Micula and Others v. Romania

2021 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 1-492
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

1Economics, trade and finance — Investment protection — Fair and equitable treatment — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Article 2(3) — Whether Romania breaching fair and equitable treatment protection under Treaty — Whether Romania breaching investors’ legitimate expectations — Whether Romania acting reasonably with respect to investors’ investment — Whether Romania affording investors adequate levels of transparency — Article 2(4) — Umbrella clause — Whether Romania breaching umbrella clause protection under TreatyArbitration — Jurisdiction — Investment protection — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Distinction between objection to jurisdiction and objection to admissibility — Factual findings — Burden of proof — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Temporal application of bilateral investment treaty — Whether applicable to acts occurring before entry into force if dispute arose after entry into forceArbitration — Remedies — Standard for bringing a claim for lost profits — Sufficient certainty — Whether investors would have made profits but for the international wrong — Whether trend among investment tribunals to award compound rather than simple interest — Whether a tribunal having power to issue definitive injunctive relief — Res judicata effectArbitration — Enforceability of Award — Whether appropriate for Tribunal to base its decisions on matters of EU law applying after Award rendered — ICSID Convention, 1965, Articles 53 and 54Nationality — Individuals — Claimants renouncing nationality of respondent State and acquiring new nationality — Whether new nationality purely a matter for national law — Whether role for international law — Whether new nationality opposable to State of former nationality — Whether “genuine link” with State of new nationality required — Standing to being investment claim under bilateral investment treatyTreaties — Interpretation — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Treaties established under European Union law to which Romania and Sweden parties — Whether conflict of treaties — Whether EU law having role in interpretation of BIT — Whether EU law applying after Award rendered relevant to Tribunal’s decision making — ICSID Convention, 1965, Articles 53 and 54

Dan Cake (Portugal) S.A. v. Hungary (ICSID)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-524
Author(s):  
Catherina Valenzuela-Bock
Keyword(s):  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Rare Finding ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Treatment Provision ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

In Dan Cake v. Hungary, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) issued a rare finding of denial of justice in its adjudication of the claims by Portuguese investor Dan Cake, alleging that the Hungarian court’s actions during the liquidation proceedings of its subsidiary were a violation of the fair and equitable treatment provision of the Hungary-Portugal Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The decision adds an example of the factual circumstances that lead to a finding of denial of justice and reaffirms the stringent requirements that need to be satisfied in order to succeed on such a claim.

scholarly journals Klausula Counter-claim dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 2219
Author(s):  
Nabilla Zelda Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Host State ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) merupakan suatu mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa antara investor dan negara penerima investasi (host state) karena suatu pelanggaran terhadap Hukum Investasi Internasional. Berdasarkan data UNCTAD, alasan yang sering diajukan dalam gugatan ISDS umumnya meliputi empat hal permasalahan yakni Most Favoured Nations, National Treatment, Non Exproriation, dan Fair and Equitable Treatment. Namun pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa investasi dengan mekanisme ISDS dianggap lebih berpihak kepada pihak investor dibandingkan kepada host state karena sebagian besar IIA mengijinkan ISDS diajukan oleh investor, dan dalam prakteknya investor merupakan satu-satunya penggugat yang diizinkan. Ketidakseimbangan kedudukan para pihak dalam mekanisme ISDS memberikan pemikiran counter-claim sebagai upaya menyeimbangkan kedudukan investor dan host state dalam mekanisme ISDS. Selain itu pentingnya counter-claiim dalam mekanisme ISDS antara lain karena belum ada aturan yang seragam mengenai counter-claim, counter-claim memungkinkan responden untuk mencari keadilan di forum yang sama sehingga lebih efisien. Serta bagi host state, counter-claim dapat digunakan untuk membersihkan reputasi host state atas gugatan yang diajukan oleh investor. Penelitian ini mengkaji klausula counterclaim yang dapat diadopsi dalam BIT Indonesia sehingga dapat menyeimbangkan kedudukan para pihak dalam mekanisme ISDS, khususnya Indonesia sebagai host state. Penelitian hukum yang digunakan adalah pendekatan konseptual (conseptual approach), pendekatan perundang-udangan (statute approach), dan pendekatan kasus (case approach) dalam membahas counterclaim dalam mekanisme ISDS serta dalam menganalisa rumusan klausula counterclaim yang dapat di adopsi dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) Indonesia.

