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

Investors are awarded full costs, as well as interest

Review of existence of deliberations cannot lead committee to examine at a granular level tribunal’s decision on each particular issue

Existence of deliberations qualifies as a fundamental rule of procedure

Tribunal did decide the issues before it, and it did not need to distinguish previous awards at every turn

No reinforced duty to state reasons to distinguish contradictory awards on same factual and legal background

Committee notes tension between Italy’s position that the state never consented to arbitrate dispute, and its argument that consent was removed at a later point

Clear text through which states gave consent to arbitrate in ECT cannot be varied by alleged contextual circumstances

Interpretative approach based on international law is in keeping with VCLT

Existing case law might assist in determining whether excess of powers is manifest

Jurisdictional findings do not command different test to review existence of excess of powers

Limited scope of annulment proceedings means that Italy cannot introduce further intra-EU documents – including Green Power award – into the record

Archives