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

Ecuador - as respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 23 out of 23 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2016 Albacora v. Ecuador Albacora S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 2016-11) Ecuador - Spain BIT (1996) UNCITRAL PCA Investment:

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged denial of certain tax exemptions to which the claimant considered its company to be entitled as a user of the free economic zone of Posorja (Zona Franca de Posorja) in the Guayas province of Ecuador.
Pending Ecuador Spain Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Secondary: C - Manufacturing
3 - Fishing and aquaculture

10 - Manufacture of food products
Anzola, J. E. - President

Nunes Pinto, J. E. - Claimant

Malintoppi, L. - Respondent
20.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2015 GLP v. Ecuador Consorcio GLP Ecuador v. Republic of Ecuador Ecuador - Spain BIT (1996) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Contract with the Ecuadorian state-owned oil and gas transport company Flopec for the construction of storage spheres for liquefied petroleum gas at a terminal at the Ecuadorean port of Monteverde.

Summary: Claims arising out of government resolutions that declared the claimant in default of its obligations under a construction contract.
Contract with the Ecuadorian state-owned oil and gas transport company Flopec for the construction of storage spheres for liquefied petroleum gas at a terminal at the Ecuadorean port of Monteverde. Pending Ecuador Spain Tertiary: F - Construction 42 - Civil engineering Data not available 50.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
3 2011 Copper Mesa v. Ecuador Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador (PCA No. 2012-2) Canada - Ecuador BIT (1996) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Concession rights held through local subsidiaries for two open-pit mines located in the Junín and Chaucha regions of Ecuador; right of acquisition over a third mining project in the area of Telinbela.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged termination by the Government of mining concessions in the Ecuadorian areas of Junín, Chaucha and Telinbela, in which the claimant had invested.
Concession rights held through local subsidiaries for two open-pit mines located in the Junín and Chaucha regions of Ecuador; right of acquisition over a third mining project in the area of Telinbela. Decided in favour of investor Ecuador Canada Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Veeder, V. V. - President

Cremades, B. M. - Claimant

Simma, B. - Respondent
69.70 mln USD 19.40 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment

Direct expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Indirect expropriation

Direct expropriation
Award dated 15 March 2016 None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
4 2011 Merck v. Ecuador Merck Sharpe & Dohme (I.A.) Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 2012-10) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of a pharmaceutical manufacturing company located in Ecuador.

Summary: Claims arising out of judicial proceedings before Ecuadorian courts concerning claimant's refusal to sell a pharmaceutical factory to the Ecuadorian company NIFA, which allegedly resulted in a denial of justice.
Ownership of a pharmaceutical manufacturing company located in Ecuador. Pending Ecuador United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 21 - Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations Berman, F. - President

Schwebel, S. M. - Claimant

Simma, B. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Pending None None None None None None None
5 2011 Murphy v. Ecuador (II) Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. The Republic of Ecuador (II) (PCA Case No. 2012-16) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shares of stock in local operating company that had concluded a service contract with Ecuador for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons.

Summary: Claims arising out of Ecuador's enactment of Law No. 42 imposing a 99 per cent windfall levy on foreign oil revenues that allegedly resulted in the expropriation of Murphy's investment in Block 16 of the Ecuadorian Amazon, an oil-rich region bordering Peru and Brazil.
Shares of stock in local operating company that had concluded a service contract with Ecuador for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. Decided in favour of investor Ecuador United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Hanotiau, B. - President

Hobér, K. - Claimant

Tawil, G. S. - Claimant (replaced)

Abi-Saab, G. - Respondent (replaced)

Stern, B. - Respondent (replaced)

Derains, Y. - Respondent
355.00 mln USD 20.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Partial Award on Jurisdiction dated 13 November 2013

Partial Final Award dated 6 May 2016

Final Award dated 10 February 2017
Separate Opinion of Georges Abi-Saab (Partial Award on Jurisdiction) None None None None None
6 2011 Zamora Gold v. Ecuador Zamora Gold Corporation v. Ecuador Canada - Ecuador BIT (1996) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Shareholding in three mining subsidiaries, Mineral del Austro Mineraustro S.A, Minreal S.A, and Concumaysa Compania Minera Cumay del Ecuador S.A.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of claimant's shares in three subsidiary companies engaged in the exploration and exploitation of mineral properties in Ecuador, pursuant to a resolution of the Ecuadorean Guarantee Deposit Agency.
Shareholding in three mining subsidiaries, Mineral del Austro Mineraustro S.A, Minreal S.A, and Concumaysa Compania Minera Cumay del Ecuador S.A. Pending Ecuador Canada Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
7 2010 RSM v. Ecuador RSM Production Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Rights under a mining license.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged Government's wrongful termination of a mining license for a tar-sands project in Ecuador.
Rights under a mining license. Pending Ecuador United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Data not available Data not available Data not available Indirect expropriation Pending Data not available Data not available None None None None None
8 2009 Chevron and TexPet v. Ecuador (II) Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (II) (PCA Case No. 2009-23) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Oil exploration and production rights in Ecuador’s Amazon region through concession contracts concluded with the Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of Texaco's historical participation as a minority member of a consortium with Ecuador and Ecuador's oil company Petroecuador that explored for and produced oil under concession contracts, and the alleged Government's misconduct in subsequent litigation proceedings against Texaco for environmental remediation.
Oil exploration and production rights in Ecuador’s Amazon region through concession contracts concluded with the Government. Pending Ecuador United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Veeder, V. V. - President

Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Pending Third Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 27 February 2012

First Partial Award on Track I dated 17 September 2013

Decision on Track 1B dated 12 March 2015
Note of Dissent Judicial review by national courts

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

Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts)
Judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 20 January 2016 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the Appeal Court of The Hague dated 18 July 2017 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
9 2009 Globalnet v. Ecuador Globalnet - Únete Telecomunicaciones S.A. and Clay Pacific S.R.L. v. The Republic of Ecuador Bolivia, Plurinational State of - Ecuador BIT (1995) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Rights under a concession agreement for telecommunication services in Ecuador concluded with the National Secretary of Telecommunications and the National Modernization Council (CONAM).

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's unilateral termination of a contract concluded with the investor to provide fixed and mobile telephony and Internet to 1,120 rural and marginal urban municipalities of Ecuador that did not have such services at that time, due to the investor's alleged gross negligence in the performance of its contractual duties.
Rights under a concession agreement for telecommunication services in Ecuador concluded with the National Secretary of Telecommunications and the National Modernization Council (CONAM). Pending Ecuador Bolivia, Plurinational State of Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Data not available 32.50 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment
Pending Data not available Data not available None None None None None
10 2009 Ulysseas v. Ecuador Ulysseas, Inc. v. The Republic of Ecuador (PCA No. 2009-19) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Rights under two power barge agreements concluded between claimant, a special purpose vehicle owned by the US hedge fund Elliott Associates, and Ecuador's electricity regulator Conelec to generate electricity during a period of severe national shortages.

Summary: Claims arising out of several Government measures that allegedly altered the legal and regulatory framework governing the power sector in Ecuador, including the payment system applicable to private thermoelectric generators like Ulysseas, and the State's subsequent withdrawal of claimant's operating permit due to alleged contractual breaches.
Rights under two power barge agreements concluded between claimant, a special purpose vehicle owned by the US hedge fund Elliott Associates, and Ecuador's electricity regulator Conelec to generate electricity during a period of severe national shortages. Decided in favour of State Ecuador United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Bernardini, P. - President

Pryles, M. C. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
57.00 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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Interim Award dated 28 September 2010

Final Award dated 12 June 2012
None None None None None None
11 2008 Burlington v. Ecuador Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under production sharing contracts for the exploration and exploitation of Blocks 7 and 21, concluded between a Burlington wholly-owned subsidiary and Ecuador.

Summary: Claims arising out of Ecuador's enactment of a law imposing a 99 per cent windfall levy on foreign oil revenues as a result of an oil spike starting in 2002, the Government's decision to migrate to service contracts and the subsequent caducidad process to terminate the investor's production sharing agreements.
Rights under production sharing contracts for the exploration and exploitation of Blocks 7 and 21, concluded between a Burlington wholly-owned subsidiary and Ecuador. Decided in favour of investor Ecuador United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Drymer, S. L. - Claimant

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Claimant (replaced)

Stern, B. - Respondent
1515.60 mln USD 379.80 mln USD Direct expropriation

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Direct expropriation Decision on Liability dated 14 December 2012

Decision on Jurisdiction dated 2 June 2010

Decision on Counterclaims dated 7 February 2017

Decision on Reconsideration and Award dated 7 February 2017
Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Orrego Vicuña (Decision on Liability) ICSID annulment proceedings Discontinued (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Rigo Sureda, A. - President

Bernardini, P. - Member

Van Houtte, V. - Member
12 2008 Murphy v. Ecuador (I) Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Minority shareholding in local operating company that had concluded a service contract with Ecuador for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons.

Summary: Claims arising out of Ecuador's enactment of Law No. 42 imposing a 99 per cent windfall levy on foreign oil revenues that allegedly resulted in the expropriation of Murphy's investment in Block 16 of the Ecuadorian Amazon, an oil-rich region bordering Peru and Brazil.
Minority shareholding in local operating company that had concluded a service contract with Ecuador for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. Decided in favour of State Ecuador United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Oreamuno Blanco, R. - President

Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant

Vinuesa, R. E. - Respondent
Data not available 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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - jurisdiction declined Award on Jurisdiction dated 15 December 2010 Partial Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Horacio A. Grigera Naón (Award on Jurisdiction) None None None None None
13 2008 Perenco v. Ecuador Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6) Ecuador - France BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Sole operator and majority shareholder of rights in two oil blocks under two production sharing contracts concluded between Ecuador's oil company Petroecuador and several foreign investors; rights under joint operating agreements concluded with other entities holding interests in such blocks; contributions in personnel, equipment, technology, goods and services.