Regulatory Coherence Requirements in Investment Treaty Arbitration

2021 ◽  
pp. 215-246
Author(s):  
Caroline E. Foster
Keyword(s):  
Government Policy ◽  
Environmental Concern ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Public Purpose ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Regulatory Measures ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Part IV comprises two chapters, Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight. These chapters focus on investment treaty arbitration. Chapter Seven identifies the regulatory coherence tests emerging under each of the core investment protection guarantees. Fair and equitable treatment guarantees require host States’ regulatory measures to bear reasonable relationships to rational policies. National treatment guarantees call for a reasonable nexus to a rational government policy. The law on expropriation increasingly incorporates the understanding that reasonable measures adopted in good faith to address a real public health or environmental concern are ‘for a public purpose’. These tests all tend to accommodate domestic level decision-making, allowing room for the operation of democratic processes rather than envisaging an international legal override. This will assist with traditional procedural justifications for authority at the domestic and international level.

scholarly journals Perlindungan Kepentingan Nasional Melalui Klausula Dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 1909
Author(s):  
Adinda Balqis Tegarmas G.
Keyword(s):  
Host Country ◽  
Dependency Theory ◽  
Policy Space ◽  
Most Favored Nation ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Kepentingan nasional merupakan hal yang abstrak dan dinamis namun dianggap penting dalam pelaksanaan kegiatan penanaman modal. Landasan yang mendasari argumentasi tersebut yaitu parameter dan definisi yang beragam atau tidak menentu. Setiap negara berusaha melindungi dan mempertahankan kepentingan nasional dalam hal penanaman modal asing sehingga dapat memacu pembangunan perekonomian nasional, khususnya pada bilateral investment treaty (BIT). BIT menjadi instrumen perlindungan kepentingan nasional yang menjamin kepastian hukum dan membatasi intrepretasi hakim pada suatu sengketa. Kepentingan nasional dapat ditemukan dalam klasula utama BIT yaitu Most Favored Nation, National Treatment, Fair and Equitable Treatment. Tiga klausula tersebut dinilai belum memberikan perlindungan yang seimbang antara investor asing dan investor dalam negeri, berakibat buruk pada kepentingan nasional host country dan membatasi regulatory space atau policy space suatu negara untuk mengatur sendiri kegiatan penanaman modal. Hal tersebut bersesuaian dengan dependency theory yang memandang penanaman modal asing sebagai suatu ancaman bagi host country. Sejalan dengan hal tersebut, BIT dapat diberhentikan berdasarkan fundamental changes of circumtances secara legal apabila tidak melakukan tindakan breach of treaty dan dapat digantikan dengan model BIT yang baru. Tulisan ini mengkaji bentuk perlindungan kepentingan nasional dalam penanaman modal asing dan pilihan penyesuaian klasula utama BIT sehingga dapat memberikan perlindungan terhadap kepentingan nasional.

scholarly journals Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership's Investment Chapter the new "Gold Standard"?

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 503 ◽  
Author(s):  
José E Alvarez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The North ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

The Trans-Pacific Partnership's Investment Chapter, and particularly its inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), has been the focus of considerable criticism both in the United States and New Zealand. Despite huge differences between these two potential TPP partners, the anticipated economic and political benefits offered by the pact – but also the threats to democracy posed – have been expressed in similar ways by distinct stakeholders in both countries. This essay describes how this chapter is the culmination of reforms to United States investment protection treaties that began with the investment chapter of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 and that are now evident in the latest United States Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (of 2012). The TPP's Investment Chapter borrows heavily from prior United States efforts to narrow investor rights (as with respect to fair and equitable treatment), expand sovereign policy space, and incorporate certain rule of law reforms. For its critics, the pact falls far short of achieving a new "gold standard" precisely because it merely reforms – but does not abandon – ISDS for its enforcement.Editor's note: The text of this article was originally accepted for publication in March 2016. Recent statements by President-elect Donald Trump indicate that the United States will likely withdraw from further participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership and refrain from ratifying the agreed text. Without the United States' ratification, the agreement will not come into force. Despite this apparent ending to the Trans Pacific Partnership, the editors consider that Professor Alvarez's article remains an extremely useful analysis of investment provisions that may well serve as a model for the negotiation of such provisions in other mega-regional trade agreements in the future.

