Background: Estonia imposes reduction of water tariffs upon Tallinn’s recently-privatized water and sewage company

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.

Estonia’s encouragement of state entity’s efforts to overturn payment agreement breached claimants’ legitimate expectations that agreement would be honoured

Damages calculated based on balance of unpaid loan

Costs mostly awarded against Estonia

Tribunal saw legitimate expectations as central to FET

Loan constituted an investment under both BITs and ICSID Convention

Payment agreement and associated letter generated legitimate expectation of loan repayment, regardless of domestic validity

Tribunal rejected objections relating to investor illegality, territorial jurisdiction, and temporal jurisdiction

Background: Estonian state entity failed to repay loan granted to fish processing venture, after 1991 Estonian independence hampered business operations

Tribunal accepts post-hearing submission on local proceedings, and also on intra-EU objection

Negative publicity campaign is not attributable to Estonia

Costs are divided between the parties

Mr. Williams also finds that Estonia breached the claimants’ due process rights

Majority sees no breach of due process

Non-impairment claim and umbrella clause claim are “redundant”

Tribunal adopts provisional measures regarding the publication of the parties’ pleadings

Tribunal stresses that EU law and investor-State arbitration belong to different “subsystems of international law”

Under the applicable public international law, the BIT was not terminated upon Estonia’s accession to the EU

Local proceedings do not bar the tribunal’s jurisdiction

Majority distinguishes between contractual commitments and legitimate expectations

Tribunal finds that ASTV is controlled by its Dutch parent – even though the latter held only a minority shareholding

Archives

Background: Estonia imposes reduction of water tariffs upon Tallinn’s recently-privatized water and sewage company

Tribunal stressed context of transition from centrally-planned economy to free market system

Background: investment in the Estonian banking sector

Tribunal rejected allegation that investors “failed to uphold their end of the bargain”

Costs mostly awarded against Estonia

Estonia’s encouragement of state entity’s efforts to overturn payment agreement breached claimants’ legitimate expectations that agreement would be honoured

Damages calculated based on balance of unpaid loan

Costs mostly awarded against Estonia

Tribunal saw legitimate expectations as central to FET

Loan constituted an investment under both BITs and ICSID Convention

Payment agreement and associated letter generated legitimate expectation of loan repayment, regardless of domestic validity

Tribunal rejected objections relating to investor illegality, territorial jurisdiction, and temporal jurisdiction

Background: Estonian state entity failed to repay loan granted to fish processing venture, after 1991 Estonian independence hampered business operations

Tribunal accepts post-hearing submission on local proceedings, and also on intra-EU objection

Negative publicity campaign is not attributable to Estonia

Costs are divided between the parties

Mr. Williams also finds that Estonia breached the claimants’ due process rights

Majority sees no breach of due process

Non-impairment claim and umbrella clause claim are “redundant”

Tribunal adopts provisional measures regarding the publication of the parties’ pleadings

Tribunal stresses that EU law and investor-State arbitration belong to different “subsystems of international law”

Under the applicable public international law, the BIT was not terminated upon Estonia’s accession to the EU

Local proceedings do not bar the tribunal’s jurisdiction

Majority distinguishes between contractual commitments and legitimate expectations

Tribunal finds that ASTV is controlled by its Dutch parent – even though the latter held only a minority shareholding

Email Alerts

Editor’s Picks

User Login:

Email Alerts

Editor’s Picks