Warning! Javascript is disabled. Please enable javascript for a completly functioning application.

Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

about
methodology

About

The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator contains information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements (IIAs). Such arbitrations are also referred to as treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.

General disclaimer

The Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive.

While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data.

We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Please contact us using the online contact form.

Cases included in the Navigator

A case is included in the Navigator if it is:

  • an international arbitration between an investor and a State;
  • fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation);
  • submitted to arbitration through a notice of arbitration or a request for arbitration, and upon registration of such request if applicable (not included are cases where a disputing party has only notified the other party of the existence of a dispute or signalled its intention to submit a claim, but has not yet commenced the arbitration).

Sources of information and frequency of updating

The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Primary sources (i.e. official documents relating to the case and information provided by the administering institutions) are the main and preferred source of information. Secondary sources, such as specialized reporting services and other sources deemed reliable, are used to supplement primary sources and/or obtain case information otherwise unavailable.

The Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis. The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page.

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Case name

Full case name is recorded as it appears in the official case documents and as it is registered at the administering institution if applicable. If there are more than five claimants in the case, the names of all claimants can be replaced by the name of the first claimant followed by the words “and others”.

Short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name.

If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. is added to the name of each subsequent case.

Year of initiation

This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used.

Applicable IIA

This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings.

Arbitral rules

These are the arbitral rules in accordance with which the proceedings are conducted. Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”.

Administering institution

This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. PCA). Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution.

Common abbreviations for administering institutions:

CRCICACairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
ICCInternational Chamber of Commerce (International Court of Arbitration)
ICSIDInternational Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
LCIALondon Court of International Arbitration
MCCIMoscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry
PCAPermanent Court of Arbitration
SCCStockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute)

Details of investment and summary of the dispute

The details of investment are presented as argued by the claimant, unless otherwise expressly identified by an arbitral tribunal in its decisions or awards.

The summary of the dispute describes in very general terms the conduct allegedly in breach of IIA obligations as argued by the claimant.

Economic sector and subsector

This refers to the economic sector to which the investment at issue allegedly belongs. The structure of economic activities follows the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 (UN ISIC Rev.4).

Status/Outcome of original proceedings

This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings.

  • Decided in favour of State: the tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or found that the respondent State has not committed any breach of the applicable IIA.
  • Decided in favour of investor: the tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA and awarded monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Settled: the disputing parties settled the case and the arbitral proceedings were discontinued for that reason.
  • Pending: the arbitration proceedings are pending. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet.
    Notes:
    • The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims.
    • Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).
  • Discontinued: the arbitration was discontinued for any reason other than due to a (known) settlement. This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons).

Arbitral decisions rendered

These are decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. Discontinuance orders and settlement agreements are also recorded if such information is available.

Not included are any other (supplementary) arbitral decisions, e.g. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section.

Amounts claimed and awarded

Amount claimed refers to the amount of monetary compensation claimed by the investor, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section.

Amounts are recorded in the currency used by the claimant/tribunal. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list.

To enable comparisons between cases, all amounts are also converted to US dollars. For the purposes of such conversion, the OANDA Historical Currency Converter is being used; the date of conversion is the date of the document or other source from which the information was obtained (e.g. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award).

Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. As a general rule, a rounded figure (to the nearest hundred thousand) of the amount claimed or awarded is provided.

If the claimant provides more than one valuation of damages claimed, the highest of these amounts is recorded.

IIA breaches alleged and found

Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. When the relevant case documentation is not publicly available, information about breaches alleged may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings.

Composition of tribunal

These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators).

The disputing party (i.e. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. both types of appointment are recorded under “Appointed by / designated to Respondent” without further distinction).

In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded.

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings:

  • ICSID annulment proceedings;
  • Judicial review by national courts (set-aside proceedings); and
  • ICSID resubmission proceedings.

Initiation of a follow-on proceeding by either disputing party does not affect the field “Case Status/Outcome” of the original proceeding, until the follow-on proceeding is completed. For example, in a case where a final award has been rendered but it is later subject to a follow-on proceeding (e.g. ICSID annulment proceeding), the status of the case is marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Decisions, judgments and/or awards rendered in the course of follow-on (post-award) proceedings, as well as any individual opinions appended to them, are recorded.

The composition of the ICSID ad hoc committees that adjudicate requests for annulment under the ICSID Convention is recorded.

Link to Italaw’s case page

The Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for many investor-State disputes. It makes available not only the main arbitral decisions, but also procedural orders, parties’ submissions, expert opinions and other types of documents.

