Russia’s objections that claimant’s interpretation would lead to “anomalous or unforeseen” consequences are dismissed

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Good faith interpretation of BIT provisions indicates that cross-border requirement needs to be assessed at time of alleged breach

Linguistic elements support claimant’s argument that investment must only be cross-border at time of alleged breach

Russia raises multiple objections based on lack of cross-border element in claimant’s alleged investment

Tribunal finds no ground to rule on state succession, but defers certain property questions to the merits

Tribunal sees potential for broader application of its conclusions on territorial scope of BIT

Irrelevance of sovereignty dispute cancels most of Russia’s objections based on public international law

Tribunal’s conclusions are unaffected by further elements relied on by the parties

Territorial scope of the BIT covers areas under the effective control of Russia

Disputed territorial status of Crimea prompts global diplomatic exchanges on territorial extension of BITs with Russia

Tribunal shows deference to seat’s highest court, and joins ratione temporis objection to the merits

Late lack of standing objection joined to the merits due to insufficient evidence

Russia’s initial appointee resigns, and his replacement is disqualified from the tribunal

Background: Ukrainian state-owned energy company lodges arbitration over seized Crimean assets

Spain to bear one third of claimant’s costs

Interest rates fall within the tribunal’s broad discretion

Sunk costs are owed for breach of standalone obligation of stability

Compensation for the two sub-RRR plants is 5.6 million EUR

Actual losses should be compensated in view of actual investment costs

Comparison should not discount returns that exceeded reasonable rate pre-breach

Reasonable rate of return includes premium for returns, in addition to bare cost of capital

Green Power award was limited to cases governed by the Swedish lex arbitri, and it explicitly distinguished ICSID arbitrations

International arbitral awards do not qualify as “evidence” justifying reopening the proceedings

Background: Claimants invest in two small-hydro portfolios before Spain adopts its “New Regime”

The CJEU’s Komstroy decision does not warrant revision of the 2020 Decision

Archives