaty have such authority."
But in reality, I will
repeat again that I sent my requests to the Chairman of the Government of
Russia, and the Office of the Government of Russia forwarded my letters to the
Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, and the fact that the Office of the
Government does not know about the lack of authority on this issue of the
Ministry of Economic Development, Russia cannot be the fault of the investor, a
citizen of Russia.
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"
Thus, the Parties to
the Agreement are clearly the Government of Russia and the Government of
Kazakhstan, the Parties to the Treaty on the EAEU are the Government of Russia,
the Government of Kazakhstan and other Governments of the countries
participating in the Treaty. And it is the Governments of the countries
participating in the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU that have the Right
(I emphasize once again that investors do not have such a right) and are
obliged in the interests of their citizens investors, not to immediately argue
in the courts, as stated in the response of June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 in
the subparagraph, secondly, and in accordance with the Agreement, verbatim:
"Article 12
Consultations. The
Contracting Parties, at the request of any of them, shall conduct consultations
on issues related to the interpretation or application of this Agreement."
And in accordance with
the Treaty on the EAEU:
"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, in subparagraph three, in the response dated June 11, 2025 No.
A26-20-4071791 it is stated:
"Thirdly, it has
been repeatedly pointed out that the applicant may seek protection of his
rights as an investor in independent arbitration tribunals, which are provided
for by both the EAEU Treaty and the 1998 Agreement. To implement the
opportunities provided by these mechanisms, statements by the parties to the
relevant treaties on the interpretation of any provisions are not
required."
This statement
contradicts the main provisions of the ad hoc arbitration tribunal chosen by me
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), from which it follows that if I cannot apply the Agreement and the
EAEU Treaty (as the Government of Kazakhstan claims), then I cannot refer to
them as an arbitration agreement (arbitration clause) in accordance with the
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules:
“UNCITRAL Arbitration
Rules, Section I. Introductory Provisions Scope* Article 1
1. Where the parties
have agreed that disputes between them concerning a particular legal
relationship, whether contractual or not, will be submitted to arbitration
under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, such disputes shall be settled 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) an indication of 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 document 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 Rules on
Transparency and an international treaty, the provisions of that treaty shall
apply."
I repeat, therefore,
since the Government of Kazakhstan claims (unlawfully) that I cannot apply the
Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU, then without agreeing on this issue with
the Government of Russia, and specifically, unless the Government of Russia,
taking into account the 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, in subparagraph three, in the response dated June 11, 2025 No.
A26-20-4071791 it is stated:
"The Treaty on the
EAEU, like the 1998 Agreement, also provides for the possibility for an
investor to seek protection of his rights in the state court of the party in
whose territory the investments were made. In the case of the applicant - the
Court of Kazakhstan."
I note again that my
right to apply the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU is recognized by all
competent experts in Russia and experts of the Eurasian Economic Commission
(Appendix 6 on the USB flash drive), therefore, according to the Agreement:
"If the dispute is
not resolved in this manner within six months from the date of the written
notification referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, then, at the choice of
the investor, it will be referred for consideration to:
c) an ad hoc arbitration court 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 by negotiations within 6 months from the date of
written notice by any of the parties to the dispute of the conduct of
negotiations, it may be referred, at the investor's option, to:
3) an ad hoc
arbitration tribunal, which, unless the parties to the dispute agree otherwise,
shall be established and operate in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL);"
Thus, it is the
investor, that is, me, who chooses to litigate, and I have chosen the ad hoc
UNCITRAL tribunal, and an attempt to impose other options for resolving the
dispute on me is nothing more than a violation of the Agreement and the Treaty
on the EAEU. And, I repeat, since the Government of Kazakhstan claims
(illegally) that I cannot apply the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU, then
without coordinating this issue with the Government of Russia, and
specifically, if the Government of Russia, taking into account the obligations
to guarantee the constitutional rights of Russian investors, does not convince
the Government of Kazakhstan otherwise, then I cannot sue in an ad hoc
arbitration court in accordance with the above provisions of the UNCITRAL
arbitration rules.
"Further, in
paragraph two, in subparagraph three, in the response dated June 11, 2025, No.
A26-20-4071791, it is stated: Nikitin K.A. appealed to the courts of
Kazakhstan, but did not appear at the court hearings (letter of the Ministry of
Justice of Kazakhstan dated January 6, 2011, No. 6-1-19 / and-73). Thus,
Nikitin K.A. did not use the right to protect his rights in the judicial bodies
of Kazakhstan and in the framework of arbitration proceedings." To put it mildly, this does not
correspond to reality, the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan, and then the
Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, are broadcasting unverified
information, which in fact looks very unsightly. And 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 did not appear in court. All information on this trial is
provided in my folder “1. Unfair trial in Kazakhstan - justification" at
the address:
The word
"justification" in the folder name implies my reasons for never To apply to the judicial authorities of
Kazakhstan because of an unjust decision in my case, a citizen of Russia, in
which my claims were confirmed by facts, nevertheless, an unjust decision was
made and the large fee paid by me was appropriated.
