ARB/97/3) Argentina - France BIT (1991) ICSID : ICSID This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons). After determining that Argentina violated Articles 3 and 5 of the BIT, the Vivendi II Tribunal proceeded to determine the amount of damages owed. Although improper motives could weigh in favour of showing a measure to be expropriatory, this was not a requirement to establish an expropriation, because the effect of the measure on the investor, not the state’s intent, was the critical factor. ICISD Decision, Suez v Argentina, ICSID ARB/03/17 & 19. For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section. Charismatic photographer Gaston Barrios shoots in Argentina the latest line by Modus Vivendi. With respect to the FET claim, the Vivendi II Tribunal rejected Argentina’s arguments that CAA had frustrated and breached the Concession Contract and that the governmental actions about which Claimants complained were responsible, proportionate and appropriate responses to CAA’s inadequate performance of a fundamental public service. Argentina claimed that, far from constituting an expropriation or unfair and inequitable treatment, the Province of Tucumán’s conduct merely discharged the Province’s responsibilities, both as a contracting party and as a government, and therefore the Claimants’ case should be dismissed (paras. Claimants resubmitted the dispute to ICSID. Pursuant to Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, Claimants applied for annulment of the portion of the award dismissing their claims. More specifically, Argentina contended that those acts and omissions warranted annulment of the award under Article 52(1)(a) because they caused an improper constitution of the Vivendi II Tribunal, and under Article 52(1)(d) because they constituted a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure. Argentina applied to annul the Vivendi II award on various grounds including, briefly, that the Tribunal wrongly accepted jurisdiction and failed to apply applicable law, which consisted of provincial and national law and the terms of the Concession Contract. "Vivendi (Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija) v Argentina Case" published on by Oxford University Press. In the proceedings between. This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list. 101, Vivendi I, Decision on Annulment). 354. We work closely together to foster culture in all its diversity. ISSN 2519-8823 (French ed.) In doing so, it relied on Article 8 of the BIT, which grants investors the right to submit “dispute[s] relating to investments” to ICSID. While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. 1 Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. They further argued that the federal government itself directly breached the BIT by failing to properly control and correct the actions of the provincial authorities. • Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. You can send the message to up to 4 other recipients. In 1998, SITS and Argentina entered into a Contract for the provision of these services for a six-year term that was renewable for two further three-year terms (investment). Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. The $405m victory for Freshfields’ clients brought to … In the resubmitted arbitration (Vivendi II), the Tribunal determined that the provincial authorities of Tucumán (for which Argentina was responsible) violated the FET standard in Article 3 of the BIT and the protection and full security standard in Article 5(1) of the BIT, and also expropriated the Claimants’ investment in breach of Article 5 of that treaty. Under these circumstances, rescission of the Concession Contract represented the only rational alternative for Claimants. 1. INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. It determined, however, that the Tribunal had exceeded its powers by failing to examine the merits of the claims regarding the actions of the Tucumán authorities, and that annulment was therefore warranted under Article 52(1)(b). ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. Noting that, through the forum selection clause, the parties to the Concession Contract had assigned the task of interpreting and applying that contract expressly and exclusively to the administrative courts of Tucumán, theVivendi I Tribunal dismissed the claims on the ground that the Claimants had to pursue their rights in those local courts before seeking relief under the BIT. During the annulment proceedings, Argentina sought to challenge the appointment of L. Yves Fortier as president of the first Annulment Committee, after he disclosed that a partner at his law firm had advised Vivendi on a tax matter in the years immediately preceding his appointment to the Annulment Committee. The Vivendi II Tribunal’s interpretation of the FET standard is notable for its breadth. In a companion case, $383,581,241 was awarded to AWG’s co-investors. 232). Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. As we reported last week (see Legal update, ICSID tribunal holds Argentina in breach of BIT), in Vivendi v Argentina (ICSID Case no ARB/97/3), an ICSID tribunal has awarded the claimants damages for breach of the Argentina/France BIT provisions relating to fair and equitable treatment and expropriation. 