Turkmenistan is awarded most of its costs

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.

Free transfer protection does not entitle investors to free currency conversions

Conduct of state-owned mobile operator cannot be attributed to state absent evidence of specific control over impugned acts

No evidence that removal of right to sell handset had any impact on business, or that impact would be more than

All permits requested by MTS-TM were granted; in any event, claimant fails to prove any loss or detriment from alleged delays or refusals

Claimant and state-owned firm were in different circumstances regarding data needs, thus MTS was not entitled to an equal allocation of data capacity

Claims for historical breaches are dismissed, as tribunal finds insufficient evidence of impact on the operator’s activities

Claimant did not have legitimate expectation of renewal of Agreement

When 2012 Agreement with host state lapsed, investor did not have any right to operate

Agreement between the parties for investor to operate was neither invalid nor illegal

Tribunal clarifies scope and content of the applicable standards of treatment

<em>Prima facie</em>

Turkmentelecom’s conduct is attributable to the state under ILC Articles 4 and 5

State conduct can be both a contractual violation and a treaty breach, and tribunal can uphold jurisdiction over the latter

Applicable rules do not prevent virtual hearing, but Turkmenistan’s threatened default leads to postponement

MTS fails to disqualify opposing counsel, but tribunal insists on ethical wall

Background: Claimant’s operations in Turkmenistan shut down after 2012 settlement agreement expired without renewal

Background: arbitration dismissed after RSM failed to post ordered security

Committee does not see need to express general view on the nature of annulment proceedings

Most appropriate sanction is not damages or drawing negative inferences at a later stage

Tribunal sees unfairness of leaving case floating indefinitely in limbo

Parties spar over tribunal’s authority to discontinue proceedings in these circumstances

Tribunal dismisses relevance of criticisms voiced by third-party funders

Griffith’s opinion was aimed at procedural issues – and gave no sign of how he’d address merits; moreover, his silence on the challenge can’t lead to adverse inferences

Unchallenged arbitrators say that appearance of bias or dependence should be plain or obvious; 28 days prior to challenge being initiated does not make it untimely

Archives