Kumar Bahukhandi
Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, who has been appointed by Russia as its party-appointed arbitrator on a three-member tribunal hearing Ukrainian state-owned Oschadbank’s investment treaty claim over assets allegedly lost following Russian military action in Ukraine-Photo Credit : X
Former Chief Justice joins three-member tribunal hearing Oschadbank’s investment treaty claim over assets allegedly lost following Russian military action in Ukraine
Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has been appointed by Russia as its arbitrator in an international investment treaty dispute brought by Ukrainian state-owned bank Oschadbank, placing the former head of India’s judiciary on a three-member tribunal examining claims arising from the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
The dispute concerns assets and business operations that Oschadbank says it lost in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia following Russian military action.
The arbitration is being pursued under the 1998 bilateral investment treaty between Russia and Ukraine and the claim is understood to run into hundreds of millions of dollars. Oschadbank formally commenced the arbitration on April 7, 2026, after serving Russia with a notice of dispute in July 2025.
Chandrachud’s appointment does not mean that he will represent Russia as a lawyer. As Moscow’s party-appointed arbitrator, he will sit as an independent member of the tribunal and participate in determining the dispute alongside the other two arbitrators.
Three-member tribunal constituted
The tribunal will be presided over by Costa Rican arbitrator and former trade minister Dyalá Jiménez, who was jointly selected by the two sides.
Oschadbank has nominated Greek arbitrator and National University of Singapore professor Stavros Brekoulakis as its party-appointed member, while Russia selected Chandrachud.
The composition gives the tribunal three internationally prominent legal figures who will have to consider complex questions involving investment protection, territorial control and the consequences of the continuing Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Dispute centres on assets in four Ukrainian regions
Oschadbank’s claim relates to assets and operations in four Ukrainian regions that have been heavily affected by the conflict.
The bank alleges that it suffered substantial losses as a consequence of Russia’s actions, particularly following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
The proceedings add another chapter to Oschadbank’s long-running investment disputes with Russia.
The Ukrainian bank had previously pursued a separate treaty arbitration concerning the loss of its investment in Crimea following Russia’s annexation of the peninsula in 2014. In that case, an arbitral tribunal awarded Oschadbank more than $1.1 billion in compensation.
The present proceedings, however, concern different territories and losses allegedly arising from subsequent Russian military actions.
Chandrachud had earlier declined Russian approaches
The latest appointment is particularly notable because Chandrachud had previously declined approaches from Russia concerning appointments in other investment treaty disputes.
Reports said Russia had earlier approached him in connection with proceedings involving German energy company Wintershall Dea and Ukrainian electricity transmission operator Ukrenergo.
Those approaches acquired additional significance because Chandrachud had been designated by the Permanent Court of Arbitration as an appointing authority in the Wintershall proceedings. After disclosing the Russian communications, he subsequently stepped away from that role.
His acceptance of the Oschadbank appointment therefore represents a different role: he is now directly sitting as one of three arbitrators charged with adjudicating an investment dispute.
From India’s Supreme Court to international arbitration
Chandrachud served as the 50th Chief Justice of India before retiring from the Supreme Court in November 2024.
His appointment to the Oschadbank tribunal reflects the increasingly international professional roles undertaken by senior retired judges, particularly in commercial and investment arbitration where disputes frequently involve governments, multinational corporations and claims worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
The case will also attract attention because of its geopolitical backdrop. Although Russia appointed Chandrachud, the fundamental principle of international arbitration requires a party-appointed arbitrator to exercise independent judgement rather than function as an advocate for the country that nominated him.
That distinction is crucial as the tribunal considers a dispute arising directly from one of the world’s most consequential ongoing conflicts.
