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

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

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

Cancellation of oil concession prompted ICSID claim

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

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

Parties spar over Georgia’s willingness to pay an earlier arbitral award

Investor’s alleged inexperience irrelevant for causation; sunk costs approach rejected

Third-party funding of case should not alter claimants’ costs recovery

Tribunal has open mind as to damages being reduced if parties so contracted

Tribunal says interest should be compounded

Compensation not reduced in light of taxes, as claimant invokes MFN treatment

Other transactions give clear idea of value of investmentsIn order to assess the damages owed to the investors, the ICSID tribunal looked to three contemporaneous transactions which shed light on the value of the claimants’ assets at the time of their being taken away.

Archives