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

Russian Federation - as home State

Clear selection
Loaded 16 out of 16 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2017 Boyko v. Ukraine Igor Boyko v. Ukraine (PCA Case No. 2017-23) Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investments in Zhytomyrski Lasoschi, a chocolate factory in northwestern Ukraine.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged takeover and seizure of the claimant’s chocolate factory.
Investments in Zhytomyrski Lasoschi, a chocolate factory in northwestern Ukraine. Pending Ukraine Russian Federation Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products Caron, D. D. - President

Verhoosel, G. - Claimant

Volterra, R. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2016 Deripaska v. Montenegro Oleg Deripaska v. Montenegro (PCA Case No. 2017-07) Russian Federation - Yugoslavia (former) BIT (1995) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Indirect majority ownership in the aluminium production enterprise Kombinat Aluminijuma Podgorica (KAP) and Rudnici Boksita Nikšić (RBN), a bauxite mine in the west of Montenegro.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unlawful expropriation of the claimant’s investments in an aluminium production company and a bauxite mine.
Indirect majority ownership in the aluminium production enterprise Kombinat Aluminijuma Podgorica (KAP) and Rudnici Boksita Nikšić (RBN), a bauxite mine in the west of Montenegro. Pending Montenegro Russian Federation Primary: B - Mining and quarrying

Secondary: C - Manufacturing
7 - Mining of metal ores

24 - Manufacture of basic metals
Data not available Data not available Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation
Pending None None None None None None None
3 2016 Evrobalt and Kompozit v. Moldova Evrobalt LLC and Kompozit LLC v. Moldova Moldova, Republic of - Russian Federation BIT (1998) SCC SCC Investment: Shareholdings in Agroindbank, a Moldovan commercial bank.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Moldovan National Bank’s decision obliging the claimants to sell their shares in Agroindbank within a three-month period and ordering the cancellation of the shares after this period.
Shareholdings in Agroindbank, a Moldovan commercial bank. Decided in favour of State Moldova, Republic of Russian Federation Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Andersson, F. - President

Pryles, M. C. - Claimant

von Schlabrendorff, F. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Direct expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Data not available Award dated 2017 None None None None None None
4 2016 Tatarstan v. Ukraine Ministry of Land and Property of the Republic of Tatarstan v. Ukraine Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: 28.78% shareholding in the Ukrainian company PJSC “Ukrtatnafta” (owner of the Kremenchug oil refinery in the Poltava region).

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged taking of the claimant’s shares in the Ukrainian oil refinery “Ukrtatnafta” as a result of several allegedly illegal decisions of the Ukrainian courts rendered in 2007 and thereafter.
28.78% shareholding in the Ukrainian company PJSC “Ukrtatnafta” (owner of the Kremenchug oil refinery in the Poltava region). Pending Ukraine Russian Federation Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Reed, L. - President

Böckstiegel, K.-H. - Unknown

Sands, P. - Unknown
300.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
5 2014 TSIKinvest v. Moldova TSIKinvest LLC v. Republic of Moldova Moldova, Republic of - Russian Federation BIT (1998) SCC SCC Investment: Shareholding of 4.16 per cent in the capital of Victoriabank, a Moldovan bank.

