Tribunal analysed the ECT’s provisional application regime and interpreted meaning of “Effective Date”

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.

Domestic law was relevant as fact, but dispute was to be decided under international law

Tribunal held that provisional application of ECT entailed legal obligation and related to entire treaty

Provisional application of treaties was recognised under general international law

Violation of domestic law by host state did not deprive investment of protection

Tribunal relied on “Salini criteria” in finding that there was an investment under the ICSID Convention

Provisional application was not contrary to Greek or Georgian domestic law

Date of signature of the ECT was the “Effective Date”

Provisional application gave rise to legal obligations

Cancellation of oil concession prompted ICSID claim

Georgia was estopped from challenging validity of the JVA and the concession

Tribunal held that claimant was at all relevant times the investment’s beneficial owner

JVA might have been void ab initio under Georgian law, while tribunal avoided making definitive findings in relation to concession

Tribunal held that indirect investments were covered by BIT and ECT

Tribunal pointed to context in which investment was made, and held that it was for claimant to formulate claims at jurisdictional stage

Following brief proprio motu examination, tribunal was satisfied of its jurisdiction ratione personae

Temporal jurisdictional objection under BIT was joined to the merits

Tribunal refuses to stretch concept of unjust enrichment to fit a situation where the state is a minority shareholder in the company that had benefited

Illegality objection also raised, and tribunal takes formalistic view of Saluka’s non-accountability for any alleged misdeeds of Nomura

No abuse in investor not disclosing its ultimate plans to dispose of portfolio investment

Nomura’s investment also gave it a valuable stake in prominent brewery

Counterclaims based on violations of Czech law are not closely connected with the primary claim

Nomura’s IPB’s shares are transferred to Saluka holding vehicle

Counterclaims raised by the Czech Republic

Tribunal finds that the SPA’s mandatory arbitration clause prevents it from exercising jurisdiction over one set of counterclaims: those related to the SPA

Archives