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 July 2017

Latest Publications

Publication article
Jun 30, 2015

Treaty-based ISDS Cases Brought Under Dutch IIAs: an Overview

This study, undertaken at the request of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, gives an overview of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases initiated by Dutch claimants under international investment agreements (IIAs) to which the Netherlands is a party (“Dutch cases”).

Read more...
Clear selection
Loaded 25 out of 193 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Arbitrators Decisions
1 2015 Anglia v. Czech Republic Anglia Auto Accessories Ltd v. The Czech Republic (SCC Case No. 2014/181) Czech Republic - United Kingdom BIT (1990) SCC SCC Investment: Contractual claim to damages confirmed by an arbitral award related to a joint venture with the local Czech company Kyjovan for the manufacturing of automobile accessories.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged delays on the part of Czech courts related to the enforcement of a CZK 4.8 million arbitration award, which the claimant obtained against its local business partner Kyjovan in 1997. According to the claimant, the courts’ conduct deprived the claimant of the value of the arbitral award.
Contractual claim to damages confirmed by an arbitral award related to a joint venture with the local Czech company Kyjovan for the manufacturing of automobile accessories. Decided in favour of State Czech Republic United Kingdom Secondary: C - Manufacturing 28 - Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. Banifatemi, Y. - President

Reinisch, A. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
40.00 mln CZK (1.60 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Indirect expropriation
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Final Award dated 10 March 2017 None None None None None None
2 2015 Busta v. Czech Republic J.P. Busta and I.P. Busta v. The Czech Republic (SCC Case No. 2015/014) Czech Republic - United Kingdom BIT (1990) SCC SCC Investment: Sole shareholding in a locally incorporated company, Sprint CR, engaged in the wholesale of automobile parts and accessories.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged inaction of the local police related to accusations of theft raised by the claimants against the local Czech partner in a joint venture, Kyjovan, when Kyjovan began moving goods owned by one of the claimants’ companies (Sprint CR) out of a warehouse.
Sole shareholding in a locally incorporated company, Sprint CR, engaged in the wholesale of automobile parts and accessories. Decided in favour of State Czech Republic United Kingdom Secondary: C - Manufacturing 28 - Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. Banifatemi, Y. - President

Reinisch, A. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
177.00 mln CZK (6.90 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Indirect expropriation
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Final Award dated 10 March 2017 None None None None None None
3 2015 Capital Financial Holdings v. Cameroon Capital Financial Holdings Luxembourg S.A. v. Republic of Cameroon (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/18) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Cameroon BIT (1980) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding (46.6 per cent) in Commercial Bank of Cameroon.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unlawful expropriation of the claimant's investment by the Government in 2009 when its bank was placed under State control exercising executive powers instead of the bank’s CEO and board of directors.
Majority shareholding (46.6 per cent) in Commercial Bank of Cameroon. Decided in favour of State Cameroon Luxembourg Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Tercier, P. - President

Mourre, A. - Claimant

Pellet, A. - Respondent
100.00 mln EUR (112.00 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
None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 22 June 2017 Dissenting Opinion of Alexis Mourre None None None None None
4 2015 MMEA and AHSI v. Senegal Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. and Aviation Handling Services International Ltd. v. Republic of Senegal (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/21) Netherlands - Senegal BIT (1979)

Senegal - United Kingdom BIT (1980)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of subsidiary Aviation Handling Services (AHS), which provides aircraft ground-handling services at the Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport in Dakar, Senegal.

