Dutch court lifts seizure of Gazprom's local assets
The ruling last week shows that the assets in question were Gazprom's shares in gas producers Wintershall Noordzee and Gazprom International Projects B.V..
The seizure was introduced under two separate cases lodged by Ukrainian companies called Slavutich-Invest and Zhniva over losses related to Russia's actions in Ukraine.
However, the Dutch court ruled that seizing Gazprom's assets may interfere with the principle of state immunity, which means Dutch courts cannot judge the actions of another state or state entity.
Gazprom did not reply to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
12 minutes ago
- The Sun
‘Killer' accused of murdering beauty queen ‘fled to UK on small boat' as heartbroken dad fears he'll never get justice
A MAN accused of murdering his beauty queen wife fled to the UK on a small boat, it is claimed. Ibrahim Ghazal, from Lebanon, is alleged to have suffocated Zeina Kanjo to death in Beirut before moving around Europe for years. 3 3 The 36-year-old - who is subject to an Interpol red notice - eventually travelled to Britain from France this year along with thousands of other migrants. Ghazal was jailed last week jailed for nine months for attempting to arrive without valid entry clearance after being arrested by Border Force. Government officials are facing a possible crisis ahead of his sentence expiring. Ms Kanjo's dad Mohammed fears his daughter will never get justice if the alleged killer returns to Lebanon and is hopeful the British legal system can step up. There are fears Ghazal could do the same to remain in Britain. Ms Kanjo, 33, was murdered in January 2021, having apparently got married just four months earlier. Her death sparked a national debate in Lebanon about domestic abuse. Ms Kanjo had filed domestic violence and fraud cases against her new husband and was trying to divorce him when she was killed, according to reports. She had represented her country at a beauty contest in Egypt the previous year. Ghazal allegedly fled to Turkey hours after his wife's death. Lebanese channel Al Jadeed broadcast an audio recording in which he allegedly admitted to the murder. Speaking to Ms Kanjo's sister, the person says: "I didn't want to, I didn't want her to die, when she was screaming, I just put my hand on her mouth." Ghazal is understood to have travelled through Greece, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. He was arrested in December 2022 in Stokholm under Interpol's red notice. However, Swedish laws prevented him from being extradited back home where he said he faced execution, and when he was detained again in Germany, the same thing happened, according to Ms Kanjo's lawyer Ashraf Al-Moussawi. Mr Al-Moussawi has pointed out Lebanon has not carried out an execution since 1994 and so this should not have been used as a defence. He added the alleged killer then "wandered Europe until his recent arrest in England". The lawyer has urged the British government to find a way to send Ghazal back to his homeland to face justice. Ms Kanjo's dad Mohammed claims his daughter's husband had sneaked back into Lebanon to attend his cousin's wedding a year after his wife's death. "After all this time, I'm left wondering if justice will ever be served," he told the Mail. "It's like something is missing from your body, something that is not replaceable. "I honestly hope he's not handed over to Lebanese authorities only to be imprisoned and then released again." He added perhaps the UK legal system can "find a way to properly punish him". Ghazal was detained by Border Force and jailed at Gloucester Crown Court last Wednesday after admitting to entering the country unlawfully. A Government spokesman said: "The Home Office never comments on whether extradition requests have or have not been received, and it is also our longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases. "However, we will always do everything in our power to remove serious foreign criminals from the UK so they are not left free on our streets after completing their sentence."
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The alternatives to Amex that offer better rewards
American Express (Amex) is synonymous with credit card spending but it's also known for its deals that offer generous cashback, points-based rewards and exclusive perks including priority access to gigs, film screenings and theatre shows. But while these rewards can be appealing, Amex isn't always the best option. While acceptance has improved over the last few years, Amex cards are still not accepted by all retailers. If your aim is to earn reward points or cashback, this will be hindered if some of your favourite places to spend don't accept your card. There can also be incredibly high repayment rates and fees – with the Amex Platinum card charging 691.7pc APR variable, along with £650 a year in annual fees. This means there are more eligibility criteria to fulfil than with other credit cards. For example, you'll usually need a good or excellent credit rating, and some cards will also have a minimum income requirement – in the case of Amex Platinum, you must earn at least £35,000 and have 'no history of bad debt'. With that in mind, Telegraph Money looks at some of the best alternatives to Amex, depending on what you value most from your card – whether it's cashback, rewards, low-cost borrowing or fee-free spending abroad. Best for rewards Some Amex credit cards enable you to earn Avios points that can be redeemed on British Airways flights and holidays. Others let you earn reward points to be spent at certain retailers such as Amazon and Boots, while several Amex cards give you access to pre-sale tickets and exclusive benefits for gigs and theatre visits. Here are some popular alternatives to these cards, depending on what's most useful to you: Virgin Atlantic Reward credit card: flight rewards The Virgin Atlantic Reward credit card gives you 0.75 Virgin Points for every £1 spent on everyday purchases and 1.5 Virgin Points for every £1 spent with Virgin Atlantic or Virgin Holidays. What's more, if you spend on your card within the first 90 days, you'll earn 3,000 bonus points. Points can be redeemed on Virgin Atlantic Flights, hotels and travel extras such as airport parking. The card has a representative APR of 26.9pc (variable). Alternatively, you can pay £160 a year to upgrade to the Reward+ version of the card and earn 18,000 bonus points when you make your first purchase in the first 90 days. You also earn 1.5 Virgin Points for every £1 spent on everyday purchases and three Points for every £1 spent with Virgin Atlantic or Virgin Holidays. Head for Points, a consumer website that pits the top credit cards against each other, notes this is 'exceptionally good'. According to the provider's website, Virgin Points 'never expire'. At the time of writing, you'd need to have earned 20,000 of them to buy a return economy flight from London Heathrow to New York's JFK airport in off-peak September. Barclaycard Avios credit card: flight rewards and exclusive events You can collect 1 Avios for every £1 spent on eligible purchases with the Barclaycard Avios card, plus 5,000 bonus Avios if you spend £1,000 in the first three months. There's a representative APR of 29.9pc. Alternatively, upgrade to the Plus version of the card for £20 a month and earn 1.5 Avios for every £1 spent, plus 25,000 Avios if you spend £3,000 in the first three months. You also benefit from discounted airport lounge access. However, the representative APR jumps to 80.1pc APR for this option. According to Barclaycard, you can get a peak economy return flight from London to Milan for 19,500 Avios plus £1. In addition, becoming a Barclaycard customer gives you the opportunity to take advantage of entertainment perks, including exclusive tickets to live performances and events.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.
