İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan
İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/24 – Decision on Claimant’s Proposal to Disqualify Professor Philippe Sands- 11 July
Tag: investment arbitration
VTB Capital v. Nutritek International Corporation
UK Court of Appeal VTB Capital v Nutritek International Corp April 2012
KT Asia Investment Group B.V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan
KT Asia Investment Group B.V. v Kazakhstan, ICSID Arbitration, Award dated August 2013
Garanty Koza v. Turkmenistan
Garanty Koza v Turkmenistan, ICSID Arbitration, Award dated 3 July 2013
Becoming a Tradition: Second International Arbitration School in Ukraine
On 7-11 May the Ukrainian Arbitration Association (“UAA”) held the Second International Arbitration School. It remained faithful to its main aims of building up knowledge of arbitration in particular among students and young practitioners. The School served as a forum to exchange experiences in the area and to promote Ukraine as the seat of arbitration. […]
New UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules on Transparency and Investment Arbitration in the CIS Region
The April UNCTAD report on recent developments in investor-state dispute settlement shows that arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules constitute 28% of the total investment disputes conducted by the end of 2013. The findings are even more important for the CIS region as many of its countries, such as the Russian Federation, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Tajikistan […]
Kyrgyz Republic’s Mixed Fortunes in Investment Arbitration
The Kyrgyz Republic found itself on the receiving end of a flurry of investment arbitration claims a couple of years ago. While it has since successfully resolved a number of cases, it has also lost several times. This post looks at two important recent developments. The first one is three awards rendered against the Kyrgyz […]
Деконструкция компетентностного подхода арбитража при Московской ТПП в инвестиционных спорах против Киргизии
Инвестиционный спор в Арбитраже Московской ТПП – А.И. Муранов
Turkmenistan: Two Recent Decisions on Jurisdiction Prove that the BIT Matters
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 […]
ABA Conference – Is Russia Becoming More Arbitration-Friendly?
The ABA’s Fifth Annual Conference on the Resolution of the CIS-Related Business Dispute took place on 27 September 2013 in Moscow. More than 140 delegates from around the globe attended the conference, which featured six panels and a set of mock hearings in a complex cross-border dispute. The conference’s panels covered a broad spectrum of […]
The Value of Expropriated Oil Assets Arbitrated at ICDR Y&I Seminar in Moscow
On 26 September the International Centre for Dispute Resolution Young & International (ICDR Y&I) held a seminar on damages in international arbitration on the premises of the Independent Arbitration Chamber, Moscow. The discussion focused on two issues: (i) valuation date and (ii) pre-award interest. Ms Noradèle Radjai (member of the Executive Board of ICDR Young […]
ICSID Rejects Denial of Justice Claims against Kazakhstan in a Recently Released Award
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 & ors v. Republic of Kazakhstan
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)
Franck Charles Arif v. Republic of Moldova
Mr Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:11:23), Award dated 8 April 2013
Sistem v. Republic of Kyrgyzstan
Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB(AF):06:1), 24 August 2009
Rumble Telekom v. Republic of Kazakhstan
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 v. Republic of Uzbekistan
Romak S.A. v Republic of Uzbekistan, PCA Arbitration (No. AA280), 22 November 2009
Renta 4 et al v. Russian Federation
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 SICAV S.A. et al v. Russian Federation
Quasar de Valores SICAN S.A. v the Russian Federation, SCC Arbitration, Award dated 20 July 2012
Sergei Paushok v. Republic of Mongolia
Sergei Paushok v Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Award 28 April 2011
Bogdanov and Others v. Moldova
Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino, Invest Ltd, Agurdino–Chimia JSC v Moldova, SCC Arbitration No. V (114:2009), Award dated 22 September 2005
Link Trading v. Moldova
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 v. Azerbajan
Azpetrol companies vs. Republic of Azerbaijan, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/15, 02.09.2009
Gazprom v. Republic of Lithuania
Gazprom v Republic of Lithuania, SCC Arbitration No. V (125:2011), Award dated 31 July 2012
Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine
Generation Ukraine, INC. v Ukraine, ICSID Arbitration (No. ARB:00:9), Award dated 15 September 2003
Investor (unnamed) v. Republic of Kazakhstan
Investor vs. Kazakhstan, SCC Arbitration (No. 122/2001), Award dated 2004
Inmaris Perestroika v. Ukraine
Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GMBH and others v Ukraine, ISCID Arbitration (No. ARB:08:8), Decision on Jurisdiction dated 8 March 2010
Al-Bahloul v. Republic of Tajikistan
Mohammad Ammar Al. Bahloul v. Republic of Tajikistan, SCC ArtliIralion No V (060II200l), Award dated 8 June 2010
Rosinvestco UK Ltd. v. Russian Federation
Rosinvestco UK Ltd. vs. the Russian Federation, SCC Arbitration No. V (079/2005), 10.2007 (Award on Jurisdiction)
Vladimir Berschader and MoiseBerschader v. Russian Federation
Vladimir Berschader and MoiseBerschader v the Russian Federation, SCC Arbitration (No. 080:2004), Award dated 21 April 2006
Caratube v. Kazakhstan Contributes to the Definition of Investment Debate
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” Saga: The First ECT Arbitration Conducted in Russian
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 […]
ICSID Tribunal: Kyrgyzstan Judiciary’s Decisions Amounted to Expropriation
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 […]
ICSID Tribunal Refuses Jurisdiction in a Dispute Against Kazakhstan
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 […]
Paushok et al. v. Mongolia: Windfall Profit Tax and Immigration Requirements Compatible with FET Standard
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.