This summer ICSID tribunals resolved jurisdictional challenges in two cases arising out of construction projects in Turkmenistan. In Kilic Insaat Ithalat Ihracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1) the tribunal decided that it does not have jurisdiction. It held that the investor failed to litigate its claims in the Turkmen courts […]
Last week ICSID released a redacted version of a 2010 award in Liman Caspian Oil B.V. and NCL Dutch Investment B.V. v. Kazakhstan. While both the facts of the case and the parties’ positions have been redacted, the remaining parts of the award provide illuminating analysis of such issues as legality of the investment as a […]
Liman Caspian Oil BV and NCL Dutch Investment BV v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/14, Award dated 22 June 2010 (excerpts)
Mr Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:11:23), Award dated 8 April 2013
Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB(AF):06:1), 24 August 2009
Rumeli Telekom A.S.and Telsim Mobil Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:05:16), Award dated 17 July 2008
Romak S.A. v Republic of Uzbekistan, PCA Arbitration (No. AA280), 22 November 2009
Renta 4 S.V.S.A. v Russian Federation, SCC Arbitration No. V (024:2007), Award of Prelimenary Objections dated 20 March 2009
Quasar de Valores SICAN S.A. v the Russian Federation, SCC Arbitration, Award dated 20 July 2012
Sergei Paushok v Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Award 28 April 2011
Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino, Invest Ltd, Agurdino–Chimia JSC v Moldova, SCC Arbitration No. V (114:2009), Award dated 22 September 2005
Link Trading Joint Stock Company vs. Republic of Moldova, UNCITRAL Arbitration, 16.02.2001 Link Trading Joint Stock Company vs. Republic of Moldova, UNCITRAL Arbitration, 18.04.2002
Azpetrol companies vs. Republic of Azerbaijan, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/15, 02.09.2009
Gazprom v Republic of Lithuania, SCC Arbitration No. V (125:2011), Award dated 31 July 2012
Generation Ukraine, INC. v Ukraine, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:00:9), Award dated 15 September 2003
Investor vs. Kazakhstan, SCC Arbitration (No. 122/2001), Award dated 2004
Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GMBH and others v Ukraine, ISCID Arbitration (No. ARB:08:8), Decision on Jurisdiction dated 8 March 2010
Mohammad Ammar Al. Bahloul v. Republic of Tajikistan, SCC ArtliIralion No V (060II200l), Award dated 8 June 2010
We reported earlier that in June 2012 an ICSID tribunal dismissed Caratube International’s USD 1 billion claim against Kazakhstan on jurisdictional grounds. The full text of the award has now been released and is discussed in this article. The dispute centred around the termination of Caratube’s licence to an oilfield in Kazakhstan and allegations that Caratube […]
Remington Worldwide Limited v Ukraine is interesting not only as the first arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (the “ECT”) conducted in Russian. It also reasserts the importance of a fundamental aspect of the rule of law – the principle of legal certainty. The case demonstrates how far-reaching the effects of the application of the exceptions from […]
The importance of an ICSID award rendered in a case which involved Kyrgyzstan goes beyond the facts of the case and covered topics such as the corruption of state officials, expropriation through judicial action and calculation of the value of expropriated property in the absence of comparable transactions in Central Asia. In 2005 the Kyrgyz […]
According to the Kazakh Ministry of Justice, a foreign company which initiated a dispute against Kazakhstan has failed to establish that it was controlled by a national of a state party to the ICSID Convention. The ICSID tribunal in Caratube International Oil Company v Kazakhstan decided that the claim was brought by a Kazakh company which failed […]
In a recently published award a tribunal found that the windfall profit tax introduced by Mongolia as well as introduction of a penalty for exceeding the limit on employment of foreign nationals were compatible with the FET standard established by the Mongolia-Russia BIT. On the other hand, the tribunal found that the conduct of Mongolian […]
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.