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 respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 24 out of 24 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2016 Naftogaz and others v. Russia NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, PJSC State Joint Stock Company Chornomornaftogaz, PJSC Ukrgasvydobuvannya and others v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. 2017-16) Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Oil and gas assets.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimants’ oil and gas assets in Crimea by the Russian Federation and the transfer of assets to a Russian state-owned company.
Oil and gas assets. Pending Russian Federation Ukraine Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Binnie, I. - President

Poncet, C. - Unknown

Stanivuković, M. - Unknown
2600.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2016 Oschadbank v. Russia Oschadbank v. Russian Federation Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of a bank branch in Crimea.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged seizure of a branch of Oschadbank in Crimea following the annexation of this territory by the Russian Federation in 2014.
Ownership of a bank branch in Crimea. Pending Russian Federation Ukraine Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Williams, D. A. R. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Perezcano Diaz, H. - Respondent
15000.00 mln UAH (680.00 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
3 2016 Rafikovich Amalyan v. Russia Artashes Rafikovich Amalyan v. Russian Federation Greece - Russian Federation BIT (1993) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Capital loans to the Agency of Reconstruction and Development LLC (ARR) made through Financial and Industrial Corporation SAN LLC in which the claimant acquired a 50% stake.

Summary: Claims arising out of several State organs’ alleged acts relating to a shorefront development project in which the claimant had invested, including refused registration of property rights on ARR for a 29-hectare land plot it had developed at the Voronezh river reservoir, allegedly resulting in ARR’s bankruptcy, and registration of the land in the City Administration’s favour. Based on an agreement with the City Administration, ARR had undertaken hydraulic filling works on the reservoir to create the land plot, and it had been allegedly promised ownership of the land for its ultimate development into a commercial and residential district.
Capital loans to the Agency of Reconstruction and Development LLC (ARR) made through Financial and Industrial Corporation SAN LLC in which the claimant acquired a 50% stake. Pending Russian Federation Greece Tertiary: F - Construction 42 - Civil engineering Data not available 3500.00 mln RUB (45.00 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
4 2015 Aberon and others v. Russia Limited Liability Company Aberon Ltd, Limited Liability Company Libset, Limited Liability Company Lugzor, Limited Liability Company Ukrinterinvest, and Public Joint Stock Company DniproAzot v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. 2015-29) Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment:

Summary:
Pending Russian Federation Ukraine Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities McRae, D. M. - President

Simma, B. - Claimant

Zuleta, E. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
5 2015 Aeroport Belbek and Kolomoisky v. Russia Aeroport Belbek LLC and Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. 2015-07) Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Rights under an operations contract concerning the commercial passenger terminal at the Belbek Airport near Sevastopol including investments in various upgrades and renovations.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the commercial passenger terminal operated by the claimant at the Belbek Airport near Sevastopol following the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
Rights under an operations contract concerning the commercial passenger terminal at the Belbek Airport near Sevastopol including investments in various upgrades and renovations. Pending Russian Federation Ukraine Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 51 - Air transport Dupuy, P.-M. - President

Bethlehem, D. - Claimant

Mikulka, V. - Respondent
15.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending Interim Award dated 24 February 2017 None None None None None None
6 2015 Crimea-Petrol LLC and others v. Russia Crimea-Petrol LLC, Elefteria LLC, Novel-Estate LLC and others v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. 2015-35) Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of petrol stations in Crimea.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of petrol stations in Crimea following the 2014 Russian annexation of that territory.
Ownership of petrol stations in Crimea. Pending Russian Federation Ukraine Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 47 - Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles Price, D. M. - Claimant

Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Stern, B. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending Award on Jurisdiction dated 26 June 2017 None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
7 2015 Everest and others v. Russia Everest Estate LLC, Edelveis-2000 PE, Fortuna CJSC and others v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. 2015-36) Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of a large number of properties in Crimea, including offices, apartment buildings, and villas.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of properties following the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea.
Ownership of a large number of properties in Crimea, including offices, apartment buildings, and villas. Pending Russian Federation Ukraine Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Reisman, W. M. - Claimant

Rigo Sureda, A. - President

Knieper, R. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Direct expropriation Pending Decision on Jurisdiction dated 20 March 2017 None None None None None None
8 2015 Privatbank and Finilon v. Russia PJSC CB PrivatBank and Finance Company Finilon LLC v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. 2015-21) Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investment of alleged USD 1 billion into the banking operations in Crimea encompassing loans, real estate and a vast automated teller machine (ATM) network.