Summary: Claims arising out of Ecuador's enactment of Law No. 42 imposing a 99 per cent windfall levy on foreign oil revenues that allegedly resulted in the expropriation of Perenco's investment in Blocks 7 and 21 situated in the Ecuadorian Amazon region; particularly by depriving Perenco of its contractual right to an agreed participation percentage of the crude oil produced in the Blocks.
Sole operator and majority shareholder of rights in two oil blocks under two production sharing contracts concluded between Ecuador's oil company Petroecuador and several foreign investors; rights under joint operating agreements concluded with other entities holding interests in such blocks; contributions in personnel, equipment, technology, goods and services. Pending Ecuador Bahamas Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Tomka, P. - President

Bingham, T. - President (replaced)

Kaplan, N. - Claimant

Brower, C. N. - Claimant (replaced)

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
440.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Other
Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 30 June 2011

Decision on Remaining Issues of Jurisdiction and on Liability dated 12 September 2014

Interim Decision on the Environmental Counterclaim dated 11 August 2015
None None None None None None
14 2006 Chevron and TexPet v. Ecuador (I) Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (I) (PCA Case No. 34877) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Oil exploration and production rights in Ecuador’s Amazon region through concession contracts concluded with the Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of seven breach-of-contract cases filed by Texaco against the Ecuadorian Government in local courts and the alleged egregious delay of all Texaco claims by the Ecuadorian judiciary.
Oil exploration and production rights in Ecuador’s Amazon region through concession contracts concluded with the Government. Decided in favour of investor Ecuador United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

van den Berg, A. J. - Respondent
649.00 mln USD 77.70 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
Other Interim Award dated 1 December 2008

Partial Award on the Merits dated 30 March 2010

Final Award dated 31 August 2011
None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the District Court of the Hague dated 2 May 2012 (Judicial review by national courts)

DC Court's Rejection of Ecuador's Challenge to the Final Award dated 6 June 2013 (Judicial review by national courts)

Decision of the Dutch Supreme Court to Uphold Award dated 26 September 2014 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
15 2006 Occidental v. Ecuador (II) Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Participation contract for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons.

Summary: Claims arising out of the termination (caducidad) of a 1999 participation contract between Occidental Exploration and Production Company and PetroEcuador for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in Block 15 of the Ecuadorian Amazon region.
Participation contract for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. Decided in favour of investor Ecuador United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Fortier, L. Y. - President

Williams, D. A. R. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
1000.00 mln USD 1769.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 9 September 2008

Award dated 5 October 2012
Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern (Decision on Jurisdiction)

Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern (Award)
ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision partially annulled (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Annulment of the Award dated 2 November 2015 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Fernández-Armesto, J. - President

Feliciano, F. P. - Member

Oreamuno Blanco, R. - Member
16 2006 Técnicas Reunidas v. Ecuador Técnicas Reunidas, S.A. and Eurocontrol, S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/17) Ecuador - Spain BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under an oil refinery expansion contract.

Summary: Claims arising out of a contract concluded between Ecuador and two engineering and construction companies to upgrade Ecuador's largest oil refinery in the Esmeraldas province in north-west Ecuador, operated by Petroindustriel, a subsidiary of Ecuador's state-run oil company, Petroecuador.
Rights under an oil refinery expansion contract. Settled Ecuador Spain Tertiary: F - Construction 43 - Specialized construction activities Tribunal not constituted 35.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance issued by the Acting Secretary-General dated 13 May 2008, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 44 None None None None None None
17 2005 EMELEC v. Ecuador Empresa Electrica del Ecuador, Inc. (EMELEC) v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/9) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a concession agreement for the supply of electricity in the city of Guayaquil concluded between the claimant and an organ of the Ecuadorian Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the investor's premises, bank accounts, and other property located in Ecuadorian territory through a combined military-police operation, followed by local litigation over contractual outstanding amounts.
Rights under a concession agreement for the supply of electricity in the city of Guayaquil concluded between the claimant and an organ of the Ecuadorian Government. Decided in favour of State Ecuador United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Sepúlveda Amor, B. - President

