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

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 153 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Arbitrators Decisions
1 2015 Aktau Petrol v. Kazakhstan Aktau Petrol Ticaret A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/8) Kazakhstan - Turkey BIT (1992)

The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of enterprise engaged in oil transportation.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of measures taken by the respondent's courts, which allegedly resulted in the unlawful transfer of claimant's assets to a third party, connected to the government.
Ownership of enterprise engaged in oil transportation. Decided in favour of investor Kazakhstan Turkey Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 49 - Land transport and transport via pipelines Binnie, I. - President

Hanotiau, B. - Claimant

Bethlehem, D. - Respondent
150.00 mln USD 22.70 mln USD Data not available Data not available Award dated 13 November 2017 None None None None None None
2 2015 JKX Oil & Gas and Poltava v. Ukraine JKX Oil & Gas plc, Poltava Gas B.V. and Poltava Petroleum Company v. Ukraine Ukraine - United Kingdom BIT (1993)

Netherlands - Ukraine BIT (1994)

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

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

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

Hanotiau, B. - Claimant

Reisman, W. M. - Respondent
270.00 mln USD 11.80 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Data not available Award dated 6 February 2017 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Ruling of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales dated 27 October 2017 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
3 2015 KCI v. Gabon Kontinental Conseil Ingénierie v. Gabonese Republic OIC Investment Agreement (1981) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Contracts with the government for construction of 5,000 residential units as part of the government’s programme to guarantee a decent home for all.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged discontinuation of government funding for the construction of 5,000 residential units in Gabon’s capital, in alleged violation of the government’s contractual obligations.
Contracts with the government for construction of 5,000 residential units as part of the government’s programme to guarantee a decent home for all. Decided in favour of investor Gabon Tunisia Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Ziadé, N. - Claimant

Mayer, P. - President

Audit, M. - Respondent
200.00 mln EUR (211.10 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Indirect expropriation
Data not available Decision on Jurisdiction dated 2017

Final Award dated 2017
None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
4 2014 Bear Creek Mining v. Peru Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21) Canada-Peru FTA ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a concession agreement concluded with the claimant to operate the Santa Ana silver mining site in Peru.

Summary: Claims arising out of the enactment by the Government of Supreme Decree 032 that revoked claimant's concession to operate the Santa Ana mining project in Peru on the ground that it was no longer in the national interest, resulting in a complete cease of activities at Santa Ana and alleged significant damages to the claimant.
Rights under a concession agreement concluded with the claimant to operate the Santa Ana silver mining site in Peru. Decided in favour of investor Peru Canada Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Pryles, M. C. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
522.20 mln USD 18.20 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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Indirect expropriation Award dated 30 November 2017 Partial Dissenting Opinion by Philippe Sands None None None None None
5 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
6 2014 Horthel and others v. Poland Horthel Systems BV, Poland Gaming Holding BV and Tesa Beheer BV v. Poland (PCA Case No. 2014-31) Netherlands - Poland BIT (1992) UNCITRAL PCA Investment:

Summary: Claims arising out of Poland’s Gambling Law of 2009 restricting the operation of slot machines outside of casinos.
Decided in favour of investor Poland Netherlands Tertiary: R - Arts, entertainment and recreation 92 - Gambling and betting activities Lévy, L. - President

van Leeuwen, M. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
240.00 mln PLN (56.60 mln USD) 10.00 mln USD ( mln USD) Data not available Data not available Award dated 2017 None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
7 2014 PL Holdings v. Poland PL Holdings S.a.r.l. v. Poland (SCC Case No. 2014/163) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Poland BIT (1987) SCC SCC Investment: 99.6% shareholding in a Polish bank, FM Bank PBP.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged forced sale of the claimant's shareholding in a Polish bank, FM Bank PBP.
99.6% shareholding in a Polish bank, FM Bank PBP. Decided in favour of investor Poland Luxembourg Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Bermann, G. - President

