A final point of interest to sanction practitioners is a brief reference to the blocking regulation (EU Regulation 2271/96). Cynergy had argued that the discharge of its obligation to enforce the treaty was contrary to the United Kingdom`s policy of not giving extraterritorial effects to the United States` secondary sanctions programs. The Tribunal rejected this argument on the grounds that its judgment was based on a contractual concept and “there is a mandatory rule of English law that prohibits contracting parties from including a provision stating that the so-called policy is not essential.” The Tribunal found that, to the extent that the schedule of the blocking regulation did not contain secondary sanctions between the United States and Russia, the terms of the agreement were free to manage the risk of secondary sanctions. The applicant, Lamesa Investments Limited, is a Cypriot company whose final beneficiary is Mr. Viktor Vekselberg. On December 19, 2017, the applicant entered into an ease agreement with the defendant, Cynergy Bank Limited, an English company. This means that if the borrower knowingly facilitated a significant financial transaction on behalf of the lender, the borrower could be subject to secondary penalties. In particular, under Section 5 of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act 2014, the borrower could be prevented from opening or maintaining a correspondence account in the United States or imposed strict conditions on the holding of such an account. The Tribunal found that there was no reason to limit clause 9.1 to the first of these permutations (express prohibition). It pointed out that with respect to the nullity of an illegality contract, it has long been recognized that when a law imposes a sanction that is considered a tacit prohibition (see Phoenix General Insurance Co of Greece SA/Halvanon Insurance Company Limited  1 QB 216). According to the Tribunal, a party acting to avoid the imposition of a sanction respects the tacit prohibition, as does a party acting in such a way as to comply with an express prohibition.
(The Tribunal did not consider that the imposition of secondary sanctions is not in itself a “penalty” for violating an applicable law).) On the face of it, the decision is surprising because English law generally does not excuse the performance of the contract by referring to a foreign right, unless it is the law of the contract or the place of execution (and these exceptions did not apply here). However, the court found that the parties to this general rule, who can bear exactly what happened in this case, the contract. The corresponding clause of the facility agreement allowed the borrower to withhold payment of interest rates “in order to comply with any mandatory provision of the law, regulation or injunction of a competent court.” The installation — 1. Toilets literally everything that facilitates a show: a small outdoor installation and the forest. (Poyer, 1978, describes a cottage on the outskirts of a village) Often seen in the plural, although there is only one: …… As you do not say what you mean: A dictionary of euphemisms This leaves open the possibility (although this was not relevant to the facts of the case) that the same approach would not apply if secondary sanctions were at issue the blocked laws that appear in the schedule of the blocking regulation (mainly with regard to Iran and Cuba).