Investor-State Arbitration

Foreign Investment in the Post-2014 Ukraine: Signs of Improvement?

Foreign Investment in the Post-2014 Ukraine: Signs of Improvement?

Foreign direct investment (“FDI“) inflow in Ukraine was drastically reduced after the Euromaidan, the annexation of Crimea and the military unrest in the East of Ukraine. This number fell from $4.5 billion in 2013 to $410 million in 2014. The Ukrainian government faced the difficult task of improving the investment climate in the country. How well has […]

By 22 November, 2017 0 Comments Read More →
New Book: The Law and Practice of International Arbitration in the CIS Region

New Book: The Law and Practice of International Arbitration in the CIS Region

CIS Arbitration Forum authors and other experts from the region teamed up to produce the first comprehensive overview of commercial arbitration in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) region. The Law and Practice of International Arbitration in the CIS Region edited by Kaj Hober and Yarik Kryvoi provides a country-by-country analysis of regulation and practice […]

Belarus may face an ICSID claim for the first time

Belarus may face an ICSID claim for the first time

Over the entire period of its independence Belarus has never been a respondent in an investor-state dispute. This remains so despite the fact that the country adheres to an active policy of investment promotion. According to public data in the first quarter of 2017 the leading investment partners of Belarus originate from the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Cyprus […]

By 12 June, 2017 0 Comments Read More →
Baltic Arbitration Days-2017: issues discussed

Baltic Arbitration Days-2017: issues discussed

Riga hosted the 6th DIS Baltic Arbitration Days which discussed arbitration of disputes involving states or state-owned entities, corporate disputes and reflected on the lessons taught by annulment or  unenforceability of major arbitral awards in recent past. The conference was organised by BNT attorneys-at-law – one of leading international law firms in Central and Eastern […]

By 9 June, 2017 0 Comments Read More →
Интервью с генеральным секретарём МЦУИС Мег Киннер: МЦУИС и регион СНГ

Интервью с генеральным секретарём МЦУИС Мег Киннер: МЦУИС и регион СНГ

Арбитражный форум СНГ продолжает серию интервью с представителями крупных международных арбитражных организаций, занимающихся спорами, связанными с Россией и регионом СНГ. В этом месяце профессор Ярослав Кривой взял интервью у Мег Киннер, которая с 2008 года является генеральным секретарем Международного центра по урегулированию инвестиционных споров (МЦУИС) во Всемирном банке. Госпожа Киннер поделилась своими мыслями о том, […]

Interview with ICSID Secretary-General Meg Kinnear: ICSID and the CIS region

Interview with ICSID Secretary-General Meg Kinnear: ICSID and the CIS region

CIS Arbitration Forum continues its series of interviews with representatives of major international arbitration institutions working on disputes related to Russia and the CIS region. This month Professor Yarik Kryvoi interviewed Meg Kinnear, who since 2008 has been the Secretary-General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank. Ms Kinnear shared her […]

Conference overview: International Arbitration in the Spotlight: from Tokyo to New York

Conference overview: International Arbitration in the Spotlight: from Tokyo to New York

On 20 March 2017 Moscow hosted International Arbitration in the Spotlight: from Tokyo to New York, a conference organized by the LF Academy and Arbitration Centre at the Autonomous Non-profit Organisation ”Institute of Modern Arbitration” (Russia). CIS Arbitration Forum was its media partner. The first part of the event was devoted to the most recent […]

By 30 March, 2017 0 Comments Read More →
Round-Up of Investment Arbitrations Against CIS States: Recent Developments

Round-Up of Investment Arbitrations Against CIS States: Recent Developments

In the December 2016 – March 2017 period, some major procedural developments occurred in several pending and concluded investment arbitrations against CIS states. In some of these pending disputes, arbitral tribunals have asserted jurisdiction over the investors’ claims, addressing noteworthy issues such as: provisional application of the Energy Charter Treaty, application of BITs to investments in Crimea and corruption […]

Money Laundering Allegations by Kyrgyzstan against Latvian Investor Resurface in Paris Cour d’Appel

Money Laundering Allegations by Kyrgyzstan against Latvian Investor Resurface in Paris Cour d’Appel