Lew, J. D. M. - Claimant

Schneider, M. - Respondent
1888.40 mln PLN (479.90 mln USD) 760.00 mln PLN (207.10 mln USD) Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Partial Award dated 28 June 2017

Final Award dated 28 September 2017
None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
8 2013 Beck v. Kyrgyzstan Lee John Beck and Central Asian Development Corporation v. Kyrgyz Republic CIS Investor Rights Convention (1997) MCCI MCCI Investment: Rights under certain lease agreements.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of claimant's investment by terminating certain lease agreements with respect to various land plots to develop a theme park in Bishkek.
Rights under certain lease agreements. Decided in favour of investor Kyrgyzstan Korea, Republic of Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Vilkova, N. - President

Avtonomov, A. S. - Unknown

Shafir, A. M. - Unknown
Data not available 23.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Award dated 13 November 2013 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court on Application to Set Aside Award dated 24 June 2014 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court on Application to Set Aside Award dated 5 June 2015 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
9 2013 De Sutter and others v. Madagascar (I) Kristof De Sutter, Peter De Sutter, DS 2 S.A. and Polo Garments Majunga S.A.R.L. v. Republic of Madagascar (I) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Madagascar BIT (2005) ICC ICC Investment: Ownership and operation of a textile factory by the local company Polo Garments Majunga, which is (directly and indirectly) owned by Peter and Kristof De Sutter.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Attorney-General’s intervention in a local court case, which allegedly led to the halting of the enforcement of a claim against the Madagascan insurer Ny Havana. Polo Garments Majunga had commenced enforcement proceedings to collect an insurance payout from Ny Havana for a burned down textiles factory.
Ownership and operation of a textile factory by the local company Polo Garments Majunga, which is (directly and indirectly) owned by Peter and Kristof De Sutter. Decided in favour of investor Madagascar Belgium

Luxembourg
Secondary: C - Manufacturing 13 - Manufacture of textiles Legum, B. - Sole arbitrator Data not available 0.70 mln EUR (0.90 mln USD) Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Award dated 29 August 2014 None Judicial review by national courts

Judicial review by national courts
Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts)

Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts)
Judgment of Paris Court of Appeal dated 15 March 2016 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the French Court of Cassation dated 1 June 2017 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
10 2013 Edenred v. Hungary Edenred S.A. v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/21) France - Hungary BIT (1986) ICSID ICSID Investment: Company engaged in the sale of social vouchers in Hungary.

Summary: Claims arising out of the enactment of legislation granting the Government a monopoly over the prepaid corporate vouchers industry, allegedly introducing a State-run voucher system with conditions more favourable than those granted to private operators.
Company engaged in the sale of social vouchers in Hungary. Decided in favour of investor Hungary France Tertiary: N - Administrative and support service activities 82 - Office administrative, office support and other business support activities Fernández-Armesto, J. - President

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Claimant

von Wobeser, C. - Respondent
Data not available 23.00 mln EUR (24.30 mln USD) Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Decision on the Respondent’s preliminary objections pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) dated 6 June 2014

Decision concerning the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question dated 16 October 2014

Award dated 13 December 2016
None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Tercier, P. - President

Verhoosel, G. - Member

Ufot, D. U. - Member
11 2013 Eiser and Energía Solar v. Spain Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interests in three concentrated solar power plants located 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 three concentrated solar power plants located in Spain. Decided in favour of investor Spain Luxembourg

United Kingdom
Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Crook, J. R. - President

Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

McLachlan, C. A. - Respondent
256.00 mln EUR (279.50 mln USD) 128.00 mln EUR (139.80 mln USD) Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Umbrella clause

Indirect expropriation
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Decision on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question dated 9 February 2015

Award dated 4 May 2017
None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Ramírez Hernández, R. - President

Cheng, T. - Member

Hascher, D. - Member
12 2013 Houben v. Burundi Joseph Houben v. Republic of Burundi (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Burundi BIT (1989) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of land, acquired by Mr. Houben for real estate development purposes.

