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 132 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Arbitrators Decisions
1 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
2 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
3 2013 De Sutter and others v. Madagascar Kristof De Sutter, Peter De Sutter, DS 2 S.A. and Polo Garments Majunga S.A.R.L. v. Republic of Madagascar 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 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) None None
4 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 None None None None None
5 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
6 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
7 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
8 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
9 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
10 2012 Tenaris 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 None None None None None
11 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 certain license 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
12 2011 Arif v. Moldova Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Republic of Moldova (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23) France - Moldova, Republic of BIT (1997) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of the Moldovan company Le Bridge, which had won a tender to set up and run a network of five duty free stores at the border with Romania; rights under related lease agreements; construction of four duty free stores; related authorizations and licenses.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged Government interference in the investor's duty-free business at Chisinau Airport and at five border stores with Romania which delayed or prevented the opening of such duty free stores.
Ownership of the Moldovan company Le Bridge, which had won a tender to set up and run a network of five duty free stores at the border with Romania; rights under related lease agreements; construction of four duty free stores; related authorizations and licenses. Decided in favour of investor Moldova, Republic of France Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 47 - Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles Cremades, B. M. - President

Hanotiau, B. - Claimant

Knieper, R. - Respondent
27.90 mln EUR (36.30 mln USD) 35.10 mln MDL (2.70 mln USD)
Non-pecuniary relief
Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

National treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 8 April 2013 None None None None None None
13 2011 Belokon v. Kyrgyzstan Valeri Belokon v. Kyrgyz Republic Kyrgyzstan - Latvia BIT (2008) UNCITRAL None Investment: Ownership of Manas Bank, a Kyrgyztani financial institution.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of a local bank owned by the claimant, following the long-term imposition of a special administrator during governmental investigations of the bank concerning financial fraud.
Ownership of Manas Bank, a Kyrgyztani financial institution. Decided in favour of investor Kyrgyzstan Latvia Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Paulsson, J. - President

Hobér, K. - Claimant

Schiersing, N. - Respondent
100.00 mln USD 15.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Full protection and security, or similar
Indirect expropriation

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

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Award dated 24 October 2014 None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
14 2011 Copper Mesa v. Ecuador Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador (PCA No. 2012-2) Canada - Ecuador BIT (1996) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Concession rights held through local subsidiaries for two open-pit mines located in the Junín and Chaucha regions of Ecuador; right of acquisition over a third mining project in the area of Telinbela.

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

Cremades, B. M. - Claimant

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

Full protection and security, or similar

National treatment

Direct expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Indirect expropriation

Direct expropriation
Award dated 15 March 2016 None None None None None None
15 2011 Crystallex v. Venezuela Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2) Canada - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1996) ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Rights under a mine operation contract; capital contributions of over USD 300 million.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's termination of claimant's mine operation contract over a gold deposit situated in Las Cristinas, after it refused to issue an environmental permit allowing extraction to initiate.
Rights under a mine operation contract; capital contributions of over USD 300 million. Decided in favour of investor Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Canada Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Lévy, L. - President

Gotanda, J. Y. - Claimant

Boisson de Chazournes, L. - Respondent

Feliciano, F. P. - Respondent (replaced)
3160.00 mln USD 1202.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Direct expropriation

Full protection and security, or similar
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 23 May 2012

Award dated 4 April 2016
None None None None None None
16 2011 Gamesa v. Syria Gamesa Eólica, S.L.U. v. Syrian Arab Republic Spain - Syrian Arab Republic BIT (2003) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investments in the Qatineh wind farm project near the city of Homs.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged call upon a bank guarantee posted by the claimant in relation to a project to build a wind farm in Syria as part of tender documentation. The claimant won the tender, but has not continued with the project due to the outbreak of civil conflict in Syria, and the subsequent imposition of sanctions by the European Union.
Investments in the Qatineh wind farm project near the city of Homs. Decided in favour of investor Syrian Arab Republic Spain Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Fortier, L. Y. - President

Wallgren-Lindholm, C. - Claimant

Kemicha, F. - Respondent
Data not available 4.70 mln EUR (6.30 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Award dated 5 February 2014 None None None None None None
17 2011 Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan Garanti Koza LLP v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20) Turkmenistan - United Kingdom BIT (1995)

