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

Ukraine - as respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 22 out of 22 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 Emergofin and Velbay v. Ukraine Emergofin B.V. and Velbay Holdings Ltd. v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/35) Netherlands - Ukraine BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: 68.01% shareholding in Zaporozhe Aluminium Plant (“Zalk“).

Summary: Claims arising out of the Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decision (2015) to expropriate the claimants’ majority stake in the aluminium production company Zalk.
68.01% shareholding in Zaporozhe Aluminium Plant (“Zalk“). Pending Ukraine Netherlands Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Beechey, J. - Claimant

Wood, M. - Respondent

Douglas, Z. - President
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
3 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
4 2015 Gilward Investments v. Ukraine Gilward Investments B.V. v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/33) Netherlands - Ukraine BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding (38 per cent) in AeroSvit, a Ukrainian partly State-owned airline company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the measures taken by the Government related to the bankruptcy of the claimant’s Ukrainian subsidiary, AeroSvit.
Majority shareholding (38 per cent) in AeroSvit, a Ukrainian partly State-owned airline company. Pending Ukraine Netherlands Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 51 - Air transport Sands, P. - Respondent (replaced)

Tawil, G. S. - Claimant

Schwartz, E. - President

Knieper, R. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
5 2015 JKX Oil & Gas and Poltava v. Ukraine JKX Oil & Gas plc, Poltava Gas B.V. and Poltava Petroleum Company v. Ukraine Ukraine - United Kingdom BIT (1993)

Netherlands - Ukraine BIT (1994)

The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)
UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investments in oil and gas production plants in Ukraine.

Summary: Claims arising from a series of alleged discriminatory State measures including legislation adopted in July 2014 that temporarily raised royalties on gas production from 28 to 55 per cent as well as regulations introduced in November 2014 that required private companies to purchase gas solely from state entity Naftogaz, and placed restrictions on other sellers.
Investments in oil and gas production plants in Ukraine. Decided in favour of investor Ukraine United Kingdom

Netherlands
Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Crawford, J. R. - President

Hanotiau, B. - Claimant

Reisman, W. M. - Respondent
270.00 mln USD 11.80 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Data not available Award dated 6 February 2017 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Ruling of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales dated 27 October 2017 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
6 2015 Littop v. Ukraine Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited and Bordo Management Limited v. Ukraine The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) SCC SCC Investment: Minority shareholding in PJSC Ukrnafta, an oil and gas company.

Summary: Claims arising out of government’s measures with respect to PJSC Ukrnafta’s operations, including alleged interference with the sales price of natural gas.
Minority shareholding in PJSC Ukrnafta, an oil and gas company. Pending Ukraine Cyprus Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Fortier, L. Y. - Claimant

Oreamuno Blanco, R. - Respondent

Lew, J. D. M. - President
5000.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
7 2014 City-State v. Ukraine City-State N.V., Praktyka Asset Management Company LLC, Crystal-Invest LLC and Prodiz LLC v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/9) Netherlands - Ukraine BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in the financial institution PJSC KreditPromBank.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged failure by Ukraine's banking authority to exercise regulatory oversight over claimants' deposits in the bank KreditPromBank after it was sold to a Ukrainian national, including the alleged transfer of the bank's assets and accounts to offshore companies in violation of Ukrainian banking regulation, and alleged government interference in domestic judicial proceedings.
Majority shareholding in the financial institution PJSC KreditPromBank. Pending Ukraine Netherlands Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Lowe, V. - President (replaced)

Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent

Bull, C. - President
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
8 2014 Krederi v. Ukraine Krederi Ltd. v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/17) Ukraine - United Kingdom BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under contracts for the development of a hotel, shopping center and apartment complex within a property acquired by Krederi.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of Ukrainian judicial rulings that annulled contracts held by claimant's subsidiary companies for the acquisition and commercial development of property.
Rights under contracts for the development of a hotel, shopping center and apartment complex within a property acquired by Krederi. Pending Ukraine United Kingdom Tertiary: F - Construction

Tertiary: L - Real estate activities
41 - Construction of buildings

68 - Real estate activities
van den Berg, A. J. - President (replaced)

Wirth, M. - Claimant

Griffith, G. - Respondent

Reinisch, A. - President
120.00 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
Pending None None None None None None None
9 2009 Global Trading v. Ukraine Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11) Ukraine - United States of America BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under poultry sales and purchase contracts concluded between the claimants and senior Ukrainian officials; particularly, the right to be paid for performance of contractual obligations.

Summary: Claims arising out of Ukraine's alleged failure to pay for and take delivery of poultry shipped to the designated port under certain poultry sales contracts concluded with the claimants, and the alleged resulting losses incurred by the claimants before they could dispose of the goods.
Rights under poultry sales and purchase contracts concluded between the claimants and senior Ukrainian officials; particularly, the right to be paid for performance of contractual obligations. Decided in favour of State Ukraine United States of America Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities Berman, F. - President

Gaillard, E. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
35.00 mln USD Data not available Unclear None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 1 December 2010 None None None None None None
10 2008 Bosh v. Ukraine Bosh International, Inc. and B&P, LTD Foreign Investments Enterprise v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/11) Ukraine - United States of America BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract concluded between B&P and the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev to undertake a two-stage renovation and redevelopment of a property.