Summary: Claims arising out of placing claimants’ company in administration by the government, which claimants view as disguised expropriation. According to the government, the measure was part of the illegal enrichment investigation against a former Senegalese minister for air transport.
Ownership of subsidiary Aviation Handling Services (AHS), which provides aircraft ground-handling services at the Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport in Dakar, Senegal. Decided in favour of State Senegal United Kingdom

Netherlands
Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 51 - Air transport Hanotiau, B. - President

Gharavi, H. G. - Claimant

Mayer, P. - Respondent
41.63 mln EUR (44.11 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 5 August 2016 None None None None None None
5 2014 Aleksandrowicz and Częścik v. Cyprus Robert Aleksandrowicz and Tomasz Częścik v. Cyprus Cyprus - Poland BIT (1992) SCC SCC Investment:

Summary: Claims arising out of measures taken by the Government in March 2013 in relation to the claimants’ bank accounts at the Bank of Cyprus.
Decided in favour of State Cyprus Poland Data not available Data not available Derains, Y. - President

Nappert, S. - Claimant

Giardina, A. - Respondent
4.20 mln EUR (4.40 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 21 February 2017 None None None None None None
6 2014 Ansung Housing v. China Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. v. People's Republic of China (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/25) China - Korea, Republic of BIT (2007) ICSID ICSID Investment: Capital expenditure of over USD 15 million for the development of a golf and country club in China.

Summary: Claims arising out of the provincial government's alleged actions in relation to Ansung's investment in the construction of a golf and country club and luxury condominiums in Sheyang-Xian, Jiangsu province.
Capital expenditure of over USD 15 million for the development of a golf and country club in China. Decided in favour of State China Korea, Republic of Tertiary: F - Construction

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

68 - Real estate activities
Pryles, M. C. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent (replaced)

van den Berg, A. J. - Respondent

Reed, L. - President
100.00 mln CNY (16.30 mln USD) Data not available Data not available None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 9 March 2017 None None None None None None
7 2014 Blusun v. Italy Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interests in a photovoltaic energy generation project in Italy.

Summary: Claims arising out of Italy's modification to its solar power regime which reduced the level of feed-in-tariffs available in future, allegedly affecting claimant's investment in a photovoltaic energy generation project in that country.
Interests in a photovoltaic energy generation project in Italy. Decided in favour of State Italy Belgium

France

Germany
Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Crawford, J. R. - President

Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Dupuy, P.-M. - Respondent
187.80 mln EUR (196.30 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation

Other
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 27 December 2016 None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None McRae, D. M. - President

Khan, M. A. - Member

Shin, H.-T. - Member
8 2014 CEAC v. Montenegro CEAC Holdings Limited v. Montenegro (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/8) Cyprus - Montenegro BIT (2005) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in the aluminium production enterprise Kombinat Aluminijuma Podgorica (KAP), which owned a smelting plant in Podgorica, Montenegro.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unlawful interference by the Government in the insolvency process of an aluminium production company in which the claimant had invested.
Majority shareholding in the aluminium production enterprise Kombinat Aluminijuma Podgorica (KAP), which owned a smelting plant in Podgorica, Montenegro. Decided in favour of State Montenegro Cyprus Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Hanotiau, B. - President

Park, W. W. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
600.00 mln EUR (832.30 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Indirect expropriation

Transfer of funds
None - jurisdiction declined Decision on the Respondent’s preliminary objections pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) dated 27 January 2015

Award dated 26 July 2016
Separate Opinion of William W. Park ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Greenwood, C. - President

Kim, J. - Member

Oyekunle, T. - Member
9 2014 Corona Materials v. Dominican Republic Corona Materials, LLC v. Dominican Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/3) CAFTA - DR (2004) ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Ownership of an exploitation concession for the Joama area with the intention of mining for aggregate material in the Dominican Republic.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's refusal to grant an environmental permit to the claimant which effectively prevented Corona Materials from building and operating a construction aggregate mine in the Dominican Republic, despite allegedly receiving assurances and previous formal approvals from senior government officials.
Ownership of an exploitation concession for the Joama area with the intention of mining for aggregate material in the Dominican Republic. Decided in favour of State Dominican Republic United States of America Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Mantilla-Serrano, F. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent

Dupuy, P.-M. - President
100.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment
None - jurisdiction declined Award on the Respondent’s expedited preliminary objections in accordance with Article 10.20.5 of the DR-CAFTA dated 31 May 2016 None None None None None None
10 2014 Uzan v. Turkey Cem Cenzig Uzan v. Republic of Turkey (SCC Case No. 2014/023) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) SCC SCC Investment: Rights under electricity concessions held by claimant's companies ÇEAŞ and Kepez.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged termination by the Government of electricity concessions held by the claimant, as well as the seizure of the assets owned by claimant's electricity companies.
Rights under electricity concessions held by claimant's companies ÇEAŞ and Kepez. Decided in favour of State Turkey France

United Kingdom
Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Cremades, B. M. - President

Carreau, D. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
3500.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available None - jurisdiction declined Award on Respondent’s Bifurcated Preliminary Objection dated 20 April 2016 Declaration of Philippe Sands Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
11 2014 WNC v. Czech Republic WNC Factoring Ltd (WNC) v. The Czech Republic (PCA Case No. 2014-34) Czech Republic - United Kingdom BIT (1990) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of Czech company ČEX, a.s. (later known as FITE Export, a.s.).

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failures during the privatization of Škoda Export following a public tender, which was won by the claimant’s Czech company ČEX, and subsequent actions allegedly resulting in Škoda Export’s insolvency.
Ownership of Czech company ČEX, a.s. (later known as FITE Export, a.s.). Decided in favour of State Czech Republic United Kingdom Tertiary: M - Professional, scientific and technical activities 71 - Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis Griffith, G. - President

Volterra, R. - Claimant

Crawford, J. R. - Respondent
90.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Umbrella clause

Indirect expropriation
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 22 February 2017 None None None None None None
12 2013 Achmea v. Slovakia (II) Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic (II) (PCA Case No. 2013-12) Netherlands - Slovakia BIT (1991) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in a Slovak health insurer, Union zdravotna poistovna (UZP).

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's announced plan to establish a unitary public health insurance system in Slovakia run by the State, which would allegedly entail the expropriation of Achmea’s stake in a Slovak health insurance company.
Shareholding in a Slovak health insurer, Union zdravotna poistovna (UZP). Decided in favour of State Slovakia Netherlands Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 65 - Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security Lévy, L. - President

Beechey, J. - Claimant

Dupuy, P.-M. - Respondent
72.00 mln EUR (93.00 mln USD)
Non-pecuniary relief
Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
None - jurisdiction declined Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 20 May 2014 None None None None None None
13 2013 Almås v. Poland Kristian Almås and Geir Almås v. The Republic of Poland Norway - Poland BIT (1990) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Lease agreement with the Polish Agricultural Property Agency for 4200 hectares of farmland in Poland through Pol Farm, a company in which the claimants were the sole shareholders.

Summary: Claims arising out of termination of a 30-year land lease by the Polish Agricultural Property Agency.
Lease agreement with the Polish Agricultural Property Agency for 4200 hectares of farmland in Poland through Pol Farm, a company in which the claimants were the sole shareholders. Decided in favour of State Poland Norway Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities Crawford, J. R. - President

Reinisch, A. - Respondent

Mestad, O. - Claimant
100.00 mln PLN (24.80 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

Umbrella clause
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 27 June 2016 None None None None None None
14 2013 Eli Lilly v. Canada Eli Lilly and Company v. Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2) NAFTA UNCITRAL ICSID Investment: Patents for two pharmaceutical products, Strattera and Zyprexa.