In a recent judgment (21 February 2017), the Paris Cour d’Appel annulled the USD 15 million arbitral award in Valery Belokon v The Kyrgyz Republic rendered by the UNCITRAL tribunal against Kyrgyzstan under the 2008 Latvia-Kyrgyzstan BIT. The arbitral tribunal had previously rejected the allegations by Kyrgyzstan that the Claimant had, through its investment, Manas Bank, […]

By 28 February, 2017 0 Comments Read More →
Ukraine: 2016 international arbitration year in review

Ukraine: 2016 international arbitration year in review

2016 turned out to be extremely eventful yet quite exhausting for the international arbitration community in Ukraine. The rapidly changing arbitration environment and recent developments in the international arbitration arena leave no other option than to adapt oneself and break through. But would the inner powers of international arbitration in Ukraine suffice? In changes we […]

By 29 December, 2016 0 Comments Read More →
Paris court confirms state companies’ use of investment arbitration under Russia-Ukraine BIT (Ukraine v Tatneft)

Paris court confirms state companies’ use of investment arbitration under Russia-Ukraine BIT (Ukraine v Tatneft)

On 29 November 2016 the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court) decided to uphold the arbitration award in the long-lasting dispute between Russian oil firm PJSC Tatneft (the Tatneft) and Ukraine. In this case, Ukraine unsuccessfully tried to set aside the $112m investment treaty awards in favour of Tatneft. The main issue in the case was […]

Russian Investors Turning More Frequently to Investment Arbitration

Russian Investors Turning More Frequently to Investment Arbitration

In 2016 the Russian Federation has most commonly appeared on the host state’s end of investor-state disputes, facing numerous arbitration claims brought in relation to the events in Crimea. However, quite recently Russia has also become more involved as a home state, with Russian investors becoming more active in investor-state disputes. This post highlights the […]

By 22 November, 2016 0 Comments Read More →
Recent Investment Arbitration Disputes involving CIS States

Recent Investment Arbitration Disputes involving CIS States

The period of July–October 2016 has seen several developments in the field of Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the CIS region. The arbitral tribunals in these cases will further address issues such as: the succession of the former Soviet republics to USSR investment treaty obligations, the mandatory nature of local courts’ litigation provision in the Turkmenistan–Turkey […]

By 17 October, 2016 0 Comments Read More →
TSIKinvest LLC v. Republic of Moldova

TSIKinvest LLC v. Republic of Moldova

An investor filed the emergency arbitration proceeding against Moldova. The claims arose out of the suspension of claimant’s voting rights in a Moldovan bank and the forced sale of its shares within three months allegedly ordered by Moldova’s National Bank. The emergency arbitrator stayed Moldova’s attempts to force the claimant to divest its shares in a bank. The […]

Energoalians TOB v. Republic of Moldova

Energoalians TOB v. Republic of Moldova

In Energoalians TOB v. Republic of Moldova, an investor brought claims arising out of the non-payment of accumulated debt by the State-owned entity Moldtranselectro and by another former partner of Energoalians, for energy supplied in 1999-2000. The arbitration proceeded under the UNCITRAL Arbitration rules. The Tribunal decided in favour of the investor and the award was rendered on […]

State Enterprise “Energorynok v. Republic of Moldova

State Enterprise “Energorynok v. Republic of Moldova

Energorynok,  a state-owned energy company, brought an arbitration claim against the Republic of Moldova seeking to recover a debt of USD 1.7 million from an economic agent affiliated to Moldova’s Energy Ministry. The Tribunal found confusing and inconsistent the Claimant’s arguments on quantum and rejected the claim as groundless. The award was rendered on 29 January 2015 and is available […]

Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino-Invest Ltd. and Agurdino-Chimia JSC v. Republic of Moldova

Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino-Invest Ltd. and Agurdino-Chimia JSC v. Republic of Moldova

An investor filed the SCC arbitration claim alleging indirect expropriation after the Moldova’s Customs Department supposedly restricted the operations of claimant’s paint-manufacturing company in a so-called free economic zone. The tribunal rendered the decision on 31 January 2006 in favour of the State. The award is available here. Bogdanov and Agurdio Invest v.Moldova (SCC 2005)