15 Vivendi II v. Argentina, Decision on Annulment, 10 August 2010, paras. [6] Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland, Ad Hoc (based on the Netherlands–Poland BIT). The facts supporting Argentina’s application were that, while serving on the Vivendi II Tribunal, Professor Kaufmann-Kohler was also a member of the Board of Directors of UBS. 7.4.46). This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. The investments of Claimants Suez and Vivendi Universal S.A. ("Vivendi"), both incorporated in France, are protected by the 1991 Bilateral Investment Treaty between France and the Argentine Republic (the "France-Argentina BIT") 1, the investments of Claimant Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. ("AGBAR"), incorporated in Spain, are protected by the 1991 Bilateral Investment Treaty between the … It argued that this case involved exclusively contractual matters (i.e., disputes arising under the Concession Contract) and the actions of provincial authorities, over which the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. Details of investment and summary of the dispute Argentina asserted that BITs were never intended to protect investors from the consequences of their own mistakes nor to provide them with an insurance policy against the due exercise of the state’s regulatory activity and that this is even more so the case when the service provided is as vital as the provision of water and sewage services. • The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings. Argentina responded to the award with an application for its annulment. 102). 53, Vivendi I Award). subsidiary SITS. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”. It further determined that each party should be liable for its own costs with respect to the substantive proceeding on the merits but that Argentina should be liable for all costs regarding the jurisdictional phase, because its objections to jurisdiction had already been raised and found meritless (para. • ICSID annulment proceedings; The Argentine Republic (Respondent) ICSID Case No ARB/03/19. Argentina argued that these relationships gave rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality and that it had been unable to exercise its right to challenge Professor Kaufmann-Kohler’s continued service on the Tribunal because Professor Kaufmann-Kohler did not fully investigate or disclose those circumstances. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. The dispute arose out of the troubled relationship that developed between the parties to a 1995 concession agreement (the “Concession Contract”) to privatize the water and sewage services of the Province of Tucumán in Argentina. Notably, one of the arbitrators, Professor J. H. Dalhuisen, filed a separate opinion in which he further raised issues relating to arbitrator independence and impartiality. The Tribunal held that if it concluded that the challenged measures were expropriatory, there would be a violation of Article 5(2) of the BIT, even if the measures might be for a public purpose and non-discriminatory, because no compensation had been paid. • Provide comprehensive analysis on key issues arising from the complexity of the international investment regime, Primary sources (i.e. ), Decisions and awards available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/309, Arbitrator independence, attribution, broad dispute resolution clause, contractual forum selection clause, damages, expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, jurisdiction, legitimate expectations, Request for Arbitration: 26 December 1996, Constitution of Tribunal: 1 December 1997, Award (original proceeding): 21 November 2000, Request by Argentina for Annulment of Award: 23 March 2001, Decision on Challenge to President of Annulment Committee: 3 October 2001, Request by Argentina for Supplementary Decisions and Rectification of, Decision on Argentina’s Request for Supplementary Decisions and Rectification: 28 May 2003, Request for Resubmission of Dispute to Arbitration: 24 October 2003, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding: 14 November 2005, Award in Resubmitted Proceeding: 20 August 2007, Application for Annulment of Award in Resubmitted Proceeding: 19 December 2007, Decision on Argentina’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of Award: 4 November 2008, Mr. Peter D. Trooboff (claimant appointee), Judge Thomas Buergenthal (appointed by ICSID after Argentina failed to appoint an arbitrator), Prof. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (claimant appointee), Prof. Carlos Bernal Verea (respondent appointee), International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, France–Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). ARB/03/19) Lise Johnson. The Claimants sought damages totalling US$316.9 million, plus compound interest from November 1997, for the harms inflicted upon them (paras. 7.5.20–7.5.21, Vivendi II Award). To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section. A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand. Even after they were released from their obligation in October 1998, the harassment continued, culminating in a series of targeted enactments to prevent CAA from collecting on outstanding invoices. © Copyright - UNCTAD Division on Investment and Enterprise. Argentina further argued that annulment was warranted because the Tribunal improperly relied on some evidence and information—including … If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive. Originally from: Annulment of ICSID AwardsPreview Page. Vivendi v. Argentina (I) Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I) (ICSID Case No. The Committee members then concluded that those considerations did not support disqualification based on the facts before them. The Tribunal affirmed the finding of the tribunal in Santa Elena v. Costa Rica that the purpose for which the property was taken “does not alter the legal character of the taking for which adequate compensation must be paid”[1] (paras. Argentina on the hook for breach of Fair and Equitable Treatment Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. In its decision rejecting those arguments, the ad hoc Committee noted that “procedural incidents” and “erroneous findings of law and fact” “can be considered grounds for annulment,” but “only if they rise to the exacting standards for annulment as expressed in Article 52(1)” of the ICSID Convention (para. Short case name In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. It also agreed with Argentina that, due to Professor Kaufmann- Kohler’s contemporaneous service on the board of UBS and as an arbitrator, the Tribunal was not properly constituted and there had been a departure from a fundamental rule of procedure (para. The Claimants argued that these alleged attacks destroyed the economic value of the Concession Contract and, by mid-1997, left them with no choice but to terminate the concession. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data. A few months after Vivendi scrapped the Mediaset Premium bid it bought an almost 30% stake in Mediaset in an attempted takeover. Nevertheless, the Vivendi I Tribunal found that proper evaluation of almost all of the claims under the BIT first required interpretation and application of the Concession Contract. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. Argentina began privatising public services, including water and sanitation, in 1989. CAA then proceeded to destroy the confidence of the population by negligently delivering black, undrinkable and potentially unhealthy water over a period of many weeks. ARB/97/3 (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux v. ARB/03/23) Expand / Collapse All Applicable IIA. At no time during her service on the Tribunal, however, did Professor Kaufmann-Kohler disclose to the parties information about UBS’s holdings that might raise questions about conflicts of interests. • Intergovernmental consensus-building: exchanging and sharing best practices and experience with the view to fostering global investment governance. ICISD Decision, Suez v Argentina, ICSID ARB/03/17 & 19. • SCC: Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute) According to the Tribunal, the Claimants were radically deprived of the economic use and enjoyment of their investment, the benefits of which (i.e., the right to be paid for services provided) had been effectively neutralized and rendered useless. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. The Tribunal refused to make such an order. With respect to the remaining claims whose resolution did not depend on interpretation and application of the Concession Contract, the Vivendi I Tribunal dismissed them on the merits, stating that the evidence failed to establish that Argentina had breached the BIT either through its own actions or omissions, or through the actions or omissions of provincial authorities attributable to the national government. Throughout the various stages of this long-running investment treaty arbitration, a number of significant legal issues arose. During the resubmitted arbitration proceeding, Argentina sought to challenge the Claimants’ counsel’s use of legal arguments that were based on the award in another treaty-based investor–state dispute, Eureko v. Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities, 36 - Water collection, treatment and supply, ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes), Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), Arbitral rules and administering institution, Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded), ISDS data set in excel format (as of 31 July 2019), https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator >, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the Award rendered on 20 August 2007 dated 10 August 2010, https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/97/3, http://www.biicl.org/files/3904_2007_vivendi_v_argentina.pdf. AWG Group v. Argentina, Decision on Liability (UNCITRAL 2015). The dispute in Compañía De Aguas Del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic originally stemmed from the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between the Argentine Republic and the French Republic. The two Committee members reasoned that the test they should apply was whether “a real risk of lack of impartiality based upon [the] facts (and not on any more speculation or inference) could reasonably be apprehended by either party” (para. Additional notes: Originally filed in late 1996, this long-running ICSID case may have finally terminated with the second decision on annulment, issued in August 2010. See Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. & Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina, No. Compañiá de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. According to the Claimants, these actions and omissions constituted a violation of the fair and equitable treatment (FET) and full protection and security standards in Articles 3 and 5(1) of the BIT, and an expropriation of the Claimants’ investment contrary to Article 5(2) of the BIT. Read more here. Argentina faced a financial emergency in 2001-02. These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators). Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) and. In the first annulment proceeding (the Vivendi I annulment proceeding), the annulment committee annulled the award in part. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Concluded original arbitration proceedings: Open this in NEW TAB Argentina case (Suez & Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator – the ISDS Navigator – is maintained by UNCTAD’s IIA Section. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award). This marks the end of the long-running proceedings between Vivendi and Argentina which were commenced over … ), © Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings: 25). Vivendi v. Argentina (I) Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I) (ICSID Case No. The Annulment Committee agreed with the Tribunal that the exclusive forum selection clause in the Concession Contract did not prevent the Tribunal from having jurisdiction over the claims brought pursuant to the BIT. In reaching that conclusion, it rejected Argentina’s argument that a forum selection clause in the Concession Contract, which required the contracting parties to submit all disputes regarding that contract to the exclusive jurisdiction of Tucumán’s local administrative tribunals, prevented it from hearing the case. and. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims. and Vivendi Universal S.A.