Warning! Javascript is disabled. Please enable javascript for a completly functioning application.

Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

about
methodology

About

The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator contains information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements (IIAs). Such arbitrations are also referred to as treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.

General disclaimer

The Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive.

While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data.

We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Please contact us using the online contact form.

Cases included in the Navigator

A case is included in the Navigator if it is:

  • an international arbitration between an investor and a State;
  • fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation);
  • submitted to arbitration through a notice of arbitration or a request for arbitration, and upon registration of such request if applicable (not included are cases where a disputing party has only notified the other party of the existence of a dispute or signalled its intention to submit a claim, but has not yet commenced the arbitration).

Sources of information and frequency of updating

The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Primary sources (i.e. official documents relating to the case and information provided by the administering institutions) are the main and preferred source of information. Secondary sources, such as specialized reporting services and other sources deemed reliable, are used to supplement primary sources and/or obtain case information otherwise unavailable.

The Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis. The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page.

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Case name

Full case name is recorded as it appears in the official case documents and as it is registered at the administering institution if applicable. If there are more than five claimants in the case, the names of all claimants can be replaced by the name of the first claimant followed by the words “and others”.

Short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name.

If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. is added to the name of each subsequent case.

Year of initiation

This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used.

Applicable IIA

This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings.

Arbitral rules

These are the arbitral rules in accordance with which the proceedings are conducted. Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”.

Administering institution

This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. PCA). Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution.

Common abbreviations for administering institutions:

CRCICACairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
ICCInternational Chamber of Commerce (International Court of Arbitration)
ICSIDInternational Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
LCIALondon Court of International Arbitration
MCCIMoscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry
PCAPermanent Court of Arbitration
SCCStockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute)

Details of investment and summary of the dispute

The details of investment are presented as argued by the claimant, unless otherwise expressly identified by an arbitral tribunal in its decisions or awards.

The summary of the dispute describes in very general terms the conduct allegedly in breach of IIA obligations as argued by the claimant.

Economic sector and subsector

This refers to the economic sector to which the investment at issue allegedly belongs. The structure of economic activities follows the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 (UN ISIC Rev.4).

Status/Outcome of original proceedings

This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings.

  • Decided in favour of State: the tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or found that the respondent State has not committed any breach of the applicable IIA.
  • Decided in favour of investor: the tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA and awarded monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Settled: the disputing parties settled the case and the arbitral proceedings were discontinued for that reason.
  • Pending: the arbitration proceedings are pending. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet.
    Notes:
    • The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims.
    • Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).
  • Discontinued: the arbitration was discontinued for any reason other than due to a (known) settlement. This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons).

Arbitral decisions rendered

These are decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. Discontinuance orders and settlement agreements are also recorded if such information is available.

Not included are any other (supplementary) arbitral decisions, e.g. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section.

Amounts claimed and awarded

Amount claimed refers to the amount of monetary compensation claimed by the investor, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section.

Amounts are recorded in the currency used by the claimant/tribunal. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list.

To enable comparisons between cases, all amounts are also converted to US dollars. For the purposes of such conversion, the OANDA Historical Currency Converter is being used; the date of conversion is the date of the document or other source from which the information was obtained (e.g. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award).

Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. As a general rule, a rounded figure (to the nearest hundred thousand) of the amount claimed or awarded is provided.

If the claimant provides more than one valuation of damages claimed, the highest of these amounts is recorded.

IIA breaches alleged and found

Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. When the relevant case documentation is not publicly available, information about breaches alleged may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings.

Composition of tribunal

These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators).

The disputing party (i.e. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. both types of appointment are recorded under “Appointed by / designated to Respondent” without further distinction).

In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded.

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings:

  • ICSID annulment proceedings;
  • Judicial review by national courts (set-aside proceedings); and
  • ICSID resubmission proceedings.

Initiation of a follow-on proceeding by either disputing party does not affect the field “Case Status/Outcome” of the original proceeding, until the follow-on proceeding is completed. For example, in a case where a final award has been rendered but it is later subject to a follow-on proceeding (e.g. ICSID annulment proceeding), the status of the case is marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Decisions, judgments and/or awards rendered in the course of follow-on (post-award) proceedings, as well as any individual opinions appended to them, are recorded.

The composition of the ICSID ad hoc committees that adjudicate requests for annulment under the ICSID Convention is recorded.

Link to Italaw’s case page

The Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for many investor-State disputes. It makes available not only the main arbitral decisions, but also procedural orders, parties’ submissions, expert opinions and other types of documents.