Moldova: a Summary of Investment Arbitration History

Moldova: a Summary of Investment Arbitration History

The Republic of Moldova is a party to numerous multilateral investment treaties including the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT“) and the ICSID Convention, which came into force for Moldova on 4 June 2011. Moldova has also signed bilateral investment treaties (“BITs“) with 43 countries. This article presents a short overview of known investor-state cases brought against Moldova. Cases initiated by Yuri Bogdanov  Russian citizen […]

By 23 September, 2016 0 Comments Read More →
Kiev Arbitration Days 2016: Think Big! (KAD-2016)

Kiev Arbitration Days 2016: Think Big! (KAD-2016)

  Kiev Arbitration Days 2016: Think Big! Ukrainian Bar Association is happy to announce the next Kiev Arbitration Days 2016: Think Big! (KAD-2016) which will take place on 3 November 2016 in Radisson Blu Hotel, Kiev, Ukraine. The conference is conducted under the auspices of the Ukrainian Bar Association. KAD-2016 will bring together world-class dispute resolution […]

Counterclaims in Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan: Is Investor-State Arbitration Still a One-Way Road?

Counterclaims in Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan: Is Investor-State Arbitration Still a One-Way Road?

The arbitral tribunal in Oxus Gold Plc v The Republic of Uzbekistan in the final award that became publicly available in April 2016 rejected all counterclaims raised by the host state against the British investor. The award, rendered by Prof Pierre Tercier, Prof Brigitte Stern and Hon Marc Lalonde (issuing partial dissent on another legal issue) […]

Opposite Results in Two SCC Emergency Arbitrations (Evrobalt v Moldova and Kompozit v Moldova)

Opposite Results in Two SCC Emergency Arbitrations (Evrobalt v Moldova and Kompozit v Moldova)

Two recent Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC“) emergency arbitration awards in investment arbitrations against the Republic of Moldova, with different conclusions based on a similar factual and legal background, inject uncertainty regarding the interpretation of conditions for granting interim relief in investment arbitration, while reaffirming positions on certain long-debated issues. Practical implications The messages to […]

Interim Relief Against the Host State: Analysis of Emergency Awards against Moldova

Interim Relief Against the Host State: Analysis of Emergency Awards against Moldova

Applications for interim relief have become a frequently used procedural tool among foreign investors arbitrating against CIS states. Emergency arbitration proceedings under the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Arbitration Rules are particularly in demand: at least four applications for interim reliefs against CIS states have been filed since 2014 (TSIKInvest v Republic of Moldova; JKX Oil & […]

Kompozit LLC v Republic of Moldova (SCC Emergency Arbitration)

Kompozit LLC v Republic of Moldova (SCC Emergency Arbitration)

In June 2016 Kompozit LLC, a Russian shareholder of JSC Moldova Agroindbank (MAIB)  applied for interim relief from SCC Emergency Arbitrator Mr. José Rosell. The dispute arose out of the actions by the National Bank of Moldova impairing the Claimant’s shareholding in MAIB: finding that Claimant failed to receive its approval of obtaining substantive shareholding, subsequent suspension of its shareholding […]

Recent Investment Arbitration Cases involving CIS States

Recent Investment Arbitration Cases involving CIS States

While the spotlight of the CIS arbitration community is currently focused on investment disputes between Ukrainian claimants and the Russian Federation, moving to jurisdictional phase in mid-July 2016, other CIS states have also provided some noteworthy developments. This post highlights general trends identified in CIS-related Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS“) since 2015, and addresses certain cases that […]

Russia losing battles but winning wars with foreign investors: cases overview

Russia losing battles but winning wars with foreign investors: cases overview

More often than not, foreign investors reach some success in arbitration cases against Russia. However, obtaining ultimate remuneration for their efforts usually becomes a long and evasive target, because the award either gets annulled or faces insurmountable enforcement difficulties. Many international treaties of the Russian Federation including those concluded by the USSR as its legal predecessor include a “narrow” […]

ICSID Award Favours Turkmenistan and Spurs Controversy

ICSID Award Favours Turkmenistan and Spurs Controversy

On 8 March 2016, an ICSID Tribunal dismissed the claim of a Turkish investor against Turkmenistan finding that the alleged violation of the Turkey-Turkmenistan Bilateral treaty (“BIT”) was “entirely without merit.” The arbitral award appeared to be controversial and resulted in two dissenting opinions. İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/I0/24) is the first case […]

Arbitration Claims by Ukrainian Investors under the Russia-Ukraine BIT: between Crimea and a Hard Place?