Summary: Claims arising out of the suspension of claimant’s voting rights in a Moldovan bank and the forced sale of its shares within 3 months allegedly ordered by Moldova’s national bank.
Shareholding of 4.16 per cent in the capital of Victoriabank, a Moldovan bank. Discontinued Moldova, Republic of Russian Federation Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Data not available Data not available Data not available Direct expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
6 2012 Bogdanov v. Moldova (IV) Yuri Bogdanov and Yulia Bogdanova v. Republic of Moldova (SCC Case No. 091/2012) (IV) Moldova, Republic of - Russian Federation BIT (1998) SCC SCC Investment: Ownership of paint-manufacturing company.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged tax and environmental policy modifications which adversely affected the claimant's operation of a local company involved in the production and sale of paints, varnishes and similar products in Moldova.
Ownership of paint-manufacturing company. Decided in favour of State Moldova, Republic of Russian Federation Secondary: C - Manufacturing 20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Sjovall, B. - Sole arbitrator 1.50 mln MDL (0.12 mln USD) Data not available 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 Final Award dated 16 April 2013 None None None None None None
7 2012 Gazprom v. Lithuania OAO Gazprom v. The Republic of Lithuania (PCA Case No. 2011-16) Lithuania - Russian Federation BIT (1999) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Minority shareholding in a Lithuanian gas distribution company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged forced sale of Gazprom's stake in Lietuvos Dujos, Lithuania's gas distribution company, in the context of an EU-mandated gas market reform.
Minority shareholding in a Lithuanian gas distribution company. Discontinued Lithuania Russian Federation Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Simma, B. - President

Böckstiegel, K.-H. - Claimant

Lowe, V. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Award on costs and order for the termination of the proceedings dated 31 March 2015 None None None None None None
8 2012 Nadel v. Kyrgyzstan Mikhail Nadel and Ithaca Holdings Inc. v. Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Minority shareholding in Asia Universal Bank, a Kyrgyzstan-based commercial bank.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged losses relating to claimants' shareholding in a commercial bank nationalized by Kyrgyzstan.
Minority shareholding in Asia Universal Bank, a Kyrgyzstan-based commercial bank. Discontinued Kyrgyzstan Russian Federation

United States of America
Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Reichert, K. - President

DeWitt, R. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
400.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Award on costs dated 31 October 2013 None None None None None None
9 2012 Naumchenko and others v. India Maxim Naumchenko, Andrey Poluektov and Tenoch Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India (PCA Case No. 2013-23) India - Russian Federation BIT (1994)

Cyprus - India BIT (2002)
UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Majority shareholding in the Indian telecoms company ByCell India.

Summary: Claims arising out of the withdrawal by Indian authorities of an approval to grant frequency allocation licences to claimants' local telecoms company ByCell, after it had previously obtained clearance from India's Foreign Investment Board.
Majority shareholding in the Indian telecoms company ByCell India. Pending India Russian Federation

Cyprus
Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Sepúlveda Amor, B. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
400.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Pending None None None None None None None
10 2011 MTS v. Turkmenistan Mobile TeleSystems OJSC v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/4) Russian Federation - Turkmenistan BIT (2009) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under telecommunication licenses held by Mobile TeleSystems' wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's decision to suspend claimant's subsidiary license to provide telecommunications services in Turkmenistan and not to renew claimants' five-year contracts, which caused MTS to cease its operations in the telecommunications market in Turkmenistan after the expiration of its initial license.
Rights under telecommunication licenses held by Mobile TeleSystems' wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary company. Settled Turkmenistan Russian Federation Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications McLachlan, C. A. - President

Pryles, M. C. - Claimant

Buergenthal, T. - Respondent
800.00 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued by the Tribunal dated 21 September 2012, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rule 49(1) None None None None None None
11 2009 Bogdanov v. Moldova (III) Yury Bogdanov v. Republic of Moldova (III) (SCC Case No. 114/2009) Moldova, Republic of - Russian Federation BIT (1998) SCC SCC Investment: Ownership of the chemicals import company "Grand Torg", domiciled in the Free Enterprise Zone Expo-Business-Chisinau.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged wrongdoing on the part of Moldova's Customs Department, after it supposedly restricted the operations of claimant's company in a so-called free economic zone by unilaterally collecting from claimant's investment a fee for each customs declaration which was considered by the investor as a more onerous customs regime than that existing at its time of registration.
Ownership of the chemicals import company "Grand Torg", domiciled in the Free Enterprise Zone Expo-Business-Chisinau. Decided in favour of investor Moldova, Republic of Russian Federation Secondary: C - Manufacturing 20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Nilsson, B. G. H. - Sole arbitrator 0.52 mln MDL (0.04 mln USD) 0.47 mln MDL (0.03 mln USD) Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Final Award dated 30 March 2010 None None None None None None
12 2008 Tatneft v. Ukraine OJSC “Tatneft” v. Ukraine Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in the Ukrainian company Ukrtatnafta.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's taking of claimant's shares in the Ukrainian oil refinery “Ukrtatnafta” followed by the physical takeover of such company.
Shareholding in the Ukrainian company Ukrtatnafta. Decided in favour of investor Ukraine Russian Federation Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Orrego Vicuña, F. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Lalonde, M. - Respondent
2400.00 mln USD 112.00 mln USD Direct expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Partial Award on Jurisdiction dated 28 September 2010