Summary: Claims arising out of an alleged de facto expropriation of land, by allowing the permanent occupation of claimant's property, without any form of compensation.
Ownership of land, acquired by Mr. Houben for real estate development purposes. Decided in favour of investor Burundi Belgium Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Guillaume, G. - President

Banifatemi, Y. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
9.10 mln USD 0.20 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar
Full protection and security, or similar

Indirect expropriation
Award dated 12 January 2016 None None None None None None
13 2013 Karkey Karadeniz v. Pakistan Karkey Karadeniz Elektrik Uretim A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/1) Pakistan - Turkey BIT (1995) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract concluded with a State-owned electricity company to provide four power-generating vessels to the port of Karachi.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unlawful detention by the Government of four electricity-generating vessels owned by the claimant, as well as alleged breaches of contractual payment obligations for electricity generated.
Rights under a contract concluded with a State-owned electricity company to provide four power-generating vessels to the port of Karachi. Decided in favour of investor Pakistan Turkey Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Derains, Y. - President

Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant

Edward, D. A. O. - Respondent
2000.00 mln USD 74000.00 mln PKR (696.60 mln USD) Direct expropriation

Transfer of funds
Direct expropriation

Transfer of funds
Decision on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question dated 13 May 2014

Award dated 22 August 2017
None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Bull, C. - Member

Ufot, D. U. - Member
14 2013 Mytilineos v. Serbia (II) Mytilineos Holdings v. Serbia (II) (PCA Case No. 2014-30) Greece - Serbia BIT (1997) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Claims to money under several agreements concluded between the claimant and RTB-BOR, a socially-owned Yugoslavian company, for cooperation in the mineral extraction and metallurgy business operated by RTB-BOR.

Summary: Claims arising out of Serbia's alleged failure to honour a commitment regarding the deadline to privatize the mining company RTB-Bor, which prevented the claimant to recover outstanding payments from the Government.
Claims to money under several agreements concluded between the claimant and RTB-BOR, a socially-owned Yugoslavian company, for cooperation in the mineral extraction and metallurgy business operated by RTB-BOR. Decided in favour of investor Serbia Greece Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Sachs, K. - President

Bishop, D. - Claimant

Vasiljević, M. - Respondent

Varady, T. - Respondent (replaced)
100.00 mln USD 40.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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
Award dated August 2017 None None None None None None
15 2013 OKKV v. Kyrgyzstan OKKV (OKKB) and others v. Kyrgyz Republic CIS Investor Rights Convention (1997) MCCI MCCI Investment: Rights to use land and monetary contributions towards building a tourist complex.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of a project to build a cultural and accommodation centre on the shores of Issyk Kul, known as the Avrora Green resort and residential complex.
Rights to use land and monetary contributions towards building a tourist complex. Decided in favour of investor Kyrgyzstan Kazakhstan Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Vilkova, N. - President

Avtonomov, A. S. - Unknown

Savransky, M. Y. - Unknown
Data not available 2.30 mln USD Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Award dated 21 November 2013 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court on Application to Set Aside Award dated 23 June 2014 (Judicial review by national courts)

Second Judgment of the Moscow Arbitration Court on Application to Set Aside Award dated 19 November 2014 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None
16 2013 Stans Energy v. Kyrgyzstan (I) Stans Energy Corp. and Kutisay Mining LLC v. Kyrgyz Republic (I) CIS Investor Rights Convention (1997) MCCI MCCI Investment: Indirect ownership by Stans Energy Corp. of Kutisay Mining LLC that held a licence for mining rare earth, bismuth, molybdenum and silver at the “Kutessay II” deposit.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of measures by the Government which allegedly resulted in the impossibility to carry out activities on the mineral deposit “Kutessay II” in accordance with the mining license previously granted to Kutisay Mining LLC.
Indirect ownership by Stans Energy Corp. of Kutisay Mining LLC that held a licence for mining rare earth, bismuth, molybdenum and silver at the “Kutessay II” deposit. Decided in favour of investor Kyrgyzstan Canada Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Vilkova, N. - Claimant