Arbitration Claims by Ukrainian Investors under the Russia-Ukraine BIT: between Crimea and a Hard Place?

In the last two years, multiple investment arbitration claims have been registered against Russia in regards to the consequences of its actions in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (“Crimea”). The following cases are of particular interest: Stabil LLC and others v The Russian Federation LLC Lugzor and others v The […]

By 17 February, 2016 1 Comments Read More →
More Parties include ICC Arbitration Clauses, the Number of CIS Disputes Rising

More Parties include ICC Arbitration Clauses, the Number of CIS Disputes Rising

CIS Arbitration Forum continues its series of interviews with representatives of major international arbitration institutions working on disputes related to Russia and the CIS region. This month we interviewed Andrea Carlevaris who serves as Secretary General of the ICC International Court of Arbitration and Director of Dispute Resolution Services of the ICC. Mr Carlevaris spoke […]

By 22 December, 2015 0 Comments Read More →
Enforceability of Emergency Arbitrator Awards in Ukraine

Enforceability of Emergency Arbitrator Awards in Ukraine

In an earlier post the CIS Arbitration Forum reported on three investment treaty claims which have been initiated this year against Ukraine in the gas sector. In one of them a UK-based energy company, JKX Oil & Gas, and its Dutch and Ukrainian subsidiaries, Poltava Gas B.V. and JV Poltava Petroleum Company, obtained the first ever emergency arbitration award against […]

Remington Worldwide Limited (UK) v. Ukraine

Remington Worldwide Limited (UK) v. Ukraine

The Gibraltar registered company Remington Worldwide Limited (“Remington”) filed a request for arbitration with the SCC on 22 September 2008. According to information communicated  by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, the company accused Ukraine of violating several provisions of Article 10 of the ECT, and, in particular, of failure to provide effective means for the assertion of claims and enforcement of […]

Alex Genin and Others v. Republic of Estonia

Alex Genin and Others v. Republic of Estonia

The award in Alex Genin and others rendered on June 25, 2001 in the case of Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc., and A.S. Baltoil against the Republic of Estonia dismissed a claim brought by Mr. Genin, a national of the United States, and two companies owned by him. The case was brought under the […]

Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Republic of Georgia

Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Republic of Georgia

Two oil traders have been awarded more than US$45 million each in damages from the Republic of Georgia in an ICSID award that advances a broad interpretation of the fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard. Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Arbitration, (No. ARB:05:18, No ARB:07:15) Award dated 3 March 2010

Oko Pankki v. Republic of Estonia

Oko Pankki v. Republic of Estonia

In OKO Pankki, three banks brought claims arising out of Estonia’a default on loan agreements which had been made to a joint venture Estonian company. In bringing their claims, the claimants asserted violations of the standard of fair and equitable treatment under the Estonia-Germnay BIT and the Estonia-Finland BIT. The tribunal rendered the award in favor […]

United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v. Republic of Estonia

United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v. Republic of Estonia

In 2001, at the request of Estonia, United Utilities (Tallinn) BV made an investment in AS Tallinna Vesi by purchasing 50.4% of the shares in the Company. This was a part of Estonia’s privatisation of AS Tallinna Vesi. The privatisation was sponsored and closely supervised by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Since […]

Bidzina Ivanishvili v. Republic of Georgia

Bidzina Ivanishvili v. Republic of Georgia

On November 30, 2012, prior to the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal, the ICSID Secretariat received a letter from the Claimant, requesting the discontinuance of the proceeding pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 44. Respondent consented. The Secretary-General issued the order on discontinuance of the proceeding. Bidzina Ivanishvili v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:12:27), […]