A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand.

Additional information

This section provides links to sources of information used for gathering data for the case at hand or otherwise relevant to that case. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources.

Number of cases as respondent State
1 60
Updated as of 31 December 2017

Poland - as respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 26 out of 26 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2017 Slot v. Poland Slot Group a.s. v. Republic of Poland (PCA Case No. 2017-10) Czech Republic - Poland BIT (1993) UNCITRAL PCA Investment:

Summary:
Pending Poland Czech Republic Tertiary: R - Arts, entertainment and recreation 92 - Gambling and betting activities Fernández-Armesto, J. - President

Wirth, M. - Claimant

Sójka, T. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2016 Darley v. Poland Darley Energy Plc v. Republic of Poland Poland - United Kingdom BIT (1987) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investments in preparations for, and participation in, a Government tender for a potash concession.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s decision to deny a potash mining concession to the claimant and to grant it to the partly State-owned mining company KGHM, allegedly in violation of the tender process.
Investments in preparations for, and participation in, a Government tender for a potash concession. Pending Poland United Kingdom Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Mourre, A. - President

Hobér, K. - Claimant

Poczobut, J. - Respondent
1400.00 mln EUR (1665.50 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Pending Data not available Data not available None None None None None
3 2015 Lumina Copper v. Poland Lumina Copper v. Republic of Poland Canada - Poland BIT (1990) Data not available Data not available Investment: Ownership of Miedzi Copper Corp. that holds a number of copper exploration concessions in Poland.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged revocation of two copper exploitation permits awarded to the claimant’s local subsidiary Miedzi Copper and the subsequent allocation of the permits to Poland’s largest copper producer KGHM.
Ownership of Miedzi Copper Corp. that holds a number of copper exploration concessions in Poland. Pending Poland Canada Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Fortier, L. Y. - Claimant

Dolzer, R. - Respondent
100.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
4 2014 Flemingo DutyFree v. Poland Flemingo DutyFree Shop Private Limited v. Republic of Poland India - Poland BIT (1996) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Indirect 80.68% shareholding in BH Travel Retail Poland Sp. z o.o. (“BH Travel”), which held certain lease agreements for retail stores at Warsaw Chopin Airport.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Polish Airports State Enterprise’s termination of lease agreements for retail stores at Warsaw Chopin Airport entered into with BH Travel, a duty-free operator in which the claimant held indirect interests.
Indirect 80.68% shareholding in BH Travel Retail Poland Sp. z o.o. (“BH Travel”), which held certain lease agreements for retail stores at Warsaw Chopin Airport. Decided in favour of investor Poland India Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 47 - Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles van Houtte, H. - President

Townsend, J. M. - Claimant

Kühn, W. - Respondent
81.60 mln EUR (91.10 mln USD) 17.90 mln EUR (20.00 mln USD) Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation
Award dated 12 August 2016 None None None None None None
5 2014 Griffin Group v. Poland Griffin Group v. Poland BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Poland BIT (1987) SCC SCC Investment: Usufruct rights to a plot of land.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the investor’s rights to a historic former barracks site adjacent to Lazienki Park in central Warsaw.
Usufruct rights to a plot of land. Pending Poland Luxembourg Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Williams, D. A. R. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
16.60 mln EUR (17.90 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
6 2014 Horthel and others v. Poland Horthel Systems BV, Poland Gaming Holding BV and Tesa Beheer BV v. Poland (PCA Case No. 2014-31) Netherlands - Poland BIT (1992) UNCITRAL PCA Investment:

Summary: Claims arising out of Poland’s Gambling Law of 2009 restricting the operation of slot machines outside of casinos.
Decided in favour of investor Poland Netherlands Tertiary: R - Arts, entertainment and recreation 92 - Gambling and betting activities Lévy, L. - President

van Leeuwen, M. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
240.00 mln PLN (56.60 mln USD) 10.00 mln USD ( mln USD) Data not available Data not available Award dated 2017 None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
7 2014 PL Holdings v. Poland PL Holdings S.a.r.l. v. Poland (SCC Case No. 2014/163) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Poland BIT (1987) SCC SCC Investment: 99.6% shareholding in a Polish bank, FM Bank PBP.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged forced sale of the claimant's shareholding in a Polish bank, FM Bank PBP.
99.6% shareholding in a Polish bank, FM Bank PBP. Decided in favour of investor Poland Luxembourg Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Bermann, G. - President

Lew, J. D. M. - Claimant

Schneider, M. - Respondent
1888.40 mln PLN (479.90 mln USD) 760.00 mln PLN (207.10 mln USD) Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Partial Award dated 28 June 2017

Final Award dated 28 September 2017
None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
8 2013 Almås v. Poland Kristian Almås and Geir Almås v. The Republic of Poland Norway - Poland BIT (1990) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Lease agreement with the Polish Agricultural Property Agency for 4200 hectares of farmland in Poland through Pol Farm, a company in which the claimants were the sole shareholders.

