Trying to create a favourable investment climate, all CIS states have adopted investment protection laws which provide certain privileges to foreign investors. However, when it comes to ratification of international treaties in which states reflect consent to international arbitration of investment disputes, the situation is more nuanced. All CIS countries are parties to the basic international […]
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 […]
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, […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
This arbitration concerns a dispute between İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi, a company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Turkey, and Turkmenistan. The dispute was submitted by the Claimant to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) on the basis of the Agreement between the Republic of Turkey and Turkmenistan concerning the Reciprocal Promotion […]
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 […]
Parties agreed to settle the case and proceeding was discontinued at their request. Order taking note of the discontinuance was issued by the Tribunal on June 1, 2006 pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1). Western NIS Enterprise Fund v Ukraine, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:04:2), Order dated 16 March 2006
Kryvoi, Yaraslau and Davydenko, Dmitry, Consent Awards in International Arbitration: From Settlement to Enforcement (November 7, 2015). Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Volume 40, pp. 827-868, 2015. Full text available at SSRN.
Even though third party funding is increasingly common in international arbitration, the disclosure of funding arrangements is relatively rare and is required only in exceptional circumstances. Earlier this year in Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti v. Turkmenistan the ICSID tribunal issued an order to compel the parties to disclose third party funding arrangements. Brief […]
2014 was one of the most difficult years in the contemporary history of Ukraine in both political and economic terms. The country lived through the Revolution of Dignity in February, the annexation of Crimea in March, the ongoing military conflict in eastern Ukraine and deep financial and economic crisis. In order to counter these difficulties and to […]
Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6 – Decision on Respondent’s Objection to Jurisdiction under Article VII(2) – 13 February 2015
Following the annexation of Crimea by Russia multiple reports suggest that there is underway a redistribution of property, which belongs not only to Ukraine but also to Ukrainian and foreign private owners. This raises the question of whether interests of foreign investors can be protected by means of international arbitration. A preliminary analysis of international public law […]
The tribunal in the recently released award in Metal-Tech Ltd. v Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3) decided not to establish its jurisdiction over an investor claim because of corruption. The dispute erupted after the termination of a raw material supply contract and cancellation of an exclusive right to export of refined molybdenum oxide. Uzbekistan won a favourable […]
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 […]
In an earlier post CIS Arbitration Forum reported that Ukraine was ordered to pay in the region of EUR 3 million to German investors in Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v Ukraine. At that time the final award dated 1 March 2012 had not been published yet. However, recently the excerpts of this award became available. […]
Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and Others v. Ukraine, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:08:8), Award dated 1 March 2012
On 8 April 2013, the tribunal rendered an award in Arif v Moldova, the first ICSID arbitration against Moldova, which commenced several months after it had ratified the ICSID Convention. The tribunal (Cremades, Hanotiau, Knieper) rejected the majority of the investor’s claims, but found that Moldova had in one instance violated the obligation to provide fair […]
Mr Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:11:23), Award dated 8 April 2013
Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:02:18), 29 June 2004
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
Azpetrol companies vs. Republic of Azerbaijan, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/15, 02.09.2009
Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v Ukraine, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:09:11), Award dated 23 November 2010
Alpha Projektholding GMBH v Ukraine, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:07:16), Award dated 20 October 2010
Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:10:1), Award dated 7 May 2012 Separate Opinion of Professor William Park May 2013
On November 19-20, 2012 the Minsk-based International University “MITSO” hosted a rather unusual event for Belarus. In collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs it held a two-day investments disputes settlement workshop with the participation of the Secretary-General of ICSID and a team of outstanding Belarusian and foreign experts in the sphere of international investment […]
On 25 October 2012 an ICSID Tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims submitted by a US company Bosh International and its subsidiary (“Bosh”) against Ukraine. The claims arose out of the termination of a joint activities agreement (“JVA”) between a subsidiary of the claimant and Taras Shevchenko National University (the “University”) with respect to a conference […]
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 […]
Two weeks ago the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine decided to allow state organs to make payments under orders for security for costs or security for the claim issued by foreign courts and arbitral tribunals. The new rules are expected to remove some practical difficulties the Ukrainian authorities currently face in such situations. According to the Ministry […]
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 decision released by the ICSID on May 25, 2012 the Tribunal found that the Turkey-Turkmenistan BIT required submission of the dispute in question to the national courts before the initiation of international arbitration proceedings. The tribunal however specifically noted that it is yet to decide on the effect of non-compliance with this condition. […]
The Ministry of Justice of Ukraine has reported that on 1 March 2012 an ICSID tribunal ordered Ukraine to pay in the region of EUR 3 million in damages to German investors. This is the third ICSID case against Ukraine that has resulted in monetary compensation to foreign investors. In the first case – Alpha Projektholding […]
This summer an UNCITRAL tribunal sitting in Stockholm held that it had no jurisdiction over a case submitted by Italian company Cesare Galdabini under Italy-Russian Federation BIT. According to media reports the claim arose out Russian Federation refusal to settle a debt owed for EUR 278’000 worth of equipment, which Galdabini supplied in the end […]
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.