"I had no right to block"
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 7:26 am
"The Mayor of Moscow is the head of the sole shareholder of JSC Moscow Media - the city of Moscow - and the person who controls JSC Moscow Media. Restrictive measures imposed by the authorities of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have been imposed and are still in effect against the current Mayor of Moscow, Sergei Sobyanin, which is confirmed by an extract from the sanctions list... Due to the close corporate connection between greece whatsapp resource JSC Moscow Media and Sergei Sobyanin as the head of the sole shareholder of the plaintiff, JSC Moscow Media is subject to sanctions restrictions by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland... Therefore, it is impossible to resolve the dispute in the court of England, Wales or the United States, which means that local legislation is applicable, and the dispute is subject to the jurisdiction of the local court... The terms of use do not provide for the exclusion of the competence of Russian courts, but on the contrary, obviously allow a person to exercise the right to appeal to a local court," the decision of the Arbitration Court of Moscow says.
"Since the plaintiff is also subject to sanctions restrictions, he cannot pay the relevant arbitration fees (or the fee for proceedings in a foreign state court), nor hire foreign legal representatives, nor even come to the territory of the United Kingdom or the United States to consider the dispute. From the point of view of Part 4 of Article 248.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, it is precisely these circumstances that constitute an obstacle to access to justice," the document emphasizes.
The decision also states that the court found Google's actions to "unilaterally withdraw from contracts to provide the plaintiff with YouTube video hosting services" to be contrary to "super-mandatory norms and public order of the Russian Federation," as well as "fundamental norms of international law in the area of human rights protection."
Google LLC's arguments that the YouTube Terms of Use contain agreements on applicable English law were rejected on the basis that the applicable foreign law provision "does not apply when the consequences of its application would clearly contradict the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Russian Federation."
In addition, the court indicated that a right is not subject to judicial protection if “the exercise of which by the right holder is conditioned by compliance with the sanctions regime against the Russian Federation and its economic entities, which are established by any state outside the proper international legal procedure and in contradiction with multilateral international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party.”
"Arbitration practice also confirms the conclusion on the inadmissibility of applying foreign economic sanctions due to their contradiction with the public order of Russia. In addition, the general principles of applying foreign law on the territory of the Russian Federation are established by Article 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Articles 1189, 1191, 1192, 1193 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and do not provide for the obligation of Russian legal entities to comply with prohibitions (export restrictions) imposed by international organizations or foreign states against the Russian Federation," the court decision emphasizes.
"Since the sanctions legislation of the United States and the United Kingdom is contrary to public order, and as a result should not be applied on the territory of the Russian Federation, the defendants had no right to restrict the functioning of the Moscow Trust channel, in accordance with the section "Blocking and deleting an account by YouTube" of the YouTube terms of use," the Moscow Arbitration Court concluded.
"Since the plaintiff is also subject to sanctions restrictions, he cannot pay the relevant arbitration fees (or the fee for proceedings in a foreign state court), nor hire foreign legal representatives, nor even come to the territory of the United Kingdom or the United States to consider the dispute. From the point of view of Part 4 of Article 248.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, it is precisely these circumstances that constitute an obstacle to access to justice," the document emphasizes.
The decision also states that the court found Google's actions to "unilaterally withdraw from contracts to provide the plaintiff with YouTube video hosting services" to be contrary to "super-mandatory norms and public order of the Russian Federation," as well as "fundamental norms of international law in the area of human rights protection."
Google LLC's arguments that the YouTube Terms of Use contain agreements on applicable English law were rejected on the basis that the applicable foreign law provision "does not apply when the consequences of its application would clearly contradict the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Russian Federation."
In addition, the court indicated that a right is not subject to judicial protection if “the exercise of which by the right holder is conditioned by compliance with the sanctions regime against the Russian Federation and its economic entities, which are established by any state outside the proper international legal procedure and in contradiction with multilateral international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party.”
"Arbitration practice also confirms the conclusion on the inadmissibility of applying foreign economic sanctions due to their contradiction with the public order of Russia. In addition, the general principles of applying foreign law on the territory of the Russian Federation are established by Article 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Articles 1189, 1191, 1192, 1193 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and do not provide for the obligation of Russian legal entities to comply with prohibitions (export restrictions) imposed by international organizations or foreign states against the Russian Federation," the court decision emphasizes.
"Since the sanctions legislation of the United States and the United Kingdom is contrary to public order, and as a result should not be applied on the territory of the Russian Federation, the defendants had no right to restrict the functioning of the Moscow Trust channel, in accordance with the section "Blocking and deleting an account by YouTube" of the YouTube terms of use," the Moscow Arbitration Court concluded.