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 59
Updated as of 1 January 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 495 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Arbitrators Decisions
1 2015 Alyafei v. Jordan Ali Alyafei v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/24) Arab Investment Agreement (1980) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in the Amman-based Housing Bank of Trade and Finance.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged breach of a share purchase agreement the claimant signed with Jordan’s Social Security and Investment Fund (SSIF) in 2012 to purchase the latter’s shares in Housing Bank of Trade and Finance; in particular the alleged non-payment of a "break-up fee" stipulated in the agreement.
Shareholding in the Amman-based Housing Bank of Trade and Finance. Discontinued Jordan Qatar Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Schill, S. - Claimant

Elsing, S.H. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
2 2015 ArcelorMittal v. Egypt ArcelorMittal S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/47) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Egypt BIT (1999) ICSID ICSID Investment: Investments in the construction of a steel plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged refusal to extend the development period for the claimant’s steel plant construction project, followed by a process to revoke the claimant’s licenses. According to the claimant, the construction was delayed due to the occupation of the property and problems with gas and electricity supply.
Investments in the construction of a steel plant. Settled Egypt Luxembourg Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Price, D. M. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
600.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
3 2015 Hanocal and IPIC International v. Korea Hanocal Holding B.V. and IPIC International B.V. v. Republic of Korea (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/17) Korea, Republic of - Netherlands BIT (2003) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in Hyundai Oilbank, a petroleum and refinery company based in the city of Seosan.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged tax levied on the 2010 sale of the claimants' controlling stake in Hyundai Oilbank, a petroleum and refinery company based in the city of Seosan.
Majority shareholding in Hyundai Oilbank, a petroleum and refinery company based in the city of Seosan. Discontinued Korea, Republic of Netherlands Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Park, W. W. - Respondent

Born, G. B. - Claimant

Sachs, K. - President
168.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None 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 2015 Nabucco v. Turkey Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH in Liqu. v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/26) Austria - Turkey BIT (1988) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract for the construction and operation of a major natural gas pipeline Nabucco, which was intended to enable gas transit from the Caspian Sea to Europe.

Summary: Claims arising out of the cancellation of a contract for the construction and operation of a major natural gas pipeline Nabucco.
Rights under a contract for the construction and operation of a major natural gas pipeline Nabucco, which was intended to enable gas transit from the Caspian Sea to Europe. Settled Turkey Austria Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply

Primary: B - Mining and quarrying
35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply

6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas
Tribunal not constituted Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order of the Secretary-General Taking Note of the Discontinuance of the Proceeding dated 5 November 2015 None None None None None None
6 2015 Orange SA v. Jordan Orange SA v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/10) France - Jordan BIT (1978) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in the Jordanian telecommunications company Orange S.A.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged discriminatory State actions in the procedure of renewal of the 15-year 2G license of the claimant's local subsidiary Orange S.A., the formerly state-owned Jordan Telecommunications Company (JTC).
Majority shareholding in the Jordanian telecommunications company Orange S.A. Settled Jordan France Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications Veeder, V. V. - President

Douglas, Z. - Respondent

Tschanz, P.-Y. - Claimant
Data not available Non-pecuniary relief Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
7 2015 Paz Holdings v. Bolivia Paz Holdings Ltd. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia Bolivia, Plurinational State of - United Kingdom BIT (1988) UNCITRAL None Investment: Shareholding of 36.6 per cent in a Bolivian enterprise (Iberbolivia) which was the majority shareholder in four Bolivian electricity companies (Electropaz, ELFEO, CADEB and EDESER).

Summary: Claims arising out of Bolivia’s Supreme Decree No. 1448 of 2012, which ordered the nationalization of claimant’s (indirectly-held) shares in four Bolivian electricity companies.
Shareholding of 36.6 per cent in a Bolivian enterprise (Iberbolivia) which was the majority shareholder in four Bolivian electricity companies (Electropaz, ELFEO, CADEB and EDESER). Settled Bolivia, Plurinational State of United Kingdom Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Tribunal not constituted Data not available 19.51 mln USD Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
8 2014 Anglia and Busta v. Czech Republic Anglia Auto Accessories, Ivan Peter Busta and Jan Peter Busta v. The Czech Republic Czech Republic - United Kingdom BIT (1990) SCC SCC Investment: Interests in a rooftop carrier production facility in Moravia.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of alleged measures by the Government in the context of a dispute between the claimants and their local Czech partner in a joint venture engaged in the production of vehicle roof-racks.
Interests in a rooftop carrier production facility in Moravia. Discontinued Czech Republic United Kingdom Secondary: C - Manufacturing 28 - Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Hobér, K. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
200.00 mln CZK (9.10 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order to dismiss the case issued by the SCC Secretariat for failure to pay advance on costs dated 23 October 2014 None None None None None None
9 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
10 2014 Corona Materials v. Dominican Republic Corona Materials, LLC v. Dominican Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/3) CAFTA 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
11 2014 Financial Performance Holdings v. Russia Financial Performance Holdings BV (FPH) v. The Russian Federation The Energy Charter Treaty UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Loans/financing transactions.

