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 12 out of 12 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Arbitrators Decisions
1 2012 MNSS and RCA v. Montenegro MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V v. Montenegro (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8) Macedonia, The former Yugoslav Republic of - Netherlands BIT (1998) ICSID AF ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in a steel production company located in Montenegro.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged Government interference with the operation and management of a steel production facility in which the claimants had invested, leading to its bankruptcy.
Majority shareholding in a steel production company located in Montenegro. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Montenegro Netherlands Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Rigo Sureda, A. - President

Gaillard, E. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent

Schreuer, C. H. - Respondent (replaced)
100.00 mln EUR (114.50 mln USD) 0.00 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Most-favoured nation treatment

Transfer of funds

Indirect expropriation

Direct expropriation
Full protection and security, or similar Award dated 4 May 2016

Decision on the Request for Supplementary Decision dated 24 October 2016
None None None None None None
2 2012 Swissbourgh and others v. Lesotho Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited, Josias Van Zyl, The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust and others v. The Kingdom of Lesotho SADC Investment Protocol UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Rights under mining leases entered into with the Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s conduct in relation to a SADC Tribunal proceeding over the expropriation of the claimants’ mining leases.
Rights under mining leases entered into with the Government. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Lesotho South Africa Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Williams, D. A. R. - President

Bishop, D. - Unknown

Nienaber, P. M. - Unknown
Data not available 0.00 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Direct expropriation

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

Other
Partial Award on Jurisdiction and the Merits dated 18 April 2016

Interpretation Award dated 27 June 2016
Dissenting Opinion by P. M. Nienaber Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
3 2011 Agility v. Pakistan Agility for Public Warehousing Company K.S.C. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/8) Kuwait - Pakistan BIT (1983) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of the Pakistan Automated Customs Clearance System software introduced by the Government at Pakistan's Karachi International Container Terminal and later extended to other ports and airports in the country.

Summary: Claims arising out of outstanding payments from the Government concerning claimant's automated customs clearing system to assess duties on imports passing through Pakistani ports.
Ownership of the Pakistan Automated Customs Clearance System software introduced by the Government at Pakistan's Karachi International Container Terminal and later extended to other ports and airports in the country. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Pakistan Kuwait Tertiary: O - Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 84 - Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Fortier, L. Y. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Moollan, S. - Respondent
650.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Data not available Decision on jurisdiction dated 27 February 2013

Award dated 1 August 2016
None None None None None None
4 2011 Al Warraq v. Indonesia Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia OIC Investment Agreement (1981) UNCITRAL None Investment: Indirect ownership of capital in Bank Century through a wholly-owned company (FGAH First Gulf Asia Holdings) and through claimant's personal shareholding through another company (ABN Amro).

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's bailout of a bank in which the claimant had allegedly invested, followed by criminal investigations and the subsequent prosecution of Mr. Al-Warraq for fraudulent activities in the Indonesian financial sector.
Indirect ownership of capital in Bank Century through a wholly-owned company (FGAH First Gulf Asia Holdings) and through claimant's personal shareholding through another company (ABN Amro). Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Indonesia Saudi Arabia Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Cremades, B. M. - President

Hwang, M. - Claimant

Nariman, F. S. - Respondent
19.60 mln USD 0.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award on Respondent's Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Claims dated 21 June 2012

Final Award dated 15 December 2014
None None None None None None
5 2010 AES v. Kazakhstan AES Corporation and Tau Power B.V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/16) Kazakhstan - United States of America BIT (1992)

The Energy Charter Treaty
ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of a number of power facilities and trading companies that held rights under long-term concessions concluded with the Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions including fines and tariff restrictions imposed to claimants by Kazakh competition authorities concerning energy prices that allegedly had adverse financial impacts on the company’s operations in the country.
Ownership of a number of power facilities and trading companies that held rights under long-term concessions concluded with the Government. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Kazakhstan United States of America

Netherlands
Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Tercier, P. - President

Born, G. B. - President (replaced)

Sachs, K. - Claimant

Lowe, V. - Respondent
1290.00 mln USD 0.00 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

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Transfer of funds

Full protection and security, or similar
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 1 November 2013 None None None None None None
6 2010 Bosca v. Lithuania Luigiterzo Bosca v. Republic of Lithuania Italy - Lithuania BIT (1994) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Know-how by way of providing services to wine producing company in Lithuania; "making of contract" rights as winner of a public tender for the acquisition of a sparkling wines manufacturing company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's annulment of claimant's successful bid for the company AB Alita, a Lithuanian alcoholic beverage producer.
Know-how by way of providing services to wine producing company in Lithuania; "making of contract" rights as winner of a public tender for the acquisition of a sparkling wines manufacturing company. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Lithuania Italy Secondary: C - Manufacturing 11 - Manufacture of beverages Lalonde, M. - President

Price, D. M. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
207.00 mln EUR (279.20 mln USD) 0.00 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Most-favoured nation treatment

Direct expropriation

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 17 May 2013 None None None None None None
7 2008 Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. The Republic of Tajikistan (SCC Case No. V 064/2008) The Energy Charter Treaty SCC SCC Investment: Rights under four hydrocarbon exploration agreements concluded between Mr. Al-Bahloul and Tajikistan.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged failure to ensure the issuance of licenses pursuant to several hydrocarbon exploration agreements concluded between Mr. Al-Bahloul and Tajikistan's State Committee for Oil and Gas for four areas (Rengan, Sargazon, Yalgyzkak and East Soupetau) in Tajikistan.
Rights under four hydrocarbon exploration agreements concluded between Mr. Al-Bahloul and Tajikistan. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Tajikistan Austria Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas Hertzfeld, J. M. - President

