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.