Summary: Claims arising from the alleged expropriation of the claimants' investments in Crimea as well as its subsidiary Moskomprivatbankin following the 2014 Russian annexation of that territory including alleged confiscation of various cash holdings and real estate assets owned by the claimants, totaling nearly $200 million.
Investment of alleged USD 1 billion into the banking operations in Crimea encompassing loans, real estate and a vast automated teller machine (ATM) network. Pending Russian Federation Ukraine Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Dupuy, P.-M. - President

Bethlehem, D. - Claimant

Mikulka, V. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending Interim Award dated 24 February 2017 None None None None None None
9 2015 Pugachev v. Russia Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev v. The Russian Federation France - Russian Federation BIT (1989) UNCITRAL None Investment: Investments in a real estate development company; majority shareholdings in two shipbuilding enterprises and in a construction bureau; rights to develop and mine the coking coal deposit in the Tuva region of Russia; ownership of 167 land plots, and other investments.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged expropriation by the government of the claimant’s various assets in Russia, civil and criminal proceedings instigated against the claimant and damage to other investments allegedly inflicted by the government.
Investments in a real estate development company; majority shareholdings in two shipbuilding enterprises and in a construction bureau; rights to develop and mine the coking coal deposit in the Tuva region of Russia; ownership of 167 land plots, and other investments. Pending Russian Federation France Tertiary: L - Real estate activities

Secondary: C - Manufacturing

Primary: B - Mining and quarrying

Secondary: C - Manufacturing
68 - Real estate activities

30 - Manufacture of other transport equipment

5 - Mining of coal and lignite

19 - Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products
Clay, T. - Claimant

Zuleta, E. - President

Cremades, B. M. - Respondent
12000.00 mln USD Data not available Customary rules of international law

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Most-favoured nation treatment

Indirect expropriation
Pending None None None None None None None
10 2015 Ukrnafta v. Russia PJSC Ukrnafta v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. 2015-34) Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of petrol stations in the region of Crimea.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of petrol stations in Crimea following the 2014 Russian annexation of that territory.
Ownership of petrol stations in the region of Crimea. Pending Russian Federation Ukraine Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 47 - Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Price, D. M. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending Award on Jurisdiction dated 26 June 2017 None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
11 2014 Financial Performance Holdings v. Russia Financial Performance Holdings BV (FPH) v. The Russian Federation The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Loans/financing transactions.

Summary: Claims arising out of certain loans/financing transactions that were made to Yukos prior to its expropriation, but that were not recognized and repaid following the expropriation and forced bankruptcy process.
Loans/financing transactions. Discontinued Russian Federation Netherlands Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Alexandrov, S. A. - President

Haigh, D. - Claimant

Vinuesa, R. E. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
12 2014 Luxtona v. Russia Luxtona Limited v. The Russian Federation The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's shares in Yukos.
Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Pending Russian Federation Cyprus Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Crook, J. R. - President

Radicati di Brozolo, L. - Claimant

Oreamuno Blanco, R. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending Interim Award dated 22 March 2017 None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
13 2013 Yukos Capital v. Russia Yukos Capital SARL v. The Russian Federation The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investments in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged illegal expropriation of claimant’s investments in Yukos Oil Company.
Investments in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company. Pending Russian Federation Luxembourg Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas McLachlan, C. A. - President

Rowley, J. W. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
13000.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending Interim Award on Jurisdiction dated 18 January 2017 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dated 20 July 2017 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
14 2012 Sana Consulting v. Russia Sana Consulting & Management GmbH v. The Russian Federation Germany - Russian Federation BIT (1989) Ad hoc None Investment: Data not available

Summary: Claims arising out of an investment project in the Kaliningrad Region of Russia.
Data not available Decided in favour of State Russian Federation Germany Data not available Data not available Data not available 30.00 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
15 2009 Cesare Galdabini v. Russia Cesare Galdabini SpA v. Russian Federation Italy - Russian Federation BIT (2002) UNCITRAL None Investment: Accounts receivable under certain supply agreement concluded between Galdabani and the respondent.

Summary: Claims arising out of Russia's alleged refusal to settle a debt owed for EUR 278’000 worth of equipment, which Galdabini supplied during the 1980s to a Soviet foreign trading enterprise for the ultimate benefit of VAZ, a private company.
Accounts receivable under certain supply agreement concluded between Galdabani and the respondent. Decided in favour of State Russian Federation Italy Secondary: C - Manufacturing 29 - Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Hertzfeld, J. M. - Claimant

Vilkova, N. - Respondent
392.00 mln EUR (580.00 mln USD) Data not available Data not available None - jurisdiction declined Award dated May 2011 None None None None None None
16 2009 Valle Esina v. Russia Valle Esina S.p.A. v. The Russian Federation Italy - Russian Federation BIT (2002) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment:

Summary:
Decided in favour of investor Russian Federation Italy Data not available Data not available Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Bernardini, P. - Claimant

Zykin, I. S. - Respondent
Data not available 9.90 mln EUR (11.30 mln USD) Direct expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Direct expropriation Award dated June 2014 None None None None None None
17 2007 Quasar de Valores SICAV and others v. Russia Quasar de Valores SICAV S.A., Orgor de Valores SICAV S.A., GBI 9000 SICAV S.A. and ALOS 34 S.L. v. The Russian Federation (SCC Case No. 24/2007) Russian Federation - Spain BIT (1990) SCC SCC Investment: Ownership of Yukos American Depository Receipts, related to the value of Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimants' American Depository Receipts in Yukos.
Ownership of Yukos American Depository Receipts, related to the value of Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company. Decided in favour of investor Russian Federation Spain Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Paulsson, J. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Landau, T. - Respondent
2.60 mln USD 2.00 mln USD Direct expropriation

