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

Turkmenistan - as respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 10 out of 10 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2017 Lotus v. Turkmenistan Lotus Holding Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/30) Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992)

The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Investments in two electric power plants and a refinery.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to make a retention payment for the construction of two 254-megawatt electric power plants, and of unlawfully terminating the agreement relating to the refinery.
Investments in two electric power plants and a refinery. Pending Turkmenistan Turkey Secondary: C - Manufacturing

Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
19 - Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products

35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply
Name not available - President

Boykin, J. H. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2016 Görkem Inşaat v. Turkmenistan Görkem Inşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/30) Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Investments in the construction of a shopping and trade center.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged non-payment under a contract for the construction of a shopping mall.
Investments in the construction of a shopping and trade center. Settled Turkmenistan Turkey Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Boykin, J. H. - Claimant

Douglas, Z. - Respondent

Annacker, C. - President
10.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order Taking Note of the Discontinuance of the Proceeding dated 12 December 2017 None None None None None None
3 2013 Erhas and others v. Turkmenistan Erhas and others v. Turkmenistan Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment:

Summary: Claims arising out of construction-related disputes for works undertaken in Turkmenistan.
Decided in favour of State Turkmenistan Turkey Tertiary: F - Construction 42 - Civil engineering Mourre, A. - President

Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Douglas, Z. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 8 June 2015 Separate Declaration by Stanimir A. Alexandrov None None None None None
4 2012 Muhammet Cap v. Turkmenistan Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6) Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under numerous contracts entered into with Turkmenistan concerning building projects.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of governmental measures that allegedly led to the unlawful expropriation of claimants' construction projects in Turkmenistan, including defaulted payments and the termination of some of the contracts at issue before domestic courts.
Rights under numerous contracts entered into with Turkmenistan concerning building projects. Pending Turkmenistan Turkey Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Lew, J. D. M. - President

Hanotiau, B. - Claimant

Boisson de Chazournes, L. - Respondent
300.00 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

Most-favoured nation treatment
Pending Decision on Respondent's Objection to Jurisdiction under Article VII(2) dated 13 February 2015 None None None None None None
5 2011 Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan Garanti Koza LLP v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20) Turkmenistan - United Kingdom BIT (1995)

Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract signed between State Concern Turkmenautoyollari and Garanti Koza LLP for the design and construction of 28 highway bridges and overpasses on the Mary-Turkmenabad highway in Turkmenistan.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements between Garanti Koza and Turkmenistan over the performance of certain construction contract that led to the suspension of works and the subsequent Government's termination of the contract based on the investor's alleged failure to complete the work on time and the failure to resume works for a prolonged time of time.
Rights under a contract signed between State Concern Turkmenautoyollari and Garanti Koza LLP for the design and construction of 28 highway bridges and overpasses on the Mary-Turkmenabad highway in Turkmenistan. Decided in favour of investor Turkmenistan United Kingdom Tertiary: F - Construction 42 - Civil engineering Townsend, J. M. - President

Boisson de Chazournes, L. - Claimant

Lambrou, G. C. - Respondent
46.10 mln USD 2.50 mln USD 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

Full protection and security, or similar
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Umbrella clause
Decision on the Objection to Jurisdiction for Lack of Consent dated 3 July 2013

Award dated 19 December 2016
Dissenting Opinion by Laurence Boisson de Chazournes (Decision on the Objection to Jurisdiction for Lack of Consent) None None None None None
6 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
7 2010 Bozbey v. Turkmenistan Bozbey Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Omer Faruk Bozbey v. Turkmenistan Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Construction and operation of an agro-industrial complex in Turkmenistan under a contract concluded with the Turkmen President’s Foundation.

Summary: Claims arising out of the initiation of criminal proceedings against the investor, the imposition of taxes and fines by Turkmen tax authorities upon his agro-industrial facility despite allegedly receiving a 21-year tax exemption under a special presidential decree, and the subsequent confiscation of claimant's property.
Construction and operation of an agro-industrial complex in Turkmenistan under a contract concluded with the Turkmen President’s Foundation. Discontinued Turkmenistan Turkey Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities Griffith, G. - President

Hertzfeld, J. M. - Unknown

Fordham, J. - Unknown
60.00 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

Other
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available None None None None None
8 2010 İçkale v. Turkmenistan İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/24) Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under thirteen contracts for the construction of schools, hotels, cinemas and other facilities.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged interference with the execution of the claimant's work under construction contracts concluded with various State organs and State entities, including the blocking of bank accounts, the termination of contracts and the initiation of judicial proceedings.
Rights under thirteen contracts for the construction of schools, hotels, cinemas and other facilities. Decided in favour of State Turkmenistan Turkey Tertiary: F - Construction 42 - Civil engineering Heiskanen, V. - President

Lamm, C. B. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent

Nariman, F. S. - Respondent (replaced)
566.70 mln USD Data not available 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

Umbrella clause

Indirect expropriation
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 8 March 2016

Decision on Claimant's Request for Supplementary Decision and Rectification of the Award dated 4 October 2016
Partially Dissenting Opinion of Philippe Sands

Partially Dissenting Opinion of Carolyn B. Lamm
None None None None None
9 2010 Kılıç v. Turkmenistan Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1) Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a number of building contracts in connection with projects in the Turkmen cities of Mary, Dashoguz and Ashgabat between Kiliç and various municipal governors, and other state officials.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over the parties' respective performance under several construction contracts, including the alleged failure to pay certain amounts owed under various construction projects that the investor had designed and built.
Rights under a number of building contracts in connection with projects in the Turkmen cities of Mary, Dashoguz and Ashgabat between Kiliç and various municipal governors, and other state officials. Decided in favour of State Turkmenistan Turkey Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Rowley, J. W. - President

Gaillard, E. - President (replaced)

Park, W. W. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
300.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 2 July 2013

Decision on Article VII.2 of the Turkey-Turkmenistan Bilateral Investment Treaty dated 7 May 2012
Separate Opinion of Professor William W. Park (Award) ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Annulment dated 14 July 2015 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Rigo Sureda, A. - President

Böckstiegel, K.-H. - Member

Shin, H.-T. - Member
10 2009 Dogan v. Turkmenistan Adem Dogan v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/9) Germany - Turkmenistan BIT (1997) ICSID ICSID Investment: Contractual interest in a proportion of the revenue stream of a poultry farm near Ashgebat; capital contributions of around USD 6 million to operate such poultry farm.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation and physical destruction of a poultry farm located near the capital of Ashgabat in which the claimant had invested.
Contractual interest in a proportion of the revenue stream of a poultry farm near Ashgebat; capital contributions of around USD 6 million to operate such poultry farm. Decided in favour of investor Turkmenistan Germany Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities Paulsson, J. - President

Wirth, M. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
45.00 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

Transfer of funds
Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 29 February 2012

Award dated 12 August 2014
None ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Annulment dated 15 January 2016 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Bernardini, P. - President

Khan, M. A. - Member

van Haersolte-Van Hof, J. J. - Member