A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand.

Additional information

This section provides links to sources of information used for gathering data for the case at hand or otherwise relevant to that case. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources.

Number of cases as respondent State
1 60
Updated as of 31 July 2018

Romania - as respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 14 out of 14 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2018 LSG Building Solutions and others v. Romania Anina Pro Invest Ltd, Core Value Capital GmbH, Core Value Investments GmbH & Co KG Gamma and others v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/19) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interest in a photovoltaic power plant located in Romania’s Giurgiu region.

Summary: Claims arising out of certain changes to Romania’s incentive scheme for investments in the renewable energy sector.
Interest in a photovoltaic power plant located in Romania’s Giurgiu region. Pending Romania Austria

Cyprus

Germany

Netherlands
Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Data not available 250.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2016 Nova Group v. Romania Nova Group Investments, B.V. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/19) Netherlands - Romania BIT (1994) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in Astra Asigurari, a local insurance company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s actions that allegedly led to the bankruptcy of an insurance company, Astra Asigurari, majority owned by the claimant.
Majority shareholding in Astra Asigurari, a local insurance company. Pending Romania Netherlands Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 65 - Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security Kalicki, J. E. - President

Reichert, K. - Claimant

Clay, T. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
3 2015 Gabriel Resources v. Romania Gabriel Resources Ltd. and Gabriel Resources (Jersey) v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/31) Canada - Romania BIT (2009)

Romania - United Kingdom BIT (1995)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, a Romanian mining company, co-owned with a State-owned entity.

Summary: Claims arising out of the allegedly discriminatory measures relating to the approval of an environmental impact assessment and the issuance of an environmental permit required to start exploitation of the claimant's mining project.
Majority shareholding in Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, a Romanian mining company, co-owned with a State-owned entity. Pending Romania Canada

United Kingdom
Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 7 - Mining of metal ores Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant (replaced)

Douglas, Z. - Respondent

Cheng, T. - President (replaced)

Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant

Tercier, P. - President
3285.70 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Indirect expropriation

National treatment

Umbrella clause
Pending None None None None None None None
4 2014 Alpiq v. Romania Alpiq AG v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/28) Romania - Switzerland BIT (1993)

The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under two electricity generation and distribution contracts concluded between claimant's local subsidiaries and a Romanian State-owned entity.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's cancellation of two long-term energy delivery contracts concluded between claimant's local subsidiaries, Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie, and Romania’s state-owned electricity utility Hidroelectrica, after the latter was declared insolvent.
Rights under two electricity generation and distribution contracts concluded between claimant's local subsidiaries and a Romanian State-owned entity. Pending Romania Switzerland Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Sachs, K. - Claimant

Clodfelter, M. A. - Respondent

Silva Romero, E. - President
100.00 mln EUR (125.30 mln USD) Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
5 2014 Micula v. Romania (II) Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/29) Romania - Sweden BIT (2002) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interests in Romanian beverage production enterprises.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government alleged failure to police the alcohol black market, including illicit alcohol sales and tax evasion of illegal alcohol producers, causing an alleged negative impact on claimants' licit alcohol production business in Romania.
Interests in Romanian beverage production enterprises. Pending Romania Sweden Secondary: C - Manufacturing 11 - Manufacture of beverages McRae, D. M. - President

Pryles, M. C. - Claimant (replaced)

Crook, J. R. - Respondent

Beechey, J. - Claimant
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
6 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
7 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
8 2010 Dede v. Romania Ömer Dede and Serdar Elhüseyni v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/22) Romania - Turkey BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in SC IMUM SA, an agricultural machinery and equipment enterprise, through a share purchase agreement concluded with a Romanian agency; financial contributions into said company; payment of penalties as a precondition to acquiring shares in that company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the decision by Romania's privatisation agency AVAS to take possession of claimant's shares in an agricultural machinery manufacturer in the south-eastern city of Medgidia.
Majority shareholding in SC IMUM SA, an agricultural machinery and equipment enterprise, through a share purchase agreement concluded with a Romanian agency; financial contributions into said company; payment of penalties as a precondition to acquiring shares in that company. Decided in favour of State Romania Turkey Secondary: C - Manufacturing 28 - Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. Park, W. W. - President