4 Standards of Investment Protection

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnitcha Jonathan ◽  
Skovgaard Poulsen Lauge N ◽  
Waibel Michael
Keyword(s):  
Common Core ◽  
Final Section ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The Third ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Equitable Treatment

This chapter introduces the substantive obligations in investment treaties. Most offer a common core of six substantive protections to foreign investors. The chapter first considers the two ‘relative’ standards of protection—most-favoured nation treatment and national treatment. It then turns to four ‘absolute’ standards of protection: expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, umbrella clauses, and free transfer of funds. The third section examines carve-outs that remove certain state measures from the scope of application of investment treaties, defences that can justify or excuse breaches of investment treaty protections, and the standard of review that tribunals apply when examining host state conduct. The fourth and final section discusses the calculation of compensation or damages if host states have breached investment treaties.

AES Corporation and Tau Power BV v. Republic of Kazakhstan

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 610-629
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Legitimate Expectation ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment

610Jurisdiction — Consent — Revocation — Municipal law — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether a State may revoke consent to arbitration by repealing municipal lawJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Municipal law — Whether investments were excluded from jurisdiction by express exceptions under municipal lawJurisdiction — Consent — Temporality — Municipal law — Whether the revocation of consent to arbitration through the repeal of municipal law affected investments made prior to repealAdmissibility — Fork-in-the-road clause — Judicial act — Competition law — Whether claims for breach of competition law before municipal courts were the same as the investment treaty claimsAdmissibility — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether the exhaustion of local remedies was required — Whether the question was best left to the merits stageContract — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Competition law — Whether an agreement between the claimants and the State gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the State would not amend competition lawMunicipal law — Stabilisation clause — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Adverse effect — Whether the claimants had a legitimate expectation to be protected by a stabilisation clause that had been repealed — Whether the claimants had a legitimate expectation to be protected against legislative reform — Whether the claimants demonstrated any adverse effect from legislative reform — Whether it was predictable that the State would undertake reform of its competition lawFair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Arbitrariness — Denial of justice — Legal stability — Whether changes to competition law were in breach of the investment treaties — Whether alleged harassment and coercion were in breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claimants were denied justice in the application of competition law by municipal courtsUmbrella clause — Municipal law — Contract — Legal stability — Whether a breach of municipal law could give rise to an investment treaty breach — Whether there was a breach of municipal law — Whether the State agreed not to reform competition lawFair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Free transfer — Proportionality — Public interest — Whether the claimants had an expectation to make and have the right to dispose of a reasonable return on their 611investment — Whether the requirement to reinvest all profits was in breach of legitimate expectations — Whether the measure was a proportionate response in the public interestRemedies — Restitution — Whether restitution was a feasible remedy in the circumstancesRemedies — Damages — Burden of proof — Quantum — Whether the claimants had established the scope of damage they suffered as a result of treaty breachRemedies — Damages — Future damages — Whether the claim for future loss was premature

Abaclat and Others (Case Formerly Known as Giovanna a Beccara and Others) v. Argentine Republic

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 364-423
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Sovereign Bonds ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Made In