Award dated 29 July 2014
None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of Paris Court of Appeal dated 29 November 2016 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
13 2007 Kaliningrad v. Lithuania Kaliningrad Region v. Lithuania Lithuania - Russian Federation BIT (1999) ICC ICC Investment: Ownership of a building in Lithuania.

Summary: Claims arising out of the seizure of a Lithuanian-based building owned by the Kaliningrad regional government by order of Lithuanian courts enforcing a LCIA arbitral award previously rendered against the claimant.
Ownership of a building in Lithuania. Decided in favour of State Lithuania Russian Federation Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Lebedev, S. N. - Unknown

Rosell, J. - Unknown
Data not available Data not available Indirect expropriation None - jurisdiction declined Final Award dated 28 January 2009 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal on application to set aside award dated 18 November 2010 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
14 2007 Paushok v. Mongolia Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSCVostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia Mongolia - Russian Federation BIT (1995) UNCITRAL None Investment: Direct and indirect ownership of all outstanding shares of two Mongolian gold mining companies (KOO Golden East-Mongolia and KOO Bumbat) and an oil and gas company (KOO Vostokneftegaz) operating in Mongolia; capital contributions to these companies.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's enactment of the law "On Imposition of Price Increase (Windfall) Taxes on Some Commodities" which included the sale of gold and the law "On Minerals" that allegedly affected claimants' investments in the business of exploring and developing placer gold deposits in Mongolia.
Direct and indirect ownership of all outstanding shares of two Mongolian gold mining companies (KOO Golden East-Mongolia and KOO Bumbat) and an oil and gas company (KOO Vostokneftegaz) operating in Mongolia; capital contributions to these companies. Pending Mongolia Russian Federation Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Lalonde, M. - President

Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
1000.00 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

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Customary rules of international law

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Pending Award on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 28 April 2011 None None None None None None
15 2005 Bogdanov v. Moldova (II) Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino-Invest Ltd. and Agurdino-Chimia JSC v. Republic of Moldova (II) Moldova, Republic of - Russian Federation BIT (1998) SCC SCC Investment: Ownership of a paint-manufacturing company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged wrongdoing on the part of Moldova's Customs Department, after it supposedly restricted the operations of claimant's paint-manufacturing company in a so-called free economic zone.
Ownership of a paint-manufacturing company. Decided in favour of State Moldova, Republic of Russian Federation Secondary: C - Manufacturing 20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 31 January 2006 None Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available
16 2004 Bogdanov v. Moldova (I) Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino-Invest Ltd and Agurdino-Chimia JSC v. Republic of Moldova (I) Moldova, Republic of - Russian Federation BIT (1998) SCC SCC Investment: Ownership of local investment company that had a privatization contract with Moldovan authorities for the purchase of a majority shareholding in the capital of certain privatized company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Moldovan Department of Privatization's refusal to fully compensate the value of the investors' assets that were transferred to the State in accordance with certain privatization contract.
Ownership of local investment company that had a privatization contract with Moldovan authorities for the purchase of a majority shareholding in the capital of certain privatized company. Decided in favour of investor Moldova, Republic of Russian Federation Tertiary: M - Professional, scientific and technical activities 74 - Other professional, scientific and technical activities Cordero-Moss, G. - Sole arbitrator 0.62 mln MDL (0.04 mln USD) 0.69 mln MDL (0.05 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 22 September 2005 None None None None None None