Balayan, L. - Respondent

Pak, M. Z. - President
117.80 mln USD 117.80 mln USD Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Award dated 30 June 2014 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Moscow Arbitrazh Court on Application to Set Aside Award dated 25 May 2015 (Judicial review by national courts) None None
17 2013 Valores Mundiales and Consorcio Andino v. Venezuela Valores Mundiales, S.L. and Consorcio Andino S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/11) Spain - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1995) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of two local cornflour and tortillas production companies, Monaca and Demaseca.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's issuance of a decree that expropriated claimants' tortilla and corn flour production businesses in Venezuela.
Ownership of two local cornflour and tortillas production companies, Monaca and Demaseca. Decided in favour of investor Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Spain Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products Zuleta, E. - President

Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant

Derains, Y. - Respondent
Data not available 430.40 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Transfer of funds

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Transfer of funds
Decision on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question dated 1 October 2014

Award dated 25 July 2017
None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Radicati di Brozolo, L. - President

Jiménez Figueres, D. - Member

De Quadros, F. - Member
18 2013 Windstream Energy v. Canada Windstream Energy LLC v. The Government of Canada NAFTA UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Ownership of WWIS (100 per cent shareholding), a Canadian corporation that had entered into a power purchase agreement under the Ontario Power Authority’s feed-in-tariff program to develop an offshore wind generation facility in Ontario.

Summary: Claims arising out of a moratorium imposed by the Government of Ontario on offshore wind farms that indefinitely suspended claimant's investment project in this sector.
Ownership of WWIS (100 per cent shareholding), a Canadian corporation that had entered into a power purchase agreement under the Ontario Power Authority’s feed-in-tariff program to develop an offshore wind generation facility in Ontario. Decided in favour of investor Canada United States of America Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Heiskanen, V. - President

Bishop, D. - Claimant

Cremades, B. M. - Respondent
568.50 mln CAD (522.10 mln USD) 25.20 mln CAD (19.10 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

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

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 27 September 2016 None None None None None None
19 2012 Dan Cake v. Hungary Dan Cake (Portugal) S.A. v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/9) Hungary - Portugal BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interests in a local bakery company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the bankruptcy of a Hungarian baking company in which the claimant had invested and the alleged mishandling by Hungary's authorities of an insolvency process.
Interests in a local bakery company. Decided in favour of investor Hungary Portugal Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products Mayer, P. - President

Paulsson, J. - Claimant

Landau, T. - Respondent
47.90 mln EUR (54.50 mln USD) Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 24 August 2015

Award dated 21 November 2017
None None None None None None
20 2012 Gavazzi v. Romania Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25) Italy - Romania BIT (1990) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in a local steel manufacturing enterprise under a privatisation agreement concluded with the Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of measures by the respondent allegedly in breach of its obligations under certain privatisation agreement concerning a steel plant in which the claimants had invested, leading to its liquidation.
Majority shareholding in a local steel manufacturing enterprise under a privatisation agreement concluded with the Government. Decided in favour of investor Romania Italy Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals van Houtte, H. - President

Veeder, V. V. - Claimant

Rubino-Sammartano, M. - Respondent
30.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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
Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability dated 21 April 2015

Award dated 18 April 2017

Decision on Rectification dated 13 July 2017
Dissenting Opinion by Mauro Rubino-Sammartano

Dissenting Opinion with Regard to Quantum by Mauro Rubino-Sammartano

Dissenting Opinion on Rectification by Mauro Rubino-Sammartano
None None None None None
21 2012 Rusoro Mining v. Venezuela Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5) Canada - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1996) ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Ownership of 24 Venezuelan subsidiaries holding a total of 58 mining concessions and contracts for the exploration and exploitation of gold in Venezuela.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's enactment of a series of measures that allegedly dismantled the legal regime for the marketing of gold in Venezuela and culminated in the nationalisation and control of Rusoro’s investments in Venezuela without compensation.
Ownership of 24 Venezuelan subsidiaries holding a total of 58 mining concessions and contracts for the exploration and exploitation of gold in Venezuela. Decided in favour of investor Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Canada Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Fernández-Armesto, J. - President