Summary: Claims arising out of termination of a 30-year land lease by the Polish Agricultural Property Agency.
Lease agreement with the Polish Agricultural Property Agency for 4200 hectares of farmland in Poland through Pol Farm, a company in which the claimants were the sole shareholders. Decided in favour of State Poland Norway Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities Crawford, J. R. - President

Reinisch, A. - Respondent

Mestad, O. - Claimant
100.00 mln PLN (24.80 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Umbrella clause
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 27 June 2016 None None None None None None
9 2013 Juvel and Bithell v. Poland Juvel Ltd and Bithell Holdings Ltd. v. Poland Cyprus - Poland BIT (1992) ICC ICC Investment: Shareholding in Polish telecommunications company Sferia S.A.

Summary: Claims arising out of certain decisions by Poland’s Office of Electronic Communications which allegedly resulted in Sferia’s inability to effectively use radio frequencies in the 850 MHz band to develop an LTE mobile phone network.
Shareholding in Polish telecommunications company Sferia S.A. Pending Poland Cyprus Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Hanotiau, B. - President

Born, G. B. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
1500.00 mln PLN (475.20 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Pending Data not available Data not available None None None None None
10 2013 Seventhsun and others v. Poland Seventhsun Holding Ltd, Jevelinia Ltd, Aventon Ltd, Stanorode Ltd and Wildoro Ltd v. Poland Cyprus - Poland BIT (1992) SCC SCC Investment: 62% shareholding in Polish steel manufacturer, Huta Pokoj.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged freeze of the claimants' shareholding by the Polish Public Prosecutor's Office related to criminal proceedings.
62% shareholding in Polish steel manufacturer, Huta Pokoj. Decided in favour of State Poland Cyprus Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Sekolec, J. - President

Hobér, K. - Claimant

Nowaczyk, P. - Respondent
1000.00 mln EUR (1336.00 mln USD) Data not available Direct expropriation None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Partial Award dated 13 October 2015

Award on Costs dated 4 January 2016
None None None None None None
11 2012 Enkev Beheer v. Poland Enkev Beheer B.V. v. The Republic of Poland Netherlands - Poland BIT (1992) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investment in Polish subsidiary, Enkev Polska S.A., a joint stock company owning certain industrial facilities and holding a perpetual usufruct right to the property under Polish law for the use of the land as real property for 99 years.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged threats made by the Respondent to expropriate the claimant’s investment in its Polish subsidiary.
Investment in Polish subsidiary, Enkev Polska S.A., a joint stock company owning certain industrial facilities and holding a perpetual usufruct right to the property under Polish law for the use of the land as real property for 99 years. Decided in favour of State Poland Netherlands Secondary: C - Manufacturing 32 - Other manufacturing Veeder, V. V. - President

van den Berg, A. J. - Claimant

Sachs, K. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

Indirect expropriation
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage First Partial Award dated 29 April 2014

Final Award on Costs dated 13 June 2014
None None None None None None
12 2011 Ryan and others v. Poland Vincent J. Ryan, Schooner Capital LLC, and Atlantic Investment Partners LLC v. Republic of Poland (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/3) Poland - United States of America BIT (1990) ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Interests in a vegetable oil production and processing enterprise.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of Governmental actions that allegedly caused the bankruptcy of a margarine production company in which the claimant had invested.
Interests in a vegetable oil production and processing enterprise. Decided in favour of State Poland United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products Khan, M. A. - President

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Claimant

von Wobeser, C. - Respondent
120.30 mln USD (120.30 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Transfer of funds

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Decision on the Respondent's request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question dated 16 January 2013

Award dated 24 November 2015
Partial Dissenting Opinion Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
13 2010 Minnotte and Lewis v. Poland David Minnotte and Robert Lewis v. Republic of Poland (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/10/1) Poland - United States of America BIT (1990) ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Shareholding in company set up to construct and operate a plasma protein fractionation plant in southern Poland.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of alleged actions by the Polish ministry of finance aimed at ensuring that certain banks discontinued their financing of a construction project for the development of a plasma processing plant in which the claimant had invested.
Shareholding in company set up to construct and operate a plasma protein fractionation plant in southern Poland. Decided in favour of State Poland United States of America Tertiary: Q - Human health and social work activities 86 - Human health activities Lowe, V. - President

Mendelson, M. - Claimant

Silva Romero, E. - Respondent
35.00 mln USD Data not available Direct expropriation

Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 16 May 2014 None None None None None None
14 2009 East Cement v. Poland The East Cement for Investment Company v. The Republic of Poland (ICC Case No. 16509/JHN) Jordan - Poland BIT (1997) ICC ICC Investment: Interests in a cement production facility.