This case is my dispute
with the Joint-Stock Company "Almatyteplokommunenergo", or rather
with my demand to buy out my shares in accordance with the law on Joint-Stock
Companies, in connection with the reorganization of the company.
My share in the company
had not yet been illegally reduced by the Government of Kazakhstan and
therefore I had no grounds to sue the Government of Kazakhstan and,
accordingly, apply the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU. This was a lawsuit
with a joint-stock company and has nothing to do with the case in which I am
trying to sue the Government of Kazakhstan in an ad hoc court.
Briefly on the trial
(unjust), in my opinion, of a Russian citizen with the joint-stock company
"Almatyteplokommunenergo", with copies of documents.
The assertion that I
did not appear in the courts of Kazakhstan as part of the arbitration
proceedings is not true, the facts of the unjust trial in Kazakhstan are as
follows:
I, already being a
citizen of Russia, once again flew from St. Petersburg to Almaty for a meeting
of shareholders of "Almatyteplokommunenergo", where I voted against
the reorganization of the company. In accordance with the law on Joint-Stock Companies
of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I demanded that the company buy out my shares.
The joint-stock company (it is important that it is a natural monopoly with
state participation) refused to buy out my shares. I filed a lawsuit EXACTLY
against the joint-stock company. The Almaty courts did not accept my claim for
consideration for a long time (at that time I did not understand why, later I
found out that the Government of Kazakhstan was preparing to dilute the shares
of individuals in the joint-stock company, a natural monopoly). They required
me to file not just a claim, but a property claim and pay a fee, I paid the
amount in tenge equivalent to 7,000 US dollars, plus hired a lawyer and paid
for his services (Appendix 7 on the USB flash drive). The district court considered
the case on reorganization, the representative of the joint-stock company
claimed that the process was not a reorganization. In order to make 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 nominal value of the share
indicated in it. The judge insisted on his decision that I pay for the audit
(Appendix 8 on the USB flash drive). It is worth noting that the value of
shares when they are bought out 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 recognized the validity of my statement about the
need for such a document in the company and made a remark to the joint-stock
company. By the way, the law on joint-stock companies prescribes a methodology
for assessing the value of shares when they are bought out by the company
(nominal value based on equity capital, taking into account the prospects for
its increase).
The consideration of my
Appeal in the Almaty City Court took place on the day when the company made a
decision specifically on reorganization and approved the methodology for
determining the value of shares when they are bought out by the company (the notice
of the meeting with the agenda was published a month in advance and,
apparently, the City Court knew about it, Appendix 9 on the USB flash drive).
The court nevertheless confirmed the district court's decision (without the
right of appeal) that I must pay for an audit of the company to assess the
value of the shares (Appendix 10 on the USB flash drive) without saying a word
about the fact that the shares must be bought out from me by law. While I was
in court, the Government of Kazakhstan diluted my share, so I had no right to
sue.
By the way, the fee of
7,000 US dollars was never returned to me, a citizen of Russia, despite the
fact that my claims were confirmed on all points by the decision of the
shareholders' meeting.
Having such a sad
experience of non-compliance with the laws in the courts of Kazakhstan, I chose
an international arbitration court ad hoc (UNCITRAL) in a new case, on a
different occasion, with a different defendant.
3. In the third
paragraph of the response dated June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 it is stated:
“In his appeal, citizen
Nikitin K.A. points out the absence of a responsible structure for resolving
disputes in the interpretation and application of the Treaty on the EAEU in
accordance with its Article 112, when the dispute in interpretation and application
is related to investments in accordance with Section VII Investments of
Appendix 16 of the Treaty. Such a formulation of the question is incorrect. In
accordance with Article 112 of the Treaty on the EAEU, such a structure is the
Court of the EAEU,"
I declare that I spoke
about the absence of such a structure exclusively in 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 sends my requests to conduct consultations on
eliminating disagreements with the Government of Kazakhstan, namely, to the
Ministry of Economic Development of Russia. 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 consider a dispute on disagreements in
interpretation and/or application in the EAEU Court (I emphasize once again
that investors do not have such a right, Appendix 12 on the USB flash drive,
investor - individuals and legal entities investing in the Republic of
Kazakhstan), Statement of the EAEU Court on my appeal, verbatim:
"The Statute of the Court does not provide for the right of individuals to apply to the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union with claims, applications or complaints against the governments of the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union."