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Claimant

Simma, B. - Respondent
2318.90 mln USD 967.80 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

National treatment

Performance requirements

Transfer of funds
Direct expropriation

Performance requirements
Decision on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question dated 16 July 2013

Award dated 22 August 2016
None None None None None None
22 2012 Saint-Gobain v. Venezuela Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13) France - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (2001) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in a local proppant manufacturing company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's issuance of Decree no. 8.133 that expropriated Norpro de Venezuela, a local manufacturer of proppant (a type of material used in hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells) in which the claimant had invested.
Shareholding in a local proppant manufacturing company. Decided in favour of investor Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of France Secondary: C - Manufacturing 32 - Other manufacturing Sachs, K. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Bottini, G. - Respondent
115.10 mln USD Data not available Direct expropriation Direct expropriation Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum dated 30 December 2016

Award dated 3 November 2017
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Charles N. Brower None None None None None
23 2012 Tenaris and Talta v. Venezuela (II) Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/23) Portugal - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1994)

BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1998)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in two Venezuelan companies involved in the steel sector, Tavsa and Comsigua.

Summary: Claims arising out of the expropriation of two Venezuelan companies in which the claimants had invested, the steel production company Tavsa and the hot briquetted iron producer Comsigua.
Shareholding in two Venezuelan companies involved in the steel sector, Tavsa and Comsigua. Decided in favour of investor Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Luxembourg

Portugal
Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Fernández-Armesto, J. - President

Gómez-Pinzón, E. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
Data not available 137.00 mln USD Direct expropriation Direct expropriation Decision on the Respondents’ request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question dated 15 January 2014

Award dated 12 December 2016
None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Knieper, R. - President

Jiménez Figueres, D. - Member

Moreno Rodríguez, J. A. - Member
24 2012 UAB v. Latvia UAB E energija (Lithuania) v. Republic of Latvia (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/33) Latvia - Lithuania BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a 30-year lease agreement concluded between the claimant and the local authority of Rezekne to review, upgrade and operate a heating supply system.

Summary: Claims arising out of the early termination of a lease agreement by the authorities of Rezekne, followed by the alleged nationalization of a heating and hot water supply system in which the claimant had invested.
Rights under a 30-year lease agreement concluded between the claimant and the local authority of Rezekne to review, upgrade and operate a heating supply system. Decided in favour of investor Latvia Lithuania Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Patocchi, P. M. - President

Wordsworth, S. - Claimant

Reinisch, A. - Respondent
9.80 mln EUR (11.70 mln USD) 1.60 mln EUR (1.90 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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Most-favoured nation treatment
Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Award dated 22 December 2017 Dissenting Opinion on Costs of August Reinisch None None None None None
25 2011 Al-Kharafi v. Libya and others Mohamed Abdulmohsen Al-Kharafi & Sons Co. v. Libya and others Arab Investment Agreement (1980) Ad hoc CRCICA Investment: Rights under a lease agreement for the establishment of a tourism project concluded with the Tourism Development Authority.

Summary: Claims arising out of the issuance of a decision by the Libyan Minister of Industry, Economy and Trade by virtue of which a licence previously granted to the claimant for the establishment of a touristic investment project in Tripoli, Libya, was annulled.
Rights under a lease agreement for the establishment of a tourism project concluded with the Tourism Development Authority. Decided in favour of investor Libya Kuwait Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities El-Ahdab, A. H. - President

Fawzi, I. - Claimant

El-Kamoudi El-Hafi, M. - Respondent
1144.90 mln USD 935.00 mln USD Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Final Arbitral Award dated 22 March 2013 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Decision of the Arab Investment Court dated 12 June 2014 (Judicial review by national courts)

Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 28 October 2014 (Judicial review by national courts)
None None