Herzog, N. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
2.00 mln EUR (2.60 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 5 September 2013 None None None None None None
9 2007 S&T Oil v. Romania S&T Oil Equipment & Machinery Ltd. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/13) Romania - United States of America BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding and contractual rights under an agreement concluded between the claimant and Romania's privatization authority to take over the privatization of Nitramonia S.A., a large ammonia manufacturing and processing plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of contractual disagreements between the parties and the Government's termination of certain privatization agreement concluded with the investor, followed by the cancellation of the company's shareholdings, the taking of its Romanian assets, and the re-privatization of the assets by putting them out to tender.
Shareholding and contractual rights under an agreement concluded between the claimant and Romania's privatization authority to take over the privatization of Nitramonia S.A., a large ammonia manufacturing and processing plant. Discontinued Romania United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products van Houtte, H. - President

Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant

Savage, J. - Claimant (replaced)

Stern, B. - Respondent
140.00 mln EUR (179.40 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued by the Tribunal dated 16 July 2010, pursuant to Regulation 14(3)(d) of the ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulations 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 2006 Roussalis v. Romania Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1) Greece - Romania BIT (1997) ICSID ICSID Investment: Share purchase agreement concluded between the claimant and Romania's Authority for State Assets Recovery to acquire a controlling interest in a formerly State-owned enterprise engaged in the frozen-food warehousing business.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over compliance with a post-investment obligation related to claimant's purchase of shares in a large frozen food warehousing facility from the Romanian government's privatization authority; also, other measures such as tax liabilities and penalties allegedly imposed on the investor's company by the Romanian authorities and the enforced closure of his operation because of an alleged failure to comply with EU-mandated food safety regulations.
Share purchase agreement concluded between the claimant and Romania's Authority for State Assets Recovery to acquire a controlling interest in a formerly State-owned enterprise engaged in the frozen-food warehousing business. Decided in favour of State Romania Greece Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 52 - Warehousing and support activities for transportation Hanotiau, B. - President

Giardina, A. - Claimant

Reisman, W. M. - Respondent
110.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Other
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 7 December 2011 Declaration of W. Michael Reisman (Award) None None None None None
12 2005 EDF v. Romania EDF (Services) Limited v. Republic of Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13) Romania - United Kingdom BIT (1995) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interests in two joint venture companies with Romanian entities owned by the Romanian Government, engaged in providing duty-free services.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged arbitrary taking of a concession to provide duty free and other retail services at several Romanian airports and on board airplanes.
Interests in two joint venture companies with Romanian entities owned by the Romanian Government, engaged in providing duty-free services. Decided in favour of State Romania United Kingdom Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 47 - Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles Bernardini, P. - President

Rovine, A. W. - Claimant

Derains, Y. - Respondent
132.50 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 8 October 2009 Dissent regarding costs of Mr. Arthur W. Rovine (Award) None None None None None
13 2005 Micula v. Romania (I) Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20) Romania - Sweden BIT (2002) ICSID ICSID Investment: Contributions of over EUR 200 million through the purchase or importation of machinery, raw materials, lands, buildings, equipment and means of transportation for food production facilities in disfavored regions of Romania.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's introduction of a series of investment incentives for the development of certain disfavoured regions of Romania and from the subsequent partial withdrawal or amendment of those incentives, in the context of Romania's accession to the European Union.
Contributions of over EUR 200 million through the purchase or importation of machinery, raw materials, lands, buildings, equipment and means of transportation for food production facilities in disfavored regions of Romania. Decided in favour of investor Romania Sweden Secondary: C - Manufacturing 10 - Manufacture of food products Lévy, L. - President

Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Abi-Saab, G. - Respondent

Ehlermann, C.-D. - Respondent (replaced)
2698.00 mln RON (832.90 mln USD) 376.40 mln RON (116.20 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

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

Umbrella clause

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 24 September 2008

Final Award dated 11 December 2013
Separate Opinion of Professor Georges Abi-Saab (Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility) ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Annulment dated 26 February 2016 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None von Wobeser, C. - President

Cremades, B. M. - Member

Yusuf, A. A. - Member
14 2001 Noble Ventures v. Romania Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11) Romania - United States of America BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Share purchase agreement entered into with the Romanian State Ownership Fund.

Summary: Claims arising out of a privatization agreement concerning the acquisition, management, operation and disposition of a substantial steel mill with associated and other assets located in Romania.
Share purchase agreement entered into with the Romanian State Ownership Fund. Decided in favour of State Romania United States of America Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Lever, J. - Claimant

Dupuy, P.-M. - Respondent

Porcasi, V. - Respondent (replaced)
143.50 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

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

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 12 October 2005 None None None None None None