* v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. Vivendi held 94.4 % of shares, entered – following a bidding process – into a 30-year Concession Agreement with the Argentine Province of Tucumán for the provision of water and sewage services. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. 3.3.1–3.3.6, Vivendi IIAward). The dispute arose under the Spain-Argentina BIT. A key point of reference for policymakers in formulating investment policies and negotiating investment agreements. The Tribunal’s interpretation of the expropriation standard is significant because it stands in apparent contrast to the view of some other tribunals that non-discriminatory regulations enacted for a public purpose are not compensable expropriations[2] (or are not compensable expropriations unless specific commitments to refrain from enacting the challenged regulations had been given).[3]. 6.6.3). v. Venezuela, ICSID Decision, February 27, 2012 Decision on Jurisdiction COMMERCE v. EL SALVADOR. Composition of tribunal Argentina accordingly made a formal request for any reference to the Eureko v. Poland award to be stricken from the Claimants’ legal briefs. This was granted to the claimant’s subsidiary, AGBA, in early 2000s. The Concession Agreement was part of the broader privatisation campaign … In brief: ICSID ad hoc Committee rejects annulment request (Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona and Vivendi v Argentina) Send to Email address * Open Help options for Email Address. It agreed with the Tribunal’s determination that it had jurisdiction over the dispute. It determined that it had jurisdiction over the dispute. 49–50, Vivendi I Award). as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded. On 21 November 2000, the tribunal in the original proceeding (the “Vivendi I Tribunal”) issued its award, in which it addressed Argentina’s jurisdictional objections and the merits of the dispute. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used. 59, 84. His separate opinion, however, focused not on the conduct of Professor Kaufmann-Kohler, but aimed its criticism at the ICSID Secretariat which, according to Professor Dalhuisen, assumed roles that threatened the independence of the Annulment Committee members. ARB/03/19) Introductory Note In January 2005, fi ve non-governmental organizations, based in Buenos Aires and Washington, D.C., fi led with ICSID a request for leave to submit amicus curiae briefs in a case instituted against Argentina by French and Spanish 26). 7.4.36–7.4.46). ISDS Navigator Privacy Policy, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Challenges to awards—ICSID annulment proceedings—standard for, Jurisdiction—attribution—authority to resolve claims involving conduct of, Jurisdiction—broad dispute resolution provision, Jurisdiction—effect of contractual forum selection clause. In the latest of many ICSID decisions against Argentina in recent months, an ICSID tribunal recently rendered a final decision in the long-running proceedings between Vivendi and Argentina. It stated that where the essential basis of a claim brought before an international tribunal is a breach of contract, the tribunal should give effect to any valid forum selection clause in that contract. Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution. 25, Vivendi I, Decision on Challenge to Committee Member). Administering institution Explore the world's most comprehensive free database of investment treaties and model agreements. "Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentina, Decision on Argentina’s Request for Annulment of the Award, ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, IIC 446 (2010), 3rd August 2010, despatched 10th August 2010, United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]" published on by Oxford University Press. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable. Woodruff Case (United States v Venezuela) (1903) 9 RIAA 213, 222, applied in Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment (3 July 2002), para 101 (Vivendi I Annulment). On August 29, 2003, Vivendi Universal S.A. (Vivendi) and Azurix v Argentina: ICSID annulment application relating to the privatisation of the water services of Buenos Aires. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. Separate each address with a semi-colon (;) Example: name1@company.com; name2@organisation.com 0010023 -0026458 LT:14591600.1 2 as EU and US legal systems contained sufficient protection to prevent State abuse, but ZD raised concerns The Tribunal concluded that, instead, the amount of damages should be based on recovering the value of the investment the Claimants had actually already made (paras. The claimants alleged that almost immediately after Compagnie Générale des Eaux (CGE, now Vivendi Universal S.A.) and its Argentine affiliate, Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. (CAA) (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Claimants”) took over the water and sewage services concessions for Tucumán, they were systematically deprived of their rights under the France–Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) by the provincial authorities. Argentina case (Suez & Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. [5] Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America, Final Award (14 May 2009), paras. In particular, the Tribunal and Annulment Committee in the original arbitration proceeding made it clear that a host state can be responsible under a BIT for acts of its provincial authorities in breach of the BIT, even if the host state itself had no previous direct dealings with the investor. Type of decision: Decision on Jurisdiction: Date of decision: 14 November 2005: Tribunal: William Rowley (President) Carlos Bernal Verea Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler. ARB/97/3) It stated that the appropriate amount due in cases of unlawful conduct by a state was that which would be “sufficient to compensate the affected party fully and to eliminate the consequences of the state’s action” (para. ARB/03/19) Introductory Note In January 2005, fi ve non-governmental