Turkey - Turkmenistan BIT (1992)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract signed between State Concern Turkmenautoyollari and Garanti Koza LLP for the design and construction of 28 highway bridges and overpasses on the Mary-Turkmenabad highway in Turkmenistan.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements between Garanti Koza and Turkmenistan over the performance of certain construction contract that led to the suspension of works and the subsequent Government's termination of the contract based on the investor's alleged failure to complete the work on time and the failure to resume works for a prolonged time of time.
Rights under a contract signed between State Concern Turkmenautoyollari and Garanti Koza LLP for the design and construction of 28 highway bridges and overpasses on the Mary-Turkmenabad highway in Turkmenistan. Decided in favour of investor Turkmenistan United Kingdom Tertiary: F - Construction 42 - Civil engineering Townsend, J. M. - President

Boisson de Chazournes, L. - Claimant

Lambrou, G. C. - Respondent
46.10 mln USD 2.50 mln USD Direct expropriation

Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Full protection and security, or similar
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Umbrella clause
Decision on the Objection to Jurisdiction for Lack of Consent dated 3 July 2013

Award dated 19 December 2016
Dissenting Opinion by Laurence Boisson de Chazournes (Decision on the Objection to Jurisdiction for Lack of Consent) None None None None None
18 2011 Khan Resources v. Mongolia Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources B.V. and Cauc Holding Company Ltd. v. the Government of Mongolia and Monatom Co., Ltd. The Energy Charter Treaty UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Majority shareholding in Mongolian joint venture subsidiary that held uranium mining and exploration licenses in Mongolia.

Summary: Claims arising out of Mongolia’s cancellation of claimant's mining and exploration licenses for a uranium deposit located in the Dornod province in northeastern Mongolia.
Majority shareholding in Mongolian joint venture subsidiary that held uranium mining and exploration licenses in Mongolia. Decided in favour of investor Mongolia Canada

Netherlands

British Virgin Islands
Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Williams, D. A. R. - President

Fortier, L. Y. - Claimant

Hanotiau, B. - Respondent
358.00 mln USD 80.00 mln USD 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

Umbrella clause
Umbrella clause Decision on Jurisdiction dated 25 July 2012

Award dated 2 March 2015
None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
19 2011 Murphy v. Ecuador (II) Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. The Republic of Ecuador (II) Ecuador - United States of America BIT (1993) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shares of stock in local operating company that had concluded a service contract with Ecuador for the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons.

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

Hobér, K. - Claimant

Tawil, G. S. - Claimant (replaced)

Abi-Saab, G. - Respondent (replaced)

Stern, B. - Respondent (replaced)

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

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

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

Partial Final Award dated 6 May 2016
Separate Opinion of Georges Abi-Saab (Partial Award on Jurisdiction) None None None None None
20 2011 OIEG v. Venezuela OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25) Netherlands - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1991) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interests in two industrial plants for production and distribution of glass containers, held indirectly through two locally-incorporated companies.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements between the parties over the amount of compensation owed by the Government for the nationalization of two expropriated glass manufacturing plants in which the claimant had invested.
Interests in two industrial plants for production and distribution of glass containers, held indirectly through two locally-incorporated companies. Decided in favour of investor Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Netherlands Secondary: C - Manufacturing 23 - Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products Fernández-Armesto, J. - President

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Claimant

Mourre, A. - Respondent
929.50 mln USD 372.40 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

Transfer of funds

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Direct expropriation

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

Umbrella clause
Award dated 10 March 2015 None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Castellanos Howell, A. R. - President

Bernardini, P. - Member

Pawlak, D. - Member
21 2011 Oxus Gold v. Uzbekistan Oxus Gold plc v. Republic of Uzbekistan, the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources, and Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat United Kingdom - Uzbekistan BIT (1993) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment: Direct and indirect shareholding in subsidiaries that held interests in two mining projects in Uzbekistan.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged misappropriation by the Uzbek Government of claimant’s Khandiza and Amantaytau Goldfields mining/exploration assets in Uzbekistan.
Direct and indirect shareholding in subsidiaries that held interests in two mining projects in Uzbekistan. Decided in favour of investor Uzbekistan United Kingdom Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Tercier, P. - President

