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

Costs ordered mostly against investor, with discount grounded in considerations of access to justice

Remaining claims, including alleged breaches of legal security and expropriation, are swiftly dismissed; tribunal rejects ideas of legal security “positive obligations” and temporary expropriation

8 billion EUR fine is “shockingly disproportionate”, but the Hungarian court system self-corrected, amidst claimant’s own “intransigence”

Local court’s regular application of treaty-compliant law cannot constitute denial of justice

Claimant must take local bankruptcy law as he finds it; no legitimate expectation of change rather than stability

Jurisdictional objections regarding standing and ownership of investment are dismissed

Tribunal criticises claimant’s “persistent” failure to meet deadlines and submit evidence

Background: Trademark infringement and insolvency disputes underpin treaty claim

Suspension of claimant-company in California does not kill ICSID case

Lack of approval under investment law not a problem

Tribunal gives Egypt blank look when it raises prescription objection

Archives