Summary: Claims arising out of the invalidation of the claimant's Strattera and Zyprexa pharmaceutical patents by Canada.
Patents for two pharmaceutical products, Strattera and Zyprexa. Decided in favour of State Canada United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 21 - Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations van den Berg, A. J. - President

Born, G. B. - Claimant

Bethlehem, D. - Respondent
500.00 mln CAD (483.40 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Final Award dated 16 March 2017 None None None None None None
15 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
16 2013 Isolux v. Spain Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain (SCC Case No. 2013/153) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) SCC SCC Investment: Interests in several photovoltaic plants in Spain.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers.
Interests in several photovoltaic plants in Spain. Decided in favour of State Spain Netherlands Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Derains, Y. - President

Tawil, G. S. - Claimant

von Wobeser, C. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 21 January 2016 Dissenting Opinion of Guido S. Tawil None None None None None
17 2013 KBR v. Mexico KBR, Inc. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/1) NAFTA UNCITRAL ICSID Investment: Rights under contracts for the construction of two offshore gas platforms held through KBR's wholly-owned subsidiary; ICC arbitral award.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Mexican courts' annulment of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration award issued in favor of claimant's subsidiary, COMMISA, concerning a contractual dispute with a Mexican State-owned entity.
Rights under contracts for the construction of two offshore gas platforms held through KBR's wholly-owned subsidiary; ICC arbitral award. Decided in favour of State Mexico United States of America Tertiary: F - Construction 43 - Specialized construction activities Rigo Sureda, A. - President

Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - Claimant

Lozano Alarcón, G. - Respondent
465.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Other
Data not available Award dated 30 April 2015 None None None None None None
18 2013 Poštová banka and Istrokapital v. Greece Poštová banka, a.s. and Istrokapital SE v. Hellenic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8) Czech Republic - Greece BIT (1991)

Cyprus - Greece BIT (1992)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership by Poštová banka of Greek Government bonds, characterized by claimants as a loan to the Greek Government, a claim to money, and a right to performance under a contract having financial value.

Summary: Claims arising out of the enactment of legislation that amended sovereign bond terms retroactively and unilaterally by the Government, allegedly allowing the imposition of new terms upon bondholders against their consent if a supermajority of other bondholders consented, in the context of Greece's 2012 sovereign debt restructuring.
Ownership by Poštová banka of Greek Government bonds, characterized by claimants as a loan to the Greek Government, a claim to money, and a right to performance under a contract having financial value. Decided in favour of State Greece Cyprus

Slovakia
Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Zuleta, E. - President

Townsend, J. M. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
500.00 mln EUR (529.00 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause
None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 9 April 2015 None ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Partial Annulment dated 29 September 2016 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Kettani, A. - President

Edward, D. A. O. - Member

Shin, H.-T. - Member
19 2013 RECOFI v. Viet Nam RECOFI v. Viet Nam France - Viet Nam BIT (1992) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Claims to money for outstanding payments concerning RECOFI's participation in a State-run food assistance programme.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged outstanding payments by the Government concerning claimant's participation in an assistance programme that provided food and basic commodities to Viet Nam when the country faced food shortages in 1987.
Claims to money for outstanding payments concerning RECOFI's participation in a State-run food assistance programme. Decided in favour of State Viet Nam France Secondary: C - Manufacturing

Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles
10 - Manufacture of food products

46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles
Hanotiau, B. - President

Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
66.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available None - jurisdiction declined Final Award dated 28 September 2015 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland dated 20 September 2016 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
20 2013 Seventhsun and others v. Poland Seventhsun Holding Ltd, Jevelinia Ltd, Aventon Ltd, Stanorode Ltd and Wildoro Ltd v. Poland Cyprus - Poland BIT (1992) SCC SCC Investment: 62% shareholding in Polish steel manufacturer, Huta Pokoj.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged freeze of the claimants' shareholding by the Polish Public Prosecutor's Office related to criminal proceedings.
62% shareholding in Polish steel manufacturer, Huta Pokoj. Decided in favour of State Poland Cyprus Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Sekolec, J. - President

Hobér, K. - Claimant

Nowaczyk, P. - Respondent
1000.00 mln EUR (1336.00 mln USD) Data not available Direct expropriation None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Partial Award dated 13 October 2015