4. In the fourth
paragraph of the response dated June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 it is said:
"The applicant
also speaks of the existence of differences in the interpretation and
application of the agreement between the Government of the Republic of
Kazakhstan and the Government of the Russian Federation.This thesis is also
incorrect. It did not follow from the materials previously submitted by the
applicant that there are any grounds to believe that the Russian Federation and
Kazakhstan understand any provisions of the EAEU Treaty or the 1998 Agreement differently.
Rather, it was a question of the applicant believing that Kazakhstan had
violated the 1998 Agreement and the EAEU Treaty in relation to him. This in
itself is not a question of interpretation." This statement is not true
(untrue).
The validity of my
claims for the right to apply the Agreement and the EAEU Treaty, as indicated
in the above documents, is currently recognized by all competent experts of all
the Ministries of the Russian Federation, experts of the Eurasian Economic Commission,
and is not recognized only by the Government of Kazakhstan. 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, such an attempt was made by the Ministry of Economic Development
of Russia). The disagreements regarding the possibility of my application of
the Agreement between the Government of Russia and the Government of Kazakhstan
are confirmed by the documents I have repeatedly provided and are given in the
attached USB flash drive, Appendix 13, their scanned copies can also be viewed
in the freely accessible cloud folder at:
Unlike the Russian side
of the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU, the Kazakhstan side, on behalf of
the Government of Kazakhstan, claims that I do not have the right to apply the
Agreement, as in the letters of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of
Kazakhstan No. 6-1-19 / and -73 dated 06.01. 2011 and No. 6-1-19/4671 of
27.04.2011 verbatim states:
"Taking into
account the fact that at the time of acquisition of shares of JSC
Almatyteplokommunenergo you were a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan and
permanently resided in the territory of 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 state 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 on the
basis of Articles 7, 10 of the Agreement."
In addition, the
representative on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan
repeatedly declared the lack of jurisdiction of the dispute to the composition
of the arbitration court outgoing No. MA/N-8/02 and outgoing MA/N-8/04 of
November 12, 2011, verbatim the following:
"2. According to
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 state of the other Contracting Party starting from December
16, 1991, thus the application of the provisions of the Agreement would be
possible if at the time of acquisition of shares of JSC Almatyteplokommunenergo
Nikitin K.A. was 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 and other relations between Nikitin K.A. and the Government of
the Republic of Kazakhstan and, accordingly, the absence of an arbitration
clause; ….. further in the text…. c) Nikitin K. A. does not fall under the
definition of "investor" 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 Mutual Protection of
Investments" (Moscow, July 6, 1998), ……hereinafter referred to as …… d) 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)
regulates relations that arose on December 16, 1991, and Nikitin K. A. at the
time of acquisition of shares of JSC "Almatyteplokommunenergo" being
a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan." The above is a confirmation of
the obvious fact that the Government of Kazakhstan insists that I have no right
to apply the Agreement. The absurdity of the assertion of the Government of
Kazakhstan is obvious and contradicts the laws of Kazakhstan itself, below in
the text I will prove this. The fact that I am a Russian investor and my rights
were violated when I became a citizen of Russia and permanently resided in the
city of St. Petersburg and, accordingly, have the right to apply the Agreement
and the Treaty on the EAEU, is beyond doubt and is recognized by all experts,
including experts of the Eurasian Economic Commission. Recognized by everyone
except the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It should be noted that
the failure to recognize the right of a citizen of Russia to apply agreements
concluded in the interests of citizens of Russia is an obvious violation of the
Constitution of Russia.
Thus, the existence of disagreements in the
application of the Agreement and the Treaty of the OEAEU, 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, must be agreed upon by the Government of Russia through
consultations and negotiations with the Government of the Republic of
Kazakhstan.
The fourth point in the
response dated June 11, 2025, No. A26-20-4071791 also states:
"The Russian
Federation also follows a practice that excludes the possibility of Russian
citizens to receive protection of international treaties with third countries
in relation to assets invested by them in the territory of the Russian
Federation."
To put it mildly, one
must still understand that this expression has no relation to my case, on the
grounds that the difference with my case is obvious, in which: a Russian
citizen has the right to receive protection of international treaties concluded
by the Russian Federation in the interests of Russian citizens and, in
particular, in relation to his investments in the territory of the Republic of
Kazakhstan.
The fourth point in the
response dated June 11, 2025 No. A26-20-4071791 also states:
“Moreover, based on the
aforementioned letter of 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 based on the 1998 Agreement cannot be supported, since at the
time of making the investments he was a citizen of Kazakhstan, and not of the
Russian Federation, which does not meet the criteria of the term “investor”
contained in Article 1.2 of the 1998 Agreement. Thus, the investments that are
the subject of the dispute between the applicant and Kazakhstan are, in fact,
investments of a citizen of Kazakhstan on the territory of Kazakhstan.”