Summary: Claims arising out of the termination of a contract entered into between the investors and a Ukranian university for the development of a facility comprising a hotel, sports facilities, conference rooms and a research training centre, through conduct of Ukrainian courts, the Ministry of Justice, and the Education Control Division of the General Control and Revision Office of Ukraine.
Rights under a contract concluded between B&P and the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev to undertake a two-stage renovation and redevelopment of a property. Decided in favour of State Ukraine United States of America Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Griffith, G. - President

Sands, P. - Claimant

McRae, D. M. - Respondent
10.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 25 October 2012 None None None None None None
11 2008 GEA v. Ukraine GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16) Germany - Ukraine BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Capital loans to OJSC Oriana, a former Ukrainian State-owned petrochemicals plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged misappropriation of diesel and raw materials by a State-owned petrochemical company which were supplied by the investor, and the investor's subsequent failure to collect an ICC award in its favour against such company in Ukrainian courts.
Capital loans to OJSC Oriana, a former Ukrainian State-owned petrochemicals plant. Decided in favour of State Ukraine Germany Secondary: C - Manufacturing 19 - Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products van den Berg, A. J. - President

Landau, T. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
30.60 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

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 31 March 2011 None None None None None None
12 2008 Inmaris Perestroika v. Ukraine Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8) Germany - Ukraine BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Claims to performance under direct and derivative rights under certain bareboat charter contract and related agreements concluded between the claimants and a State-owned entity.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of contracts concluded between a State-owned education institution of Ukraine and the claimants concerning the use of a windjammer sail training ship and subsequent disagreements regarding the operation of the contracts, including financing options for the reconstruction of the ship, followed by a Government's decision prohibiting the ship to leave Ukrainian territorial waters until clarification of matters relating to its joint operation.
Claims to performance under direct and derivative rights under certain bareboat charter contract and related agreements concluded between the claimants and a State-owned entity. Decided in favour of investor Ukraine Germany Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 50 - Water transport Alexandrov, S. A. - President

Rubins, N. - Claimant

Cremades, B. M. - Respondent
15.00 mln EUR (23.50 mln USD) 3.00 mln EUR (3.80 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
Indirect expropriation

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 8 March 2010

Award dated 1 March 2012
None None None None None None
13 2008 Remington v. Ukraine Remington Worldwide Limited v. Ukraine The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) SCC SCC Investment: Rights under a contract for supply of power equipment; Russian judgment in claimant's favour.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged non-enforcement in the territory of Ukraine of a judgment rendered by the Commercial Court of Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad Region in favour of Remington regarding unpaid debts owed under a sales contract by the Ukrainian state enterprise National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom”.
Rights under a contract for supply of power equipment; Russian judgment in claimant's favour. Decided in favour of investor Ukraine Gibraltar Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Crespi Reghizzi, G. - President

Komarov, A. S. - Claimant

Kubko, E. - Respondent
36.00 mln USD 4.50 mln USD Other Other Final Award dated 28 April 2011 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Decision of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv dated 26 April 2012 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
14 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
15 2007 Alpha Projektholding v. Ukraine Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16) Austria - Ukraine BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment: Contributions made in connection with joint investment activities agreements concluded between the parties concerning a project to renovate and operate a hotel in Kiev, giving rise to certain legal rights and interests.

Summary: Claims arising out of the investor's modernization of a four star hotel complex in Kiev followed by Ukraine's alleged expropriation of the hotel by turning it into a public corporation and transferring its assets, co-owned by the respondent, to a company solely owned by Ukraine without compensation.
Contributions made in connection with joint investment activities agreements concluded between the parties concerning a project to renovate and operate a hotel in Kiev, giving rise to certain legal rights and interests. Decided in favour of investor Ukraine Austria Tertiary: F - Construction

Tertiary: I - Accommodation and food service activities
41 - Construction of buildings

55 - Accommodation
Robinson, D. R. - President

Turbowicz, Y. A. - Claimant

Alexandrov, S. A. - Respondent
11.40 mln USD 2.90 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause

National treatment
Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Award dated 8 November 2010 None None None None None None
16 2007 Laskaridis Shipping v. Ukraine Laskaridis Shipping Co LTD, Lavinia Corporation, A K Laskaridis and P K Laskaridis v. Ukraine Greece - Ukraine BIT (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Rights under a shipyard and boatbuilding contract.

