Danish brewer Carlsberg has pressed for compensation from Russian authorities over the transfer of Baltika to the management of the Federal Property Management Agency. The company framed the move as a breach of international law and its bilateral commitments, and a formal letter outlining those concerns was reportedly sent in early August.
According to the agency, Carlsberg described the Russian actions as violating international obligations and a bilateral accord in its appeal. The Ministry of Finance, however, disputed any basis for compensation, signaling a direct disagreement between the parties on the financial remedy available, if any.
Another Interfax source noted that the concern filed formal “notices of disagreement” under three international agreements to Russian authorities in mid-October. The company signaled a preference for negotiations to resolve the dispute but warned of potential recourse to international courts if no settlement emerged within six months.
Receivers of the notification were said to include the ministries of finance and economic development. One ministry did not respond to inquiries, while the other declined to comment on the information provided by sources.
Carlsberg announced an exit from the Russian market in March 2022 following Moscow’s actions in Ukraine. In June 2023, the group disclosed a deal to sell Baltika, though it did not reveal the prospective buyer.
Interfax reported that Baltika was expected to be acquired by the Arnest group, which had previously acquired Heineken assets for €1 and was obliged to assume roughly €100 million in historical debt tied to the Russian business. The valuation of Baltika was said to exceed 71 billion rubles, according to one source.
The planned deal collapsed after Vladimir Putin, in a July decree, assigned Carlsberg’s Russian assets to the Federal Property Management Agency for temporary management. The decree was issued under a framework allowing measures when ownership is in question or in cases where property is considered to be held by individuals or entities from states deemed adversaries, with sanctions affecting property rights.
“The job was stolen”
Carlsberg Group CEO Jacob Aarup-Andersen charged Russian authorities with taking the business without consent. He stated that the company would not agree to an arrangement that would legitimize the transfer of assets under interim management by the Federal Property Management Agency.
“There is no doubt they are taking our business in Russia, and we will not help them legalize it,” he asserted.
Early October saw Baltika terminate licensing agreements that had allowed Baltika to produce and market products from international brands such as Tuborg and Seth & Riley’s Garage. Baltika stated that its Russian operations could continue selling its existing reserves through April 1, 2024.
Shortly before that, Baltika sought to halt Carlsberg from breaching the agreement in St. Petersburg and sought relief from the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region.
“Fuck you, not the money!”
In response to the Danish group’s accusations, the Russian Ministry of Finance clarified that Baltika is not state property and that the Federal Property Management Agency acts as an interim administrator with no authority to dispose of the assets. The ministry stressed that interim management does not necessitate a change in ownership structure.
Finance Minister Anton Siluanov explained that external control measures were a reaction to sanctions imposed by unfriendly states. He noted that Western countries were pursuing legal grounds to seize assets and limit property rights of Russian entities, while Russia reserves the right to act to protect its interests.
The head of the Finance Ministry added that external administration is used only in rare circumstances when companies fail to meet obligations or breach Russian law.
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of the Security Council, asserted that Carlsberg had withdrawn from Russia for political reasons, halting operations and failing to fulfill commitments. He argued that sanctions are applied but property rights should remain protected, even amid conflict, and he suggested that investments benefiting Russia deserve consideration for the budget and strategic needs.
Medvedev also commented that while Western support for training and equipment continues, it is essential to preserve Russian assets and to avoid giving up an advantage in property for political reasons, framing the issue as a test of Russia’s resilience in the face of external pressure.