Award on Costs dated 4 January 2016
None None None None None None
21 2013 Transglobal v. Panama Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. v. Republic of Panama (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28) Panama - United States of America BIT (1982) ICSID ICSID Investment: Indirect ownership interest (70 per cent) and control over a 50-year concession to operate the Bajo de Mina hydroelectric power plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's cancellation of a hydro-electric power plant concession and its alleged subsequent failure to abide by Panama Supreme Court's decision that reinstated the investor in its rights to the concession.
Indirect ownership interest (70 per cent) and control over a 50-year concession to operate the Bajo de Mina hydroelectric power plant. Decided in favour of State Panama United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Rigo Sureda, A. - President

Schreuer, C. H. - Claimant

Paulsson, 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

Most-favoured nation treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - jurisdiction declined Decision on the admissibility of the Respondent’s preliminary objections pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) dated 17 March 2015

Award dated 2 June 2016
None None None None None None
22 2013 Tvornica Šećera v. Serbia Tvornica Šećera Osijek d.o.o. v. Republic of Serbia Croatia - Serbia BIT (1998) ICC ICC Investment:

Summary:
Decided in favour of State Serbia Croatia Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products Name not available - President

Name not available - Claimant

Name not available - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 15 July 2015 None None None None None None
23 2013 van Riet v. Croatia Chantal C. van Riet, Christopher van Riet and Lieven J. van Riet v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/12) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Croatia BIT (2001) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of 47 plots of land along the Zablacé peninsula, acquired for developing a 15-villa luxury beachside resort.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged misrepresentation by Croatian authorities to the claimants by issuing them certificates affirming that certain land plots were located within the allowed construction area for the development of a real estate project, and later refusing them permission to construct on the basis that the plots were outside the construction zone and noting that the previous certificates were issued in disregard of the applicable planning laws.
Ownership of 47 plots of land along the Zablacé peninsula, acquired for developing a 15-villa luxury beachside resort. Decided in favour of State Croatia Belgium Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Fadlallah, I. - Claimant

Landau, T. - Respondent
30.00 mln USD Data not available Unclear None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 2 November 2016 None None None None None None
24 2012 Accession Mezzanine v. Hungary Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedöház Vagyonkezelö Zrt. v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3) Hungary - United Kingdom BIT (1987) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in two Hungarian companies (Sláger Rádió Műsorszolgáltató Zrt. and Danubius Rádió Műsorszolgáltató Zrt.) that won a competitive tender for licenses for FM national radio-broadcasting frequencies in Hungary.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of claimants' investments in nationwide FM-frequency radio-broadcasting licenses in Hungary, through the Government's decision to award the radio-broadcasting frequencies formerly held by claimants to a third party.
Shareholding in two Hungarian companies (Sláger Rádió Műsorszolgáltató Zrt. and Danubius Rádió Műsorszolgáltató Zrt.) that won a competitive tender for licenses for FM national radio-broadcasting frequencies in Hungary. Decided in favour of State Hungary United Kingdom Tertiary: J - Information and communication 60 - Programming and broadcasting activities Rovine, A. W. - President

Lalonde, M. - Claimant

Douglas, Z. - Respondent

McRae, D. M. - Respondent (replaced)
Data not available Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause

National treatment

Customary rules of international law

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - jurisdiction declined Decision on Respondent’s Objection under Arbitration Rule 41(5) dated 16 January 2013

Decision on Respondent's Notice of Jurisdictional Objections and Request for Bifurcation dated 8 August 2013

Award dated 17 April 2015
None None None None None None
25 2012 Allawi v. Pakistan Ali Allawi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan Pakistan - United Kingdom BIT (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in Progas, a company engaged in import operations of liquid petroleum gas.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged Government interference in operations at a gas import terminal at Port Qasim, leading to the alleged expropriation of claimant's liquid petroleum gas infrastructure in Karachi.
Shareholding in Progas, a company engaged in import operations of liquid petroleum gas. Decided in favour of State Pakistan United Kingdom Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Fortier, L. Y. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
70.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 2016 None None None None None None