We have previously written numerous times about the “lawsuit campaign” initiated by the fake “Crimean speaker” in illegal “Crimean courts” regarding the “water and energy blockade” of the occupied peninsula.
As a reminder, this show has been promoted by “outstanding lawyers” from Vladimir Konstantinov’s clan since 2023 in two areas: “lawsuits” from the “Crimean authorities” against the Ukrainian ministries of energy and ecology, as well as the State agency for water resources of Ukraine, for 3.15 trillion and 152.6 billion rubles, respectively, as well as “establishing the fact of material and moral damage caused by the blockades.”
The collaborators launched their second “creative” campaign a year ago through the fake “Supreme court of the Republic of Crimea,” which allegedly “fully satisfied the claims of the public chamber” in a “case regarding the recognition of Crimean residents’ right to compensation for moral damages resulting from the energy blockade by Ukraine,” also for several trillion rubles.
Last year’s “decision” was timed to coincide with the “anniversary of the blackout” that began in Crimea on November 22, 2015. And now, on the “tenth anniversary,” the same Konstantinov decided to “report on the results of his work,” announcing that in addition to the aforementioned “lawsuits from the authorities,” “the Crimean Arbitration Court satisfied 12 claims against the Ukrainian authorities for compensation for damages caused by the water and energy blockade, totaling over 5.3 billion rubles.”
It’s worth recalling here that after the “moral damage decisions,” the “Konstantinov-style” collaborators promised “tens of thousands of lawsuits” from “affected enterprises” and “hundreds of thousands of complaints from ordinary Crimeans,” which “for some reason” hasn’t happened over the past year, although we didn’t rule out the possibility that collaborator-controlled structures, as well as “civil servants,” “public sector employees,” and the like, would “voluntarily-compulsorily” file these “lawsuits.”
And in this situation, the most tragicomic thing isn’t the number of “winning cases,” but the fact that Konstantinov’s bravura statements were immediately “corrected” in the TASS report. It turns out that over the past year, not 12, but 28 “lawsuits” have been filed with the “Crimean Arbitration Court,” all concerning the “water” blockade, not the “water and energy blockade,” as the “Crimean spokesman” claimed.
Of the aforementioned “water claims,” three “were dismissed due to the failure of the institution’s representatives to appear at the hearings.” And they were filed by such “mastodons” as the previously described “state-owned enterprises” “Roussiya” and “Solnechnaya Tavrika” Sanatorium and Health Complexes, as well as “Simferopol Production Association Krymplast.”
And, as TASS decided to “clarify” with Konstantinov, “five claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs’ withdrawal of their claims.”
It is stated that this was the behavior of the “companies” “Holton” (“claim” for 27.4 million), “Ecological and Tourist Center in Parkovy” (“claim” for 149.7 million), “Zolotoy Bereg” Sanatorium (“claim” for 1.2 billion), “Oreanda Hotel Complex” (“claim” for 41.8 million), and “Sanatorium “Sakropol” (“claim” for 156.6 million).
In six more cases, TASS reported, “the proceedings were terminated without explanation because the hearings were held behind closed doors.” These included “claims” from such “LLCs” as the “Alushta Sanatorium Creative Center” (for 48.8 million), “Kirov Sanatorium” (for 39.5 million), “Olenevka Village” (for 57 million), Krymtur (10.3 million), “Voskhod Tourist Base” (27.7 million), and “Palmira-Palace” (49.3 million).
It was also stated that a “claim” from the “Crimean Soda Plant” for 146.4 million, “upheld by the court of first instance, was overturned due to newly discovered circumstances.” Among the “upheld claims,” the largest were filed by an aggressor-controlled companies “Titanium Investments” (1.2 billion), “Yarosvit-Agro” (854.4 million) and “Antey” (810.3 million).
These “exposés” from TASS against Konstantinov, and the characteristic situation with the “lawsuits” themselves, show that the “Crimean speaker’s” initiative to “sue Ukraine” is not being received unambiguously in the Kremlin.
“Competing clans” of collaborators have clearly decided to sabotage it, and there is no sign of any approval from Moscow to “make the necessary decisions.”
The reasons for this situation can only be speculated. However, beyond the traditional “clan struggle,” it can be hypothesized that Kremlin lawyers, not Simferopol lawyers, are well aware that by “lifting Ukraine’s state immunity” in the aforementioned “commercial lawsuits,” the fake “arbitrations” thereby opened the floodgates for genuine commercial lawsuits against Russia in Ukrainian courts and in courts of any third national jurisdiction.
After all, state immunity in such cases is lifted on the principle of reciprocity, and the sham nature of the “Crimean courts” no longer plays a role. How the tragicomedy of “blockade lawsuits” on the occupied peninsula will unfold remains to be seen.
