Investment Arbitration Reporter

An arbitral award from a dispute between a German company and Ukraine is now available for download. (Click here).

In the award dated March 31, 2011, a tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) dismissed all claims brought by GEA Group pursuant to the Germany-Ukraine bilateral investment treaty.

The award is particularly notable for the fact that key claims arose out of the alleged non-recognition and enforcement by the Ukraine courts of an earlier ICC arbitration award.

Of particular interest, the tribunal held that the relevant arbitral award did not constitute a protected investment under the Germany-Ukraine BIT or the ICSID Convention. In this respect, the award appears to diverge from the (admittedly less-straightforward) approach taken in an earlier ICSID arbitration, Saipem v. Bangladesh.*

We wrote about the GEA v. Ukraine arbitration (and a parallel claim before the European Court of Human Rights) some time ago**

Readers may also be interested in our reporting and analysis of another under-publicized 2010 UNCITRAL arbitration award (FPS v. Czech Republic) touching on a state's treaty-based liability in relation to the non-recognition and enforcement of a commercial arbitration award.***

Further analysis of the award can be found here.
 

* See our reporting on the Saipem v. Bangladesh case here. ** See our reporting on the GEA v. Ukraine case here. *** See our reporting on the FPS v. Czech Republic case here and here.

Investment Arbitration Reporter is a specialized news publication tracking developments in the area of international investment law and policy.

The publication does not offer legal or financial advice or recommendations of any kind.
 
To offer news-tips or comments, email the Editor, Luke Eric Peterson, at: editor@iareporter.com