Mr. Guilleau was great success a few years ago as Russia's counsel for the defense in litigation with the Swiss-based Noga Co.
What the Texan law court was doing boiled down to judicial imperialism as it was applying one country's legal norms to another, he pointed out. "That is utterly inadmissible: the U.S. legislation is valid in the United States alone, and cannot work in other countries," he noted.
"The Houston verdict does not comply with international legal norms and encroaches on Russia's sovereignty. It evidently means to pressurize Russian authorities and capital investors with interests in Russia," Daniel Guilleau said.
As the expert sees it, the court proceeded from a biased assumption of the Russian court deserving no confidence whenever overseas investors' interests come in.
"If so, Russian authorities, in their turn, have every reason to be suspicious of an American court. One can assume that whatever verdicts it makes are against Russian interests."
True, the Houston verdict has no legal force in Russia. There is a danger hidden in it, however, warned our interviewee.
"If Russian authorities choose not to comply with the American verdict, which they have every right to do, the United States may come up with more court verdicts on the Yukos affair. They may bring an attempt to arrest Yukos assets in the United States, if it has any. Long litigation is ahead. The Houston verdict has made only an initial step."
The lawyer expects Yukos spokesmen to turn to the U.S. law court and so have the controversy settled by international arbitrators. In that case, Russia may be forced into compliance.
The Houston verdict offers an alarming precedent for international partnership and foreign trade as "one side has taken up the position of strength and is loath to comply with Russian financial and judicial bodies' decisions", he stressed.
Active on the French judiciary, Daniel Guilleau is French-Russian Legal Society chairman.
