Costs are split, in view of the Award’s outcome, the parties’ procedural conduct, and claimant’s success on provisional measures and security for costs

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.

Arbitrators determine that in light of their finding of abuse of process, they have no separate jurisdiction to hold Turkey liable for a breach of the ICSID Convention due to the state’s failure to comply with their procedural orders

Expropriation of Koza Group was reasonably foreseeable on August 31, 2015, meaning that the claim is inadmissible due to an abuse of process

Initial skirmishes between the parties and early offshoring of assets does not evidence foreseeability of the dispute

Critical date at which the foreseeability of the dispute must be assessed is August 31, 2015, the earliest date at which the claimant may have held a BIT protected investment

For the purpose of the abuse of process analysis, what must be foreseeable was the risk that Turkey would expropriate all or part of Koza Group

Tribunal finds that the SPA, as signed in June 2015, did not in itself give rise to a protected investment, meaning that the claimant held an investment at the earliest on August 31, 2015

Arbitrators draw distinction between purely contractual rights and contractual rights constituting an asset that may qualify for treaty protection

Tribunal focuses on question of “legal materialization” of the investment

Tribunal excludes alleged record of secured message allegedly sent by Akin Ipek, finding that the exhibit’s authenticity had convincingly been challenged

Tribunal finds that it is free to characterize the issues at stake and examine Turkey’s objections in any order that it sees fit

Tribunal notes that both parties have submitted “allegations of the utmost gravity” on the merits, but stresses that its Award only addresses preliminary objections

Tribunal decides on its own motion that Akin Ipek’s brother should testify from prison

Tribunal declines to lift witness anonymity, but witness is allowed to be cross-examined behind protective screen

Fact witness is allowed to testify anonymously, in view of credible threats of political harassment

For expert witness testimony, tribunal considers that due process balance militates against anonymity

Anonymous witness statements should be exceptional; parties agree on three-prong test

Tribunal finds that it lacks power to order claimant to submit electronic devices to respondent for forensic examination, but decides on its own motion that Akin Ipek’s laptop should be placed in escrow

Given importance of authenticity issue, arbitrators find that they can order parties to vouch for completeness of evidential record

Arbitrators reject respondent’s request for security for costs and issue forward-looking confidentiality order

Tribunal clarifies that the state cannot hide behind its Constitution to avoid fulfilling its international law obligations

Arbitrators stress that domestic courts are as much bound by provisional measures as executive branch

Tribunal partially grants claimant’s request for provisional measures directed at local court proceedings

Background: Government take-over of Turkish conglomerate in the context of political turmoil prompts BIT claim

Background: Arbitration documents are produced in parallel court proceedings

Archives