Summary: Claims arising out of a decision by a Polish bankruptcy court concerning claimant's alleged investment in a cement manufacturing plant.
Interests in a cement production facility. Discontinued Poland Jordan Secondary: C - Manufacturing 23 - Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products Franke, U. - President

Bernardini, P. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
150.00 mln EUR (210.80 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Partial Award on costs dated 26 August 2011 None None None None None None
15 2009 Servier v. Poland Les Laboratoires Servier, S.A.S., Biofarma, S.A.S., Arts et Techniques du Progres S.A.S. v. Republic of Poland France - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Data not available

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's withdrawal of Servier’s marketing authorisations for certain medicines, in the context of Poland’s accession to the European Union and its enactment of a series of legislative and administrative reforms to harmonise its regulation of pharmaceuticals with that of the European Union.
Data not available Decided in favour of investor Poland France Secondary: C - Manufacturing 21 - Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations Park, W. W. - President

Hanotiau, B. - Unknown

Lalonde, M. - Unknown
220.00 mln EUR (300.00 mln USD) 4.00 mln EUR (5.00 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Indirect expropriation Interim Award on Jurisdiction dated 3 December 2010

Award dated 14 February 2012
None None None None None None
16 2008 Mercuria Energy v. Poland Mercuria Energy Group Limited v. Republic of Poland The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) SCC SCC Investment: Ownership of a Polish subsidiary, J&S Energy, engaged in the import, distribution and marketing of oil products.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's implementation of a European Union Directive calling for an increase in the mandatory fuel reserves held by firms and its alleged negative impact upon Mercuria's Polish subsidiary J&S Energy engaged in the importation of fuel.
Ownership of a Polish subsidiary, J&S Energy, engaged in the import, distribution and marketing of oil products. Decided in favour of State Poland Cyprus Primary: B - Mining and quarrying

Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas

46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles
Tercier, P. - President

Lowe, V. - Unknown

van den Berg, A. J. - Unknown
400.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Decision on Jurisdiction dated 17 December 2009

Final Award dated December 2011
None None None None None None
17 2008 TRACO v. Poland TRACO Deutsche Travertin Werke GmbH v. The Republic of Poland Germany - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Data not available

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation and discriminatory treatment to claimant's investment in the privatized company Przedsiębiorstwo Kamienia Budowlanego engaged in the Polish stone industry in Radków.
Data not available Decided in favour of State Poland Germany Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Veeder, V. V. - President

Schreuer, C. H. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
8.20 mln EUR (10.50 mln USD) Data not available Direct expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 5 September 2012 None Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
18 2006 Nordzucker v. Poland Nordzucker AG v. The Republic of Poland Germany - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL None Investment: Intended acquisition of two sugar production plants in Poland, including the payment of a guarantee deposited with certain sugar holding companies in its capacity of bidder for the companies' shares.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's implementation of a privatization programme for its sugar industry and its alleged retraction from selling Nordzucker two state-owned sugar producers (including a total of five production plants), which would have increased claimant's total market-share to 20per cent of Poland's sugar industry.
Intended acquisition of two sugar production plants in Poland, including the payment of a guarantee deposited with certain sugar holding companies in its capacity of bidder for the companies' shares. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Poland Germany Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products van Houtte, H. - President

Bucher, A. - Claimant

Tomaszewski, M. - Respondent
153.70 mln EUR (228.30 mln USD) 0.00 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
Other Partial Award (Jurisdiction) dated 10 December 2008

Second Partial Award (Merits) dated 28 January 2009

Third Partial and Final Award (Damages and Costs) dated 23 November 2009
None None None None None None
19 2006 Vivendi v. Poland Vivendi v. Republic of Poland France - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Interests in a Polish joint venture engaged in the telecommunications sector.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged mishandling by Polish courts of a number of lawsuits arising out of a commercial dispute over the ownership of a cellular communications company.
Interests in a Polish joint venture engaged in the telecommunications sector. Settled Poland France Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Sachs, K. - President

Fadlallah, I. - Unknown

Furtek, M. - Unknown
Data not available Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Settlement agreement dated April 2011 None None None None None None
20 2004 Cargill v. Poland Cargill, Incorporated v. Republic of Poland Poland - United States of America BIT (1990) UNCITRAL None Investment: Ownership and operation of isoglucose sweetener production facilities in Poland.

