[Updated April 29, 2024: The “elevated” standard for dismissal under Rule 41(5) is not met when argument hinges on contestable treaty interpretation

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.

Costs are split

Tribunal agrees to tax gross-up in relation to host state taxes

Interest is awarded at claimants’ proposed rate, but not compounded, and starting only from the date of the award, in consideration of their “comparative fault”

Ex ante approach to damages may be at odds with reality and lead to overestimations

Respondent’s failure to remedy inequality between claimants and competitor had discriminatory effect that could not be justified

Referring to the claimants’ arguments, tribunal concludes that state’s failure to act was arbitrary

Events pre-dating June 2014 did not suffice to give rise to a dispute, as parties were still engaged in finding a solution

Background: Claimants’ construction of an access channel becomes a liability when competitors start to use it free of charge

Damages based on lost sales attributable to state’s treaty breach

Claims under umbrella clause and unreasonable measures clause given short shrift

Investor held to enjoy no right in domestic law susceptible to expropriation

Background: claimants’ investment in Laiki is wiped out after bank is dissolved

Background: Failed Negotiations doomed tender process

Costs are reimbursed in proportion of the claimants’ relative success

Interest rate in BIT, although not applicable, provides guidance

Comparables are sufficiently comparable, but lack of information as to residential asset leads to discount

Alleged value of planned refurbishment is insufficiently substantiated

Since assets were expropriated in Russia, Russian data should be used as a proxy

Valuation date is time at which claimants lost control over their operations

Due process was not provided, and duty to mitigate does not encompass “evidently futile” remedies

Discriminatory expropriation lacked public purpose and was thus unlawful

Conduct would have been attributed under Article 11 as well, given support by Russian authorities

Paramilitary conduct is attributable as delegation of elements of governmental authority

Crimean authorities are state organs of Russia

Archives