Court finds no violation of public policy based on principle of pacta sunt servanda or tribunal’s reasoning on abuse of rights

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.

Tribunal did not fail to address other grounds for termination invoked by the claimant

Court sees no violation of right to be heard in tribunal’s alleged failure to examine right to unilaterally terminate the DBFO Contract under general Montenegrin law

Court stresses limited scope of set-aside proceedings

Background: Investors in wastewater treatment facilities ask for set-aside of award that dismissed their claims for damages

Montenegro’s Agency for Personal Data Protection upholds IAReporter’s appeal against Ministry of Finance’s decision that rejected request for access to treaty award subsequently released by ICSID

Domestic or foreign nature of award depends only on seat and applicable law

Background: Project for construction of water and sewerage network leads to ICC arbitration

Addiko is ordered to reimburse 70% of the costs of arbitration and the state’s legal fees; costs award does not bear interest

Tribunal declines to rule on claims of unconstitutionality and breach of EU law

Full protection and security standard is limited to physical security

Neighbouring state’s choice of different measures does not evidence unreasonableness of arbitrariness

Measure was proportionate; retroactivity

No evidence that law was discriminatory, absent an adequate comparator

Alleged expectations of stability were not reasonable in context where CHF loans had become a rising point of contention

Montenegro made no specific representation to Addiko that would justify legitimate expectations

Justifications for Law on Conversion were not misleading when read in context; evidence is lacking that law sought to punish banks

Adoption of impugned legislation under expedited procedure was not improper

Breach of FET standard requires balancing exercise between state’s right to regulate and investor’s expectations

Dispute put to domestic courts was not identical, as it dealt with constitutional – not international – law

BIT contains no distinction between active and passive investors

Addiko’s investment entailed risk, while investment in “essential” banking sector contributed to host state’s economic development

Addiko contributed to its shares, but it did not have beneficial rights related to these shares prior to the acquisition

Shares are qualifying investment under the BIT, which does not contain an “active act of investing” requirement

Background: Dispute over law designed to counteract appreciation of Swiss franc denominated loans leads to ICSID claim

Archives