Summary: Claims arising out of the investors' purchase of a series of vessels from a now-insolvent Ukrainian shipyard and alleged expropriatory acts by the Government in relation to such purchases.
Rights under a shipyard and boatbuilding contract. Settled Ukraine Greece Secondary: C - Manufacturing 30 - Manufacture of other transport equipment Fortier, L. Y. - President

Williams, D. A. R. - Claimant

Dossou, R. - Respondent
9.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Unclear
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Data not available Data not available None None None None None
17 2006 Lemire v. Ukraine (II) Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18) Ukraine - United States of America BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Indirect majority shareholding in a Ukrainian joint stock company licensed to broadcast on various radio frequencies in Ukraine.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged breach of a settlement agreement concluded with the respondent concerning claimant's investment, and regarding the Ukraine regulators' handling of broadcasting licensing and trademark applications.
Indirect majority shareholding in a Ukrainian joint stock company licensed to broadcast on various radio frequencies in Ukraine. Decided in favour of investor Ukraine United States of America Tertiary: J - Information and communication 60 - Programming and broadcasting activities Fernández-Armesto, J. - President

Paulsson, J. - Claimant

Voss, J. - Respondent
46.60 mln USD 8.70 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Umbrella clause

Performance requirements
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 28 March 2011

Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 14 January 2010
Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Dr. Jürgen Voss (Award) ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Annulment dated 8 July 2013 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None von Wobeser, C. - President

Kettani, A. - Member

Zuleta, E. - Member
18 2005 Amto v. Ukraine Limited Liability Company Amto v. Ukraine (SCC Case No. 080/2005) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) SCC SCC Investment: Majority shareholding in Ukrainian company that had concluded several maintenance contracts with the State-owned nuclear energy company Energoatom for the repair of high-voltage electrical equipment.

Summary: Claims arising out of the bankruptcy of the Zaporozhskaya nuclear power plant in eastern Ukraine and its default under contracts to claimant's subsidiary for maintenance works carried out at such plant; particularly, the alleged prevention by Ukrainian bankruptcy law and the conduct of these bankruptcy proceedings from enforcing several court orders obtained by claimant's subsidiary against the State-owned company.
Majority shareholding in Ukrainian company that had concluded several maintenance contracts with the State-owned nuclear energy company Energoatom for the repair of high-voltage electrical equipment. Decided in favour of State Ukraine Latvia Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Cremades, B. M. - President

Runeland, P. - Claimant

Söderlund, C. - Respondent
15.00 mln EUR (23.80 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Final Award dated 26 March 2008 None None None None None None
19 2004 Western NIS v. Ukraine Western NIS Enterprise Fund v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/2) Ukraine - United States of America BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Direct creditor of a commercial award rendered against the investor's Ukrainian partner in a joint venture to produce sunflower oil.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged refusal of Ukrainian courts to enforce an American Arbitration Association commercial award in favour of the claimant.
Direct creditor of a commercial award rendered against the investor's Ukrainian partner in a joint venture to produce sunflower oil. Settled Ukraine United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products Oreamuno Blanco, R. - President

Pryles, M. C. - Claimant

Paulsson, J. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance issued by the Tribunal dated 16 March 2006, pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1) None None None None None None
20 2002 Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18) Lithuania - Ukraine BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of local publishing company.

Summary: Claims arising out of certain alleged retaliatory actions by the respondent for a publication concerning an Ukrainian opposition politician, including document seizures, public accusations of illegal conduct, judicial actions to invalidate contracts and seizure of assets.
Ownership of local publishing company. Decided in favour of State Ukraine Lithuania Tertiary: J - Information and communication 58 - Publishing activities Mustill, M. - President

Weil, P. - President (replaced)

Price, D. M. - Claimant

Bernardini, P. - Respondent
65.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Full protection and security, or similar

Most-favoured nation treatment
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Decision on Jurisdiction dated 29 April 2004

Award dated 26 July 2007
Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Prosper Weil (Decision on Jurisdiction)

Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Daniel M. Price (Award)
None None None None None
21 2000 Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9) Ukraine - United States of America BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of local investment company engaged in carrying out a construction project of an office building.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged obstruction and interference by local authorities with the realization of the investor's construction project.
Ownership of local investment company engaged in carrying out a construction project of an office building. Decided in favour of State Ukraine United States of America Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Paulsson, J. - President

Shihata, I. - President (replaced)

Salpius, E. - Claimant

Voss, J. - Respondent
9446.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 16 September 2003 None None None None None None
22 1998 Lemire v. Ukraine (I) Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/1) Ukraine - United States of America BIT (1994) ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Indirect majority shareholding in Ukrainian joint stock company licensed to broadcast on various radio frequencies in Ukraine.

Summary: Claims arising out of claimant's difficulties in obtaining licenses for radio frequencies and broadcasting channels in Ukraine.
Indirect majority shareholding in Ukrainian joint stock company licensed to broadcast on various radio frequencies in Ukraine. Settled Ukraine United States of America Tertiary: J - Information and communication 60 - Programming and broadcasting activities Lauterpacht, E. - President

Paulsson, J. - Claimant

Voss, J. - Respondent
Data not available Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Award (embodying the parties' agreement) dated 18 September 2000 None None None None None None