Happ, R. - Claimant

Zykin, I. S. - Respondent
228.00 mln USD
Non-pecuniary relief
0.00 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

National treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Umbrella clause Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 2 September 2009

Final Award dated 8 June 2010
None None None None None None
8 2007 Urbaser and CABB v. Argentina Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Biskaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26) Argentina - Spain BIT (1991) ICSID ICSID Investment: Direct and indirect minority shareholding in an Argentinean vehicle company that held a concession for the provision of a drinking water supply and sewerage services in Buenos Aires.

Summary: Claims arising out of Argentina's alleged interference with the tariff regime applicable to claimant's investment and other alleged breaches of obligations under the relevant concession agreement through the enactment of emergency measures during its 2001-2002 economic crisis.
Direct and indirect minority shareholding in an Argentinean vehicle company that held a concession for the provision of a drinking water supply and sewerage services in Buenos Aires. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Argentina Spain Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities

Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
36 - Water collection, treatment and supply

37 - Sewerage
Bucher, A. - President

Martínez-Fraga, P. J. - Claimant

McLachlan, C. A. - Respondent

Brownlie, I. - Respondent (replaced)
211.20 mln USD 0.00 mln USD Indirect expropriation

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 Decision on Jurisdiction dated 19 December 2012

Award dated 8 December 2016
None None None None None None
9 2006 Nordzucker v. Poland Nordzucker AG v. The Republic of Poland Germany - Poland BIT (1989) UNCITRAL None Investment: Intended acquisition of two sugar production plants in Poland, including the payment of a guarantee deposited with certain sugar holding companies in its capacity of bidder for the companies' shares.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's implementation of a privatization programme for its sugar industry and its alleged retraction from selling Nordzucker two state-owned sugar producers (including a total of five production plants), which would have increased claimant's total market-share to 20per cent of Poland's sugar industry.
Intended acquisition of two sugar production plants in Poland, including the payment of a guarantee deposited with certain sugar holding companies in its capacity of bidder for the companies' shares. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Poland Germany Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products van Houtte, H. - President

Bucher, A. - Claimant

Tomaszewski, M. - Respondent
153.70 mln EUR (228.30 mln USD) 0.00 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
Other Partial Award (Jurisdiction) dated 10 December 2008

Second Partial Award (Merits) dated 28 January 2009

Third Partial and Final Award (Damages and Costs) dated 23 November 2009
None None None None None None
10 2006 Rompetrol v. Romania The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3) Netherlands - Romania BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Controlling shareholding in Rompetrol Rafinare S.A., a privatised Romanian company which owned and operated an oil refinery and petrochemical complex.

Summary: Claims arising out of investigations undertaken by Romanian anti-corruption and criminal prosecution authorities relating to the privatisation of an oil refinery company, shortly after the sale of the controlling shares to the claimant, allegedly including the arrest, detention, travel-ban and wire-tapping of key company's executives.
Controlling shareholding in Rompetrol Rafinare S.A., a privatised Romanian company which owned and operated an oil refinery and petrochemical complex. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Romania Netherlands Secondary: C - Manufacturing 19 - Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products Berman, F. - President

Donovan, D. - Claimant

Lalonde, M. - Respondent
100.00 mln USD 0.00 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Other
Decision on Respondent’s Preliminary Objections on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 18 April 2008

Award dated 6 May 2013
None None None None None None
11 2005 Biwater v. Tanzania Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22) United Republic of Tanzania - United Kingdom BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Controlling interest in local investment vehicle company that had concluded certain agreements with a Tanzanian public corporation, the Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority, to implement a water and sewerage infrastructure project.

Summary: Claims arising out of contractual disputes between claimant's locally-incorporated company and Tanzania's Water and Sewerage Authority, followed by a series of events that allegedly led to the deportation of the investor's senior management, as well as the seizure of its assets and takeover of its business.
Controlling interest in local investment vehicle company that had concluded certain agreements with a Tanzanian public corporation, the Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority, to implement a water and sewerage infrastructure project. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Tanzania, United Republic of United Kingdom Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities

Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities
36 - Water collection, treatment and supply

37 - Sewerage
Hanotiau, B. - President

Born, G. B. - Claimant

Landau, T. - Respondent
20.00 mln USD 0.00 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

Transfer of funds

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
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
Award dated 24 July 2008 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Gary Born None None None None None
12 1999 Lauder v. Czech Republic Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic Czech Republic - United States of America BIT (1991) UNCITRAL None Investment: Shareholding in local broadcasting enterprise.

Summary: Claims arising out of the conduct of the Czech Media Council towards the broadcasting enterprise partly owned by the foreign investor.
Shareholding in local broadcasting enterprise. Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) Czech Republic United States of America Tertiary: J - Information and communication 60 - Programming and broadcasting activities Briner, R. - President

Cutler, L. N. - Claimant

Klein, B. - Respondent
Data not available 0.00 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
Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Award dated 3 September 2001 None None None None None None