Mixed success entails reimbursement of most, but not all 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.

Majority finds that the claimant had failed to establish that loans 6-9 were funded from lawful activities; the arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Loan which was 50% funded through proceeds from a fraudulent activity was deemed contrary to international public policy, therefore it did not fall within the BIT’s protection

Tribunal finds that legality of the investment is a jurisdictional question

Tribunal reads requirement of contribution to the host state’s economy into the BIT, but finds that loans qualify as investments

Tribunal settles preliminary questions on jurisdiction ratione materiae

Dispute is both objectively and subjectively arbitrable, tribunal finds

Tribunal is not convinced that the BIT has been terminated according to Article 59 VCLT

Tribunals dismisses respondent’s argument based on the principle of lex posterior

Parties’ subsequent practice does not speak in favour of inapplicability of the treaty

Tribunal distinguishes between incompatibility of the dispute resolution provision with EU law, and its inapplicability

Tribunal emphasises role of contracting parties’ consent, and clarifies relevance of EU law

In its jurisdictional objections, the Czech Republic relies on finding of fraud and money laundering by Swiss courts

Poppy seeds trading venture gives rise to ICSID claim

CME majority offered a detailed factual analysis

CME majority considered issues of causation before deciding on liability

CME tribunal found jurisdiction over investment made by claimant’s predecessor, and viewed dispute as investment-related, not merely commercial

Arbitral tribunal addressed issues of consolidation and bifurcation, and refused to grant provisional measures

Both tribunals split costs between the parties

In quantum decision, CME tribunal maintained that the partial award was binding, but still addressed criticisms on applicable law, res judicata and causation

Archives