Rooney, J. H. - Claimant

Reisman, W. M. - Respondent
326.00 mln USD Data not available Direct expropriation None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 2 June 2009 None None None None None None
18 2005 Noble Energy v. Ecuador Noble Energy Inc. and Machala Power Cía. Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Consejo Nacional de Electricidad (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/12) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership and control of contractual and legal rights through certain concession contract, investment agreement and production sharing contract concerning electricity supply; capital contributions; claims to money and performance having an economic value.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of decrees, acts and omissions of the respondents through which they allegedly altered the economic, regulatory, legal, and contractual framework upon which the claimants had relied in making their investment in Ecuador, including the modification of the mechanism for the payment of invoices which caused a significant increase in unpaid receivables for electricity supply from a power plant in Ecuador.
Ownership and control of contractual and legal rights through certain concession contract, investment agreement and production sharing contract concerning electricity supply; capital contributions; claims to money and performance having an economic value. Settled Ecuador United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Álvarez, H. C. - Claimant

Cremades, B. M. - Respondent
370.00 mln USD 70.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Decision on Jurisdiction dated 5 March 2008

Order taking note of the discontinuance issued by the Tribunal dated 20 May 2009, pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1)
None None None None None None
19 2004 Duke Energy v. Ecuador Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership interest in local power generation company.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged breaches of several agreements entered into between the parties for electrical power generation and supply to the city of Guayaquil in Ecuador.
Ownership interest in local power generation company. Decided in favour of investor Ecuador United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Gómez-Pinzón, E. - Claimant

van den Berg, A. J. - Respondent
25.00 mln USD 5.60 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

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

Umbrella clause
Award dated 18 August 2008 None None None None None None
20 2003 Encana v. Ecuador EnCana Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador (LCIA Case No. UN3481) Canada - Ecuador BIT (1996) UNCITRAL LCIA Investment: Ownership of local subsidiaries that had entered into participation contracts for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas reserves with Petroecuador, a State-owned entity.

Summary: Claims arising out of VAT refunds to which the claimant's subsidiaries were allegedly entitled under Ecuadorian laws and regulations.
Ownership of local subsidiaries that had entered into participation contracts for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas reserves with Petroecuador, a State-owned entity. Decided in favour of State Ecuador Canada Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Crawford, J. R. - President

Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant

Barrera Sweeney, P. - Respondent

Barrera Valverde, A. - Respondent (replaced)
80.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

National treatment

Other
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 3 February 2006

Partial Award on Jurisdiction dated 27 February 2004
Partial Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Horacio A. Grigera Naón (Award) None None None None None
21 2003 MCI v. Ecuador M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of a company that was party to a contract for the sale of electricity with Ecuador’s Electricity Institute.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of differences between the investor and Ecuador’s Electricity Institute regarding the execution of a contract concerning an electric power generation project, including the suspension of operations alleging the non-payment of invoices, and the subsequent termination of the contract.
Ownership of a company that was party to a contract for the sale of electricity with Ecuador’s Electricity Institute. Decided in favour of State Ecuador United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Vinuesa, R. E. - President

Greenberg, B. J. - Claimant

Irarrázabal, J. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Indirect expropriation

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
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 31 July 2007 None ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Annulment dated 19 October 2009 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Hascher, D. - President

Danelius, H. - Member

Tomka, P. - Member
22 2002 IBM v. Ecuador IBM World Trade Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/10) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under an informatics services concession contract.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged lack of payment of monies to the investor's wholly-owned subsidiary under a concession contract entered into with the Ecuadorian Ministry of Finances and Public Credit.
Rights under an informatics services concession contract. Settled Ecuador United States of America Tertiary: J - Information and communication 63 - Information service activities Jijón Letort, R. - President

Ponce Martínez, A. - Unknown

Roldós Aguilera, L. - Unknown
4.70 mln USD 3.50 mln USD Unclear Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Decision on Jurisdiction dated 22 December 2003

Award embodying the parties' settlement agreement dated 22 July 2004
Dissenting Vote of Mr. León Roldós Aguilera (Decision on Jurisdiction) None None None None None
23 2002 Occidental v. Ecuador (I) Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (I) (LCIA Case No. UN3467) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL LCIA Investment: Rights under a participation contract for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons.

Summary: Claims arising out of resolutions issued by the Ecuadorian tax authority denying applications for VAT refunds by Occidental, and requiring the return of the amounts previously reimbursed in connection with a participation contract entered into by the claimant with Petroecuador, a State-owned corporation of Ecuador, to undertake oil exploration and production in Ecuador.
Rights under a participation contract for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. Decided in favour of investor Ecuador United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Orrego Vicuña, F. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Barrera Sweeney, P. - Respondent
201.50 mln USD 71.50 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

National treatment

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

National treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Award dated 1 July 2004 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Challenge to Arbitral Award, [2006] EWHC 345 (Comm), dated 2 March 2006 (Judicial review by national courts)

Challenge to Arbitral Award (Appeal Court), [2007] EWCA Civ 656 dated 4 July 2007 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None