It follows from the
letter of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan that I cannot
apply the Agreement and the Treaty on the EAEU, since I acquired the shares
while being a citizen of Kazakhstan (It should be added once again that my
rights were violated when I was already a citizen of Russia and permanently
resided in the city of St. Petersburg. According to the logic of the Government
of Kazakhstan, it should be added that they will be violated in the future,
even when my great-grandchildren, citizens of Russia, inherit the shares). The
citation of the letter of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan
should probably be understood as confirmation by the Government of Russia of
the legally illiterate statement of the Government of Kazakhstan (???),
violating the constitutional rights of a citizen of Russia. I prove the legal
illiteracy of this statement of the Government of Kazakhstan (It is useful for
the Government of Russia to use arguments of evidence when holding consultations
with the Government of Kazakhstan to eliminate disagreements in the
interpretation and / or application of the Agreement and the Treaty on the
EAEU).
In the Law of the
Republic of Kazakhstan dated January 8, 2003 No. 373-II On Investments (with
amendments and additions as of December 1, 2015) the concept of "the
moment of making investments" does not exist, but there is a concept:
"investment
activity - the activity of individuals and legal entities to participate in the
authorized capital of commercial organizations or to create or increase fixed
assets used for entrepreneurial activity"
And the concept:
"investor -
individuals and legal entities making investments in the Republic of
Kazakhstan;"
Thus, investment
activity is not a one-time process. At first, I was an investor, a citizen of
Kazakhstan, later, when I became a citizen of Russia, I took part in the
general meetings of "Almatyteplokommunenergo" and already as a
citizen of Russia I participated in its authorized capital. Appendix 14 on the
USB flash drive contains a scanned copy of the statement from my personal
account, made by the independent registrar of the joint-stock company
"Almatyteplokommunenergo", at the time when my rights were not yet
violated. It indicates the number of shares owned by me, a citizen of Russia,
their share of the outstanding and voting shares, my passport of a citizen of
Russia.
In accordance with the
laws: Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 02.07.2003 N 461-11 "On the
Securities Market"
Chapter 7. Registration
of transactions with securities and confirmation of rights to them
Article 36.
Registration of transactions with securities
7. In the event of a
unilateral transaction with securities on the unorganized securities market,
its registration is carried out on the basis of an order from a participant in
this transaction with the attachment of documents confirming his rights to these
securities. 9. The registrar (nominee holder) shall not have the right to
independently make entries on the personal accounts of holders of issue
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 citizens and legal entities aimed at establishing, changing or
terminating civil rights and obligations.
Article 148. Unilateral
transactions and agreements
1. Transactions may be
unilateral and bilateral or multilateral (agreements).
2. A unilateral
transaction is one for the execution of which, in accordance with the
legislation or agreement of the parties, the expression of the will of one
party is necessary and sufficient.
I am a citizen of
Russia, I have made a transaction that is not prohibited by law and have become
the owner of shares of the Kazakhstan Joint Stock Company
Almatyteplokommunenergo already as a Russian investor, which is confirmed by
the statements of the independent registrar of the joint stock company. Who was
the owner (primary investor) before I became a Russian investor has no legal
significance, since my rights as a Russian investor have already been violated.
Based on the above,
based on specific attached documents, and references to specific articles of
laws,
Statement in the letter
of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation dated June 11,
2025 No. A26-20-4071791:
"Taking into
account the above, the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia does not see
any legal grounds for making a decision to hold negotiations on the
interpretation and application of the Treaty on the EAEU in this case." is
erroneous, due to the allegedly untenable justification of the Ministry of
Economic Development of Russia. Which contradicts 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, articles of the Constitution of Russia and violates the constitutional
rights of a citizen of Russia.
I ask:
Mr. Chairman of the
Government of the Russian Federation,
In order to fulfill the
obligations of the Government of the Russian Federation to a citizen of Russia
under the Agreement and Treaty on the EAEU, appoint an authorized body and hold
consultations with the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan to eliminate
obvious disagreements in the interpretation and/or application of the Agreement
and Treaty of the EAEU.
I ask:
Mr. President of the
Russian Federation,
In order to guarantee
the observance of the constitutional rights of a citizen of Russia,To instruct
the authorized structure of the Administration of the President of the Russian
Federation to monitor the holding by the Government of the Russian Federation of
consultations with the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on eliminating
disagreements in the interpretation and/or application of the Agreement and the
Treaty of the EAEU.
Appendix:
Everything that is said
above (the entire history of the problem) is confirmed by documents and letters
recorded for more than 13 years, some copies are provided on a USB flash drive,
all materials and their scanned copies are freely available in a cloud folder,
checked by an antivirus program, at the address:
It is permitted to copy
and use the information.
**this letter in Word
format is provided in Appendix No. 100 for ease of reference
Konstantin Alekseevich Nikitin
August 11, 2025
