--- title: "Astana court overturns ruling to seize $1.4 billion from Gazprom: why Kazakhstan denied Naftogaz jurisdiction" description: "The AIFC court in Kazakhstan overturned the ruling to seize $1.4 billion from Gazprom following Naftogaz's lawsuit βš–οΈπŸ’Έ. The judge cited lack of jurisdiction as the dispute is not related to the financial centre's activities. The Ministry of Justice of the RK confirmed: Kazakhstan will not be an instrument for third-party geopolitical disputes πŸ‡°πŸ‡ΏπŸš«." date: 2026-07-09T14:03:23.000Z lang: en url: https://xab.info/en/posts/astana-court-overturns-ruling-to-seize-1-4-billion-from-gazprom tags: [] publisher: "XAB.info" --- # Astana court overturns ruling to seize $1.4 billion from Gazprom: why Kazakhstan denied Naftogaz jurisdiction ![Supreme Court of Kazakhstan building in Astana, where the ruling to recover $1.4 billion from Gazprom in favor of Naftogaz was overturned](https://xab.info/media/2026/07/09/sud-mftsa-otmenil-reshenie-o-vzyskanii-14-mlrd-dollarov-s-gazproma/sud-mftsa-otmenil-reshenie-o-vzyskanii-14-mlrd-dollarov-s-gazproma-1.webp) The court of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) has issued an unprecedented ruling, fully overturning a previously issued order for the compulsory seizure of $1.4 billion from PJSC Gazprom. The lawsuit was filed by the Ukrainian state company NAK Naftogaz of Ukraine based on an arbitral award from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Switzerland. Lord Justice Fox KC annulled the ruling of his colleague Andrew Spink KC, made earlier in May 2026, citing the lack of proper jurisdiction by the AIFC court. ### Jurisdictional deadlock: why the court refused seizure The key factor influencing the review of the case was the strict interpretation of Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitutional Law of the RK "On the Astana International Financial Centre". The court noted that the powers of the AIFC are exclusive and limited to disputes directly related to the activities of the centre itself. During the proceedings, which involved legal advisors from both sides, the following circumstances were established: - Neither Gazprom nor Naftogaz are residents or participants of the AIFC. - The dispute arose from gas transit contracts and is not related to the operational activities of the financial centre. - Internal arbitration regulations cannot expand the constitutional powers of the court. Thus, Kazakhstan refused to act as a "conduit jurisdiction" for the enforcement of external arbitral awards that have no points of contact with the economy of the host state. This legal position was previously established within the framework of the Posco precedent case. ### History of the conflict: from the Swiss tribunal to the Kazakh court The commercial dispute between the parties has a long history related to the change in gas transportation logistics routes in 2022. In June 2025, the International Arbitral Tribunal in Switzerland ordered Gazprom to pay the debt, interest, and compensate costs amounting to $1.4 billion. In January 2026, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland rejected the appeal of the Russian company, confirming the final status of the ICC ruling. However, the attempt to enforce this ruling on the territory of Kazakhstan encountered legal barriers. The initial enforcement order was issued on May 15, 2026, in an ex parte format β€” without prior notice and participation of Gazprom representatives. The Russian side promptly filed an appeal, which led to a retrial and the final verdict on July 7, 2026. ### Position of Kazakh authorities: sovereignty versus geopolitics Parallel to the court proceedings, the executive authorities of Kazakhstan outlined a strict position on this case. The Minister of Justice of the republic, Erlan Sarsenbayev, officially stated that the decisions of the specialized commercial court of the AIFC are not subject to compulsory enforcement within the general jurisdiction of the country if they go beyond the competence of the centre. The relevant department emphasized that the AIFC, functioning on the basis of English common law, should not become a platform for resolving third-party geopolitical and foreign economic disputes. Legislation requires confirmation of a direct link between the subject of the claim and the territory of the financial centre's activities for the possibility of compulsory asset seizure. ### What's next: consequences and prospects The parties to the proceedings have been given 14 days to submit written summaries regarding the allocation of court costs and other procedural consequences of the verdict rendered. Despite the failure in Kazakhstan, the Ukrainian side retains the right to continue the campaign to seize Gazprom's foreign assets in other international jurisdictions where other legal mechanisms may be applied.