364Jurisdiction — Investment — Contract — Whether a dispute arising out of and in relation to sovereign bonds was an investment treaty dispute rather than a mere contractual dispute — Whether forum selection clauses influenced the place where the alleged investment was deemed to have been madeJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Contribution — Interpretation — Whether security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds constituted obligations or public securities within the definition of investment under the BIT — Whether the investors had made contributions leading to the creation of value that the contracting parties intended to protect under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Salini test — Contribution — Whether the Salini test was the right approach to determine whether an investment had been made — Whether protection of security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds was consistent with the spirit and aim of the ICSID Convention — Whether the ICSID Convention sets the outer limits of consent given under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Legality — Whether the investment was made in compliance with municipal lawJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Territory — Economic development — Whether the investment was made in the territory of the host State — Whether it was sufficient for the invested funds to have supported the host State’s economic development — Whether it was necessary for investments of a purely financial nature to be linked to a specific economic enterprise or operation taking place in the territory of the host StateJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Nationality — Timing — Whether the investors held the nationality of the home State — Whether natural and juridical persons met certain requirements prior to the registration of the request for arbitrationJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Mass claim — Burden of proof — Whether the investors bore the burden to prove each of them met the requirements of jurisdictionJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Sovereign bonds — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether a party that has purchased security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds through layers of intermediaries may still be classified as the party having made an investmentJurisdiction — Consent — Fraud — Whether the State may invoke the investor’s allegedly fraudulent consent to challenge the validity of the agreement to arbitrate the dispute365Jurisdiction — Consent — Mass claim — Procedure — Whether specific consent was required in regard to the procedure for arbitration in the form of collective proceedings or collective mass claimsJurisdiction — Consent — Prior consultation — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether prior consultation and domestic litigation requirements in the dispute resolution clause of a BIT were relevant to whether the host State consented to arbitrationAdmissibility — Mass claim — ICSID Convention — Denial of justice — Whether the mass aspect of a dispute was admissible under the current ICSID framework — Whether to deny the admissibility of mass claims would be a denial of justiceAdmissibility — Prior consultation — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether the failure to meet the requirements of prior consultation and domestic litigation rendered the claims inadmissible — Whether municipal courts would have resolved the dispute within 18 monthsProcedure — Mass claim — ICSID Convention — ICSID Arbitration Rules — Interpretation — Whether the silence of the ICSID framework in respect of collective proceedings was to be interpreted as a gap — Whether a tribunal may adapt the ICSID Arbitration Rules to enable the group examination of claims in accordance with the object and purpose of the ICSID Convention — Whether the claims of multiple claimants were identical or sufficiently homogeneous to allow for their group examination — Whether group examination would meet standards of due processProcedure — Withdrawal — Mass claim — ICSID Institution Rule 8 — Whether certain investors had withdrawn their consent prior to registration of the request for arbitrationProcedure — Discontinuance — Mass claim — ICSID Arbitration Rule 44 — Whether the request of certain investors for discontinuance should be granted — Whether discontinuance of some investors required the termination of the arbitrationAdmissibility — Abuse of rights — Agent — ICSID Arbitration Rule 18 — Whether the ulterior interests of a third party acting as agent in the arbitration constituted an abuse of rights by the investorsProcedure — Evidence — ICSID Arbitration Rule 25 — Request for arbitration — ICSID Convention, Article 36(2) — Whether updated annexes to the request for arbitration containing information related to each investor were admissible — Whether the introduction of evidence violated the requirements of the request for arbitration by unilaterally updating the identity of the parties366 Costs — Discontinuance — Whether investors who discontinued their participation in the proceeding should bear their own legal costs and a share of the arbitration costsInterpretation — ICSID Convention — Policy — Whether policy considerations were relevant to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over claims arising from sovereign bonds — Whether policy considerations were relevant to determine whether mass claims were admissible

Enkev Beheer BV (of the Netherlands) v. Republic of Poland

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 630-648
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Waiting Period ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
Default Rules ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Almost All

630Procedure — Addition of a party — Conditional application — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 22 — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17 — Whether the UNCITRAL Rules or lex loci arbitri allowed for applications to be made conditional on a tribunal’s future decision — Whether the application was consistent with the State’s procedural rights — Whether the amendment to a claim under Article 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules allowed for the addition of a third party as claimantJurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Whether an investor’s shares and rights derived from those shares were protected investments under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Assets of subsidiary — Whether profits, goodwill or know-how of a local subsidiary constituted investments of the investor protected by the BITJurisdiction — Consent — Cooling-off period — Premature claims — Whether the investor had communicated its own claims rather than those of its local subsidiary — Whether the investor’s failure to comply with a waiting period of six months under the BIT required a tribunal to deny jurisdiction or admissibility — Whether the negotiation of a local subsidiary’s dispute in good faith was relevant to jurisdiction over a foreign investor’s claimsInterpretation — Cooling-off period — VCLT, Article 31 — Object and purpose — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT required a tribunal not to adopt a strict or formalistic interpretation of the waiting period of six monthsRemedies — Declaratory award — Interpretation — Just compensation — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to make a declaratory award on the interpretation and application of the term “just compensation”Jurisdiction — Dispute — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to advise the parties of an imminent disputeExpropriation — Direct deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the State directly deprived the investor of its rights as a shareholder in its local subsidiaryExpropriation — Indirect deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the shares had lost all or almost all significant commercial value — Whether the measures were adopted in the public interest — Whether due process had been followed — Whether there were any undertakings by the StateExpropriation — Interpretation — “Just compensation” — Whether there was any difference between the terms of the BIT and general international law — Whether the meaning of just compensation could be determined in the abstract631Fair and equitable treatment — Whether the impending expropriation constituted a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesFull protection and security — Whether the State failed to protect an investment from expropriation by local authorities — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesUmbrella clause — Whether there was any assurance directed at the investor that created any legal obligations — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesCosts — Arbitration costs — Variation by agreement — UNCITRAL Rules — Whether the terms of the BIT varied the default rules for the allocation of arbitration costs

Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 446-484
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Debt Recovery

446Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host StateJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liabilityJurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authorityState responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the StateFair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court ordersFair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law447Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatmentExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantumExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionateRemedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third StateCosts — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document