The DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed district court rulings against the Russian Federation in two consolidated cases involving Ukrainian companies seeking compensation for business assets seized during Russia's 2014 invasion and annexation of Crimea.
The February 13, 2026 decision, issued in *Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation* and *JSC DTEK Krymenergo v. Russian Federation*, represents a significant legal victory for Ukrainian businesses affected by the territorial dispute. Circuit Judge Michelle T. Childs wrote for the court, with Circuit Judges Justin R. Walker and Senior Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers participating in the decision.
The cases stem from Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014, which disrupted established Ukrainian business operations on the peninsula. According to the court opinion, Ukrainian companies "were already there, embedded in the daily life of the peninsula" when Russian forces arrived. "Their businesses were lawful, visible, and stationary," Judge Childs wrote.
The affected companies include JSC DTEK Krymenergo, an electricity distributor, and a group of Ukrainian companies referred to as "Investors" that owned and operated petrol stations across Crimea. Within months of the invasion, "Russian and Crimean forces seized facilities, transferred operations, and refused to provide compensation," the court noted.
Both sets of Ukrainian companies pursued their claims under the Agreement Between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments, commonly known as the Investment Treaty. This bilateral investment treaty provided the legal framework for the companies to seek compensation for their seized assets.
The Russian Federation appealed the district court decisions in both cases, which were consolidated for appellate review. The appeals were argued on December 4, 2025, before the three-judge panel.
Representing the Russian Federation, attorney Juan O. Perla argued alongside Joseph D. Pizzurro and Kevin A. Meehan, with additional appearances by Joseph Muschitiello and Sylvi Sareva. The Russian government challenged the lower court findings that favored the Ukrainian companies.
For JSC DTEK Krymenergo in case No. 25-7064, Marney L. Cheek served as lead counsel, supported by Amanda Tuninetti, Jill Warnock, and Hannah Hummel. The electricity distributor's legal team successfully defended the district court's ruling in their favor.
In case No. 25-7005, Stabil LLC and associated companies were represented by James H. Boykin III, working with a substantial legal team including John M. Townsend, Eleanor Erney, Shayda Vance, Carter Rosekrans, and Winthrop Jordan. This group of petrol station operators also prevailed in defending their district court victory.
The DC Circuit's decision to affirm both lower court rulings strengthens the legal precedent for Ukrainian companies seeking compensation for assets seized during the Crimean annexation. The court's opinion emphasizes the established nature of Ukrainian business operations in Crimea prior to the Russian invasion, describing them as integral to the peninsula's economy.
The ruling comes at a time when numerous legal challenges related to Russia's territorial actions continue to work through international and domestic court systems. The Investment Treaty between Russia and Ukraine provides a specific legal mechanism for addressing business losses resulting from the territorial dispute.
The cases originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with case numbers 1:22-cv-00983 for the Stabil LLC matter and 1:23-cv-03330 for the DTEK Krymenergo case. Both district court decisions favored the Ukrainian companies, findings that the appeals court has now affirmed.
The DC Circuit's jurisdiction over these matters reflects the court's role in handling significant international disputes involving foreign governments and commercial interests. The court's decision provides clarity on how bilateral investment treaties can be enforced when one party to the treaty engages in territorial expansion that disrupts protected investments.
For the Ukrainian companies involved, the appellate victory represents validation of their legal strategy in pursuing compensation through the bilateral investment treaty framework. The decision may encourage other affected Ukrainian businesses to pursue similar legal remedies for losses incurred during the Crimean annexation.
The Russian Federation's unsuccessful appeal underscores the challenges facing the country in defending its actions in Crimea within the U.S. legal system. The decision adds to the legal consequences Russia faces in American courts related to its territorial expansion.
The consolidated cases demonstrate how the 2014 invasion affected diverse sectors of the Ukrainian economy in Crimea, from essential services like electricity distribution to retail operations such as petrol stations. The court's recognition of these businesses as "embedded in the daily life of the peninsula" highlights the economic disruption caused by the territorial change.
The appellate decision is now final unless the Russian Federation seeks further review, though options for additional appeals are limited given the federal court system's structure.