Lalonde, M. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
1250.50 mln USD 10.30 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Decision on Jurisdiction dated 2012

Final Award dated 17 December 2015
Partially Dissenting Opinion None None None None None
22 2011 Tenaris v. Venezuela (I) Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/26) Portugal - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1994)

BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1998)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in a Venezuelan hot briquetted iron production plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of the expropriation of Matesi, claimants' Venezuelan subsidiary engaged in the production of hot briquetted iron.
Shareholding in a Venezuelan hot briquetted iron production plant. Decided in favour of investor Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Portugal

Luxembourg
Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Beechey, J. - President

Kessler, J. L. - Claimant

Landau, T. - Respondent
299.30 mln USD 87.30 mln USD Direct 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
Direct expropriation Award dated 29 January 2016 None ICSID annulment proceedings Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Rigo Sureda, A. - President

Bernardini, P. - Member

Fernández Arroyo, D. P. - Member
23 2010 Ascom and others v. Kazakhstan Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (SCC Case No. 116/2010) The Energy Charter Treaty SCC SCC Investment: Rights under certain subsoil use contracts held by Ascom's local operating companies, KPM and TNG; capital contributions for oil exploration and development; assets and infrastructure related to oil field operations, including a Liquid Petroleum Gas plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged campaign of harassment by the Kazakh State which culminated with the abrupt cancellation of oil and gas exploration contracts held by claimant's local operating companies, followed by the seizure of its Kazakh assets.
Rights under certain subsoil use contracts held by Ascom's local operating companies, KPM and TNG; capital contributions for oil exploration and development; assets and infrastructure related to oil field operations, including a Liquid Petroleum Gas plant. Decided in favour of investor Kazakhstan Moldova, Republic of

Romania

Gibraltar
Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Haigh, D. - Claimant

Lebedev, S. N. - Respondent
2631.00 mln USD 497.00 mln USD Direct expropriation

Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 19 December 2013 None Judicial review by national courts Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal dated 9 December 2016 (Judicial review by national courts) Dissenting Opinion by Magnus Ulriksson (Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal dated 9 December 2016) None
24 2010 Awdi v. Romania Hassan Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants, Inc. and Alfa El Corporation v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/13) Romania - United States of America BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in a press distribution company that held a concession to operate kiosks across Romania; ownership of a historical building in the centre of Bucharest serving as boutique hotel and restaurant.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged failure to protect claimants' press distribution and boutique hotel investments, following a decision issued by the Romanian Constitutional Court declaring a law that guaranteed claimants' investment as unconstitutional.
Majority shareholding in a press distribution company that held a concession to operate kiosks across Romania; ownership of a historical building in the centre of Bucharest serving as boutique hotel and restaurant. Decided in favour of investor Romania United States of America Tertiary: J - Information and communication

Tertiary: L - Real estate activities
58 - Publishing activities

68 - Real estate activities
Bernardini, P. - President

Gharavi, H. G. - Claimant

Dolzer, R. - Respondent
Data not available 7.70 mln EUR (8.60 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Decision on the Admissibility of the Respondent's Third Objection to Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Claimants' Claims dated 26 July 2013

Award dated 2 March 2015
None None None None None None
25 2010 British Caribbean Bank v. Belize British Caribbean Bank Ltd. v. The Government of Belize (PCA Case No. 2010-18) Belize - United Kingdom BIT (1982) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Rights under certain loan and security agreements concluded with two Belizean companies.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s compulsory acquisition of the claimant’s interest in certain loan and security agreements concluded with Belize Telemedia, a telecommunications company registered in Belize, and Sunshine Holdings Limited, a company registered in Belize that held shares in Telemedia, in the context of the Government’s compulsory acquisition of Telemedia and Sunshine themselves.
Rights under certain loan and security agreements concluded with two Belizean companies. Decided in favour of investor Belize United Kingdom Tertiary: J - Information and communication 61 - Telecommunications van den Berg, A. J. - President

Beechey, J. - Claimant

Oreamuno Blanco, R. - Respondent
45.20 mln USD 25.20 mln USD 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

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Award dated 19 December 2014 None None None None None None