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

Haigh, D. - Claimant

Vinuesa, R. E. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
12 2014 Flemingo DutyFree v. Poland Flemingo DutyFree Shop Private Limited v. Republic of Poland India - Poland BIT (1996) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Indirect 80.68% shareholding in BH Travel Retail Poland Sp. z o.o. (“BH Travel”), which held certain lease agreements for retail stores at Warsaw Chopin Airport.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Polish Airports State Enterprise’s termination of lease agreements for retail stores at Warsaw Chopin Airport entered into with BH Travel, a duty-free operator in which the claimant held indirect interests.
Indirect 80.68% shareholding in BH Travel Retail Poland Sp. z o.o. (“BH Travel”), which held certain lease agreements for retail stores at Warsaw Chopin Airport. Decided in favour of investor Poland India Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 47 - Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles van Houtte, H. - President

Townsend, J. M. - Claimant

Kühn, W. - Respondent
81.60 mln EUR (91.10 mln USD) 17.90 mln EUR (20.00 mln USD) Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

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

Indirect expropriation
Award dated 12 August 2016 None None None None None None
13 2014 Forminster v. Czech Republic Forminster Enterprises Limited v. The Czech Republic Cyprus - Czech Republic BIT (2001) UNCITRAL None Investment:

Summary: Claims arising out of measures imposed by the Czech Republic on the claimant’s investment.
Discontinued Czech Republic Cyprus Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 47 - Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles Patocchi, P. M. - President

Hunter, M. J. - Claimant

Reinisch, A. - Respondent
803.20 mln CZK (39.80 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Final Award dated 15 December 2014 None None None None None None
14 2014 Iberdrola v. Bolivia Iberdrola, S.A. and Iberdrola Energía, S.A.U. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia Bolivia, Plurinational State of - Spain BIT (2001) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding of 63.4 per cent in a Bolivian enterprise (Iberbolivia) which was the majority shareholder in four Bolivian electricity companies (Electropaz, ELFEO, CADEB and EDESER).

Summary: Claims arising out of Bolivia’s Supreme Decree No. 1448 of 2012, which ordered the nationalization of claimants’ (indirectly-held) shares in four electricity companies.
Shareholding of 63.4 per cent in a Bolivian enterprise (Iberbolivia) which was the majority shareholder in four Bolivian electricity companies (Electropaz, ELFEO, CADEB and EDESER). Settled Bolivia, Plurinational State of Spain Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Sepúlveda Amor, B. - President

García-Valdecasas, R. - Claimant

Bottini, G. - Respondent
Data not available 34.18 mln USD Direct 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
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
15 2014 IBT Group and others v. Panama IBT Group LLC., Constructor, Consulting and Engineering (Panamá), S.A., and International Business and Trade, LLC. v. Republic of Panama (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/33) Panama - United States of America BIT (1982) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract for the rehabilitation of four asphalt manufacturing plants held by claimants' subsidiary CCE.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements with Panama's Public Works Ministry concerning the performance of a concession to rehabilitate and operate four asphalt manufacturing enterprises held by claimants' subsidiary that led to the unilateral termination of the contract by Panama.
Rights under a contract for the rehabilitation of four asphalt manufacturing plants held by claimants' subsidiary CCE. Settled Panama United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 23 - Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Oreamuno Blanco, R. - Respondent

Remón Peñalver, J. - President
50.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
16 2014 Kuivallik v. Latvia Indrek Kuivallik v. Latvia Estonia - Latvia BIT (1996) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: 92.81% shareholding in the wind farm company LLC Winergy.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged mistreatment and ultimate hostile takeover of Winergy with the aid of Latvian authorities.
92.81% shareholding in the wind farm company LLC Winergy. Discontinued Latvia Estonia Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Konrad, S. - President

Vaher, T. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
51.00 mln EUR (57.40 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
17 2014 Longyear v. Canada J.M. Longyear, LLC v. Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Shareholding in a Canadian company, J.M. Longyear Canada, that operated an Ontario forestry land of approximately 63,000 acres.