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

Most-favoured nation treatment
Direct expropriation Award on Preliminary Objections dated 20 March 2009

Award dated 20 July 2012
Separate Opinion of Charles N. Brower (Award on Preliminary Objections) Judicial review by national courts

Judicial review by national courts
Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts)

Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts)
Ruling of the Stockholm District Court dated 11 September 2014 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal dated 18 January 2016 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
18 2005 Hulley Enterprises v. Russia Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation (PCA Case No. AA 226) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's shares in Yukos.
Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Decided in favour of investor Russian Federation Cyprus Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Fortier, L. Y. - President

Poncet, C. - Claimant

Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - Claimant (replaced)

Price, D. M. - Claimant (replaced)

Schwebel, S. M. - Respondent
91200.00 mln USD 40000.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Indirect expropriation Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 30 November 2009

Final Award dated 18 July 2014
None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Hague District Court dated 20 April 2016 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
19 2005 RosInvest v. Russia RosInvestCo UK Ltd. v. The Russian Federation (SCC Case No. 079/2005) Russian Federation - United Kingdom BIT (1989) SCC SCC Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's 7 million shares in Yukos.
Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Decided in favour of investor Russian Federation United Kingdom Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Steyn, J. - Unknown

Berman, F. - Unknown
232.70 mln USD 3.50 mln USD Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Award on Jurisdiction dated October 2007

Final Award dated 12 September 2010
None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision partially set aside (Judicial review by national courts) Challenge to Jurisdiction dated 12 November 2010 (Judicial review by national courts)

Default Judgment of the Swedish District Court dated 9 November 2011 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea Hovrätt) dated 5 September 2013 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
20 2005 Veteran Petroleum v. Russia Veteran Petroleum Limited v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. AA 228) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's shares in Yukos.
Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Decided in favour of investor Russian Federation Cyprus Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Fortier, L. Y. - President

Poncet, C. - Claimant

Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - Claimant (replaced)

Price, D. M. - Claimant (replaced)

Schwebel, S. M. - Respondent
18700.00 mln USD 8203.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Indirect expropriation Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 30 November 2009

Final Award dated 18 July 2014
None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Hague District Court dated 20 April 2016 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
21 2005 Yukos Universal v. Russia Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation (PCA Case No. AA 227) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimant's shares in Yukos.
Shareholding in the Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company OJSC. Decided in favour of investor Russian Federation United Kingdom Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Fortier, L. Y. - President

Poncet, C. - Claimant

Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - Claimant (replaced)

Price, D. M. - Claimant (replaced)

Schwebel, S. M. - Respondent
4100.00 mln USD 1846.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Indirect expropriation Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 30 November 2009

Final Award dated 18 July 2014
None Judicial review by national courts

Judicial review by national courts
Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts)

Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts)
Ruling of the Stockholm District Court on Jurisdiction dated 11 September 2014 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the Hague District Court dated 20 April 2016 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
22 2004 Berschader v. Russia Vladimir Berschader and Michael Berschader v. Russian Federation (SCC Case No. 080/2004) Belgium/Luxembourg - Russian Federation BIT (1989) SCC SCC Investment: Sole shareholders in Belgian company that had a construction contract with Russia's Supreme Court.

Summary: Claims arising out of late payments under a construction contract for the rehabilitation of the Russian Supreme Court building.
Sole shareholders in Belgian company that had a construction contract with Russia's Supreme Court. Decided in favour of State Russian Federation Belgium Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Weiler, T. - Claimant

Lebedev, S. N. - Respondent

Komarov, A. S. - Respondent (replaced)

Sjovall, B. - President
13.20 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

Umbrella clause
None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 21 April 2006 Separate Opinion of Mr. Todd Weiler (Award) None None None None None
23 2000 UK Bank v. Russia UK Bank v. Russian Federation Russian Federation - United Kingdom BIT (1989) SCC SCC Investment: Sovereign bonds.

Summary: Claims arising out of the default on sovereign bonds during the Russian financial crisis.
Sovereign bonds. Settled Russian Federation United Kingdom Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Data not available Data not available 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 Sedelmayer v. Russia Mr. Franz Sedelmayer v. The Russian Federation Germany - Russian Federation BIT (1989) SCC SCC Investment: Property rights in joint stock company engaged in the delivery of law enforcement equipment and relevant training.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged confiscation of the investor's property as a result of certain directive issued by the President of the Russian Federation ordering transfer of the claimant's assets to a state agency.
Property rights in joint stock company engaged in the delivery of law enforcement equipment and relevant training. Decided in favour of investor Russian Federation Germany Tertiary: N - Administrative and support service activities 80 - Security and investigation activities Magnusson, S. - President

Wachler, J. P. - Claimant

Zykin, I. S. - Respondent
7.60 mln USD 2.30 mln USD Direct expropriation Direct expropriation Arbitration Award dated 7 July 1998 Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Prof. Ivan S. Zykin (Arbitration Award) Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the City Court of Stockholm dated 18 December 2002 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal dated 15 June 2005 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None