Tribunal awarded amounts invested

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.

Goal was “prompt, adequate and effective” compensation, but no lost profits for an inoperative project

Tribunal assessed amounts actually invested into project

In damages award, tribunal found inherent power to reconsider prior decisions, but no ground to exercise it on the facts

Series of measures by Ghanaian authorities amounted to “constructive expropriation”

Applicable law was international law, despite contractual provision

Illegality objection was rejected; jurisdiction also extended to indirect expropriation

Tribunal upheld jurisdiction over expropriation, but declined jurisdiction over denial of justice and human rights claims

ICSID Secretary-General served as appointing authority following Ghanaian default

Case arose from stop-work order issued against resort development project in Accra, and subsequent deportation of claimant

Background: claimant signs contract to roll out IT project to boost revenue for Ghana’s customs, but after much testing and encouragement was not given permission to go live

Background: investment in Czech television station spurred disputes with local partner

Administrative and judicial proceedings in Italy were arbitrary as well, Mr. Schwebel found

Mr. Schwebel considered the requisition order to be arbitrary

Mr. Schwebel dissented with the majority’s conclusion on Raytheon’s right to control and manage ELSI

Judge Oda agreed with the operative findings of the judgement, but found that the US claim relied on non-relevant provisions for espousal of Raytheon and Machlett’s cause

Court also referred to ELSI’s financial situation when dismissing the alleged breach of US nationals’ rights to acquire, own and dispose of property or interests

Requisition order did not discriminate against US companies, nor did it constitute a “wilful disregard of due process of law”

Expropriation claim failed due to ELSI’s financial situation

ICJ found no breach of the full protection and security standard

Although not decisive for this case, ELSI may have also been legally insolvent under Italian law, Court found

ICJ investigated ELSI’s financial position, finding that the company was practically unable to carry out an orderly liquidation when the requisition happened

Court discussed the relevance of the legality of the requisition under Italian law, concluding that “it might appear prima facie a violation” of the treaty

Italy was unable to prove that US companies had failed to exhaust local remedies

Archives