Summary: Claims arising out of claimant's alleged ineligibility for tax reductions under an Ontario law, the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program, on the basis that the majority of shares in Lonyear's local enterprise were not held by Canadian nationals.
Shareholding in a Canadian company, J.M. Longyear Canada, that operated an Ontario forestry land of approximately 63,000 acres. Settled Canada United States of America Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 2 - Forestry and logging Data not available 12.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
18 2014 Nusa Tenggara v. Indonesia Nusa Tenggara Partnership B.V. and PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/15) Indonesia - Netherlands BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Operation of the Batu Hijau copper and gold mine under a Contract of Work approved by the President of Indonesia.

Summary: Claims arising out of the introduction of export restrictions on copper, including an export duty and a ban on the export of copper concentrate which allegedly stalled production at the Batu Hijau copper and gold mine operated by the claimants.
Operation of the Batu Hijau copper and gold mine under a Contract of Work approved by the President of Indonesia. Discontinued Indonesia Netherlands Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Tribunal not constituted Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued by the Secretary-General dated 29 August 2014, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 44 None None None None None None
19 2014 R.S.E. Holdings v. Latvia R.S.E. Holdings AG v. Latvia Latvia - Switzerland BIT (1992) Ad hoc Data not available Investment: Data not available

Summary: Claims arising out the alleged mistreatment of the claimant relating to the takeover of a Latvian bank, Parex Bank, and its subsequent division into two successor institutions.
Data not available Discontinued Latvia Switzerland Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Hanefeld, I. - President

Ferrari, F. - Claimant

Joubin-Bret, A. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
20 2014 Red Eléctrica v. Bolivia Red Eléctrica Internacional S.A.U. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia Bolivia, Plurinational State of - Spain BIT (2001) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Ownership and control (99 per cent shareholding) of Transportadora de Electricidad S.A. (TDE), a Bolivian electricity company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's issuance of Supreme Decree No. 1214 that seized and nationalized an electricity transmission company controlled by the claimant.
Ownership and control (99 per cent shareholding) of Transportadora de Electricidad S.A. (TDE), a Bolivian electricity company. Settled Bolivia, Plurinational State of Spain Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Tribunal not constituted 200.00 mln USD 36.50 mln USD Direct expropriation Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Settlement Agreement dated 13 November 2014 None None None None None None
21 2014 TSIKinvest v. Moldova TSIKinvest LLC v. Republic of Moldova Moldova, Republic of - Russian Federation BIT (1998) SCC SCC Investment: Shareholding of 4.16 per cent in the capital of Victoriabank, a Moldovan bank.

Summary: Claims arising out of the suspension of claimant’s voting rights in a Moldovan bank and the forced sale of its shares within 3 months allegedly ordered by Moldova’s national bank.
Shareholding of 4.16 per cent in the capital of Victoriabank, a Moldovan bank. Discontinued Moldova, Republic of Russian Federation Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Data not available Data not available Data not available Direct expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
22 2014 Uzan v. Turkey Cem Uzan v. Republic of Turkey The Energy Charter Treaty 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
2500.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available None - jurisdiction declined Award on Respondent’s Bifurcated Preliminary Objection dated 20 April 2016 None None None None None None
23 2014 VICAT v. Senegal VICAT v. Republic of Senegal (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/19) France - Senegal BIT (2007) ICSID ICSID Investment: Operation of several cement production facilities in Senegal through Vicat's Senegalese wholly-owned subsidiary Sococim.

Summary: Claims arising out of an alleged more favourable treatment by the Government to a Nigerian-based company which was claimant's competitor in the cement production business, including the non-enforcement of environmental and other regulations, to the detriment of Vicat.
Operation of several cement production facilities in Senegal through Vicat's Senegalese wholly-owned subsidiary Sococim. Discontinued Senegal France Secondary: C - Manufacturing 23 - Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products Sachs, K. - President

Polak, P. - Claimant

Legum, B. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Most-favoured nation treatment Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
24 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
25 2013 Al Sharif v. Egypt (I) Ossama Al Sharif v. Arab Republic of Egypt (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/3) Egypt - Jordan BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in the Sokhna Port Development Company that operates the Port of North El Sokhna.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged interference by the Government with claimant's investments in a port development project.
Shareholding in the Sokhna Port Development Company that operates the Port of North El Sokhna. Settled Egypt Jordan Tertiary: F - Construction

Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage
43 - Specialized construction activities

50 - Water transport
Tercier, P. - President

Schwebel, S. M. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1) issued dated 27 May 2015 None None None None None None