Summary: Claims arising out of Poland’s imposition of quotas on isoglucose (a wheat-derived sweetener which competes with sugar), which adversely affected Cargill’s investment in isoglucose-processing facilities.
Ownership and operation of isoglucose sweetener production facilities in Poland. Decided in favour of investor Poland United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Gaillard, E. - Claimant

Hanotiau, B. - Respondent
150.00 mln USD 16.30 mln USD Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued by the Tribunal dated 4 April 2005, pursuant to Arbitration Rule 49(1) of the Additional Facility Rules

Final Award dated 29 February 2008
None Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
21 2003 Eureko v. Poland Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland Netherlands - Poland BIT (1992) UNCITRAL None Investment: Shareholding in an insurance enterprise owned by the Polish State Treasury.

Summary: Claims arising out of the privatisation of a Polish insurance company and subsequent alleged actions by the Minister of the State Treasury of Poland which negatively affected the corporate governance of the company in which the claimants had invested.
Shareholding in an insurance enterprise owned by the Polish State Treasury. Settled Poland Netherlands Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 65 - Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security Fortier, L. Y. - President

Schwebel, S. M. - Claimant

Rajski, J. - Respondent
10000.00 mln USD 12750.00 mln PLN (4379.00 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Partial Award dated 19 August 2005 Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Jerzy Rajski (Partial Award) Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Setting Aside of Award, Judgment of Court of First Instance of Brussels dated 23 November 2006 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
22 1998 Schaper v. Poland Lutz Ingo Schaper v. Republic of Poland Germany - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL None Investment: Shareholding in company engaged in the import of waste-paper into Poland.

Summary: Claims arising out of the prohibition on importation of raw material waste paper pursuant to a statutory amendment concerning environmental protection.
Shareholding in company engaged in the import of waste-paper into Poland. Data not available Poland Germany Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery Data not available 3.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
23 1996 Ameritech v. Poland Ameritech v. Republic of Poland Poland - United States of America BIT (1990) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Shareholding in local cellular phone company.

Summary: Claims arising out of certain telecommunications statutory enactment overturning a Government's letter of intent which contained Poland's commitment to award the claimant digital cellular licenses.
Shareholding in local cellular phone company. Settled Poland United States of America Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Data not available 500.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
24 1996 France Telecom v. Poland France Telecom v. Republic of Poland France - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Shareholding in local cellular phone company.

Summary: Claims arising out of certain telecommunications statutory enactment overturning a Government's letter of intent which contained Poland's commitment to award the claimant digital cellular licenses.
Shareholding in local cellular phone company. Settled Poland France Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Data not available 500.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
25 1996 Saar Papier v. Poland (II) Saar Papier Vertriebs GmbH v. Republic of Poland (II) Germany - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL None Investment: Ownership of local subsidiary company for import of waste-paper into Poland.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged damages for a subsequent time period during which Poland had continued to block Saar Papier's operations, despite a prior arbitration award rendered in favour of the investor.
Ownership of local subsidiary company for import of waste-paper into Poland. Decided in favour of State Poland Germany Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Interim Award dated 24 January 2000

Final Award dated 7 June 2001
None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal dated 20 September 2000 (regarding the Interim Award of 24 January 2000) (Judicial review by national courts)

Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal dated 1 March 2002 (regarding the Final Award of 7 June 2001) (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
26 1994 Saar Papier v. Poland (I) Saar Papier Vertriebs GmbH v. Republic of Poland (I) Germany - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL None Investment: Ownership of local subsidiary company for import of waste-paper into Poland.

Summary: Claims arising out of the prohibition on importation of raw material waste paper pursuant to a statutory amendment concerning environmental protection.
Ownership of local subsidiary company for import of waste-paper into Poland. Decided in favour of investor Poland Germany Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery Karrer, P. A. - President

Ahrens, G. - Claimant

Szurski, T. - Respondent
2.30 mln DEM (1.60 mln USD) 2.30 mln DEM (1.60 mln USD) Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Interim Award on Jurisdiction dated 17 August 1994

Final Award dated 16 October 1995
Dissenting Opinion of Dr. habil. Tadeusz Szurski (Interim Award on Jurisdiction)

Dissenting Opinion of Dr. habil. Tadeusz Szurski (Final Award)
Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available