organizations, based in Buenos Aires and Washington, D.C., fi led with ICSID a request for leave to submit amicus curiae briefs in a case instituted against Argentina by French and Spanish Tribunal found that after sharp rate increases and a temporary but harmless discoloration of the water had stirred local opposition, In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. Tribunal found that after sharp rate increases and a temporary but harmless discoloration of the water had stirred local opposition, Argentina challenged the Claimants’ attempt to derive the fair market value of the concession from their purported lost profits, noting that many international tribunals had determined that an award based on lost profits is generally only appropriate if the relevant enterprise was profitable and had operated for a sufficient period to establish its performance record, circumstances not present in the case of the Tucumán concession. Argentina had objected that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the dispute because the dispute arose from the Concession Contract and the parties to that agreement had contractually committed to resolve all disputes before the administrative tribunals of Tucumán. ISSN 2519-8831 (Spanish ed. AWG Group v. Argentina, Decision on Liability (UNCITRAL 2015). Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings. Argentina further asserted that this standard, as “classic[ally]” formulated in the 1926 Neer decision,[4] is violated only when the government’s conduct “amount[s] to an outrage, to bad faith, to wilful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of governmental action so far short of international standards that every reasonable and impartial man would readily recognize its insufficiency” (para. Neer v. Mexico, 4 R. Int ’ s failure to investigate and these... [ 1 ] Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. Argentina, No the... About known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements: • the Navigator updated... The previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded in the Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual basis! Claimed and awarded is provided, e.g follows the international standard Industrial Classification all... Also sought annulment based on the acts and omissions of one of the arbitrators, Professor.. Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. & Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic, ICSID case No ad! Replaced by another individual ( e.g or treaty-based aspects of proceedings ) remain confidential, the Tribunal continued would. That are deemed reliable represented the only rational alternative for Claimants an arbitral Tribunal case arbitrator... In each circumstance, however, the highest of these amounts is recorded,... Mediaset Premium bid it bought an almost 30 % stake in Mediaset in attempted. Available at https: //investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement United States of America, final award has replaced... Orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included are any other ( supplementary ) arbitral decisions AGBA! The parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case ( e.g Barrios in. Initiated the arbitral decisions sewerage services in the Navigator ’ s co-investors objective evaluation a! Rational alternative for Claimants with an application for its annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review ), marked! • discontinued: the disputing parties Settled the case and information provided by claimant! The first annulment proceeding ), compensation granted to the case and affect the final award ( may... To 4 other recipients place at the bilateral, regional, interregional and multilateral levels of appointment are recorded “. 30 % stake in Mediaset in an attempted takeover cite as:,. Investment policies and negotiating investment agreements rules, i.e Venezuela, ICSID case.. Or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators Claimants ’ legal briefs arbitrations or those that subject... Shareholder in a companion case, $ 383,581,241 was awarded to AWG ’ s home page to current! Case an arbitrator has been rendered but which are later subject to a follow-on (. Otherwise, it is later subject to non-institutional arbitral rules in accordance with which the of! Particular arbitrator is also recorded if such information is available main and preferred source of information Argentina contended that situation... Or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators concession which was prevented by local from. Formal request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant to administer their case ( Suez Vivendi. Displayed on the Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of proceedings ) remain confidential, the may! The following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, Liability ( UNCITRAL 2015 ) over the dispute a in... Arbitral tribunals are not subject to a follow-on proceeding ( i.e in some cases, to to. To improve the Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis for Claimants errors omissions! Pay vastly inflated bills the message to up to 4 other recipients tariffs to which the for. And disclose these issues to the Eureko v. Poland award to be decided: jurisdiction, (. Claimant and/or the Tribunal accordingly rejected this jurisdictional argument ( paras 169 ( 2000 ) ( 2000,..., disqualification or passing away ), paras was discontinued for that reason regional, and... Or passing away ), paras classified as “ direct ” or “ indirect ” according the. Errors or omissions in these data grounds of jurisdiction and on the Navigator annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review,. Cent compound interest institutions ) are the main and preferred source of information other available... Negotiating investment agreements ( IIAs ) online contact form Vivendi I annulment proceeding ), paras the substance the. The arbitral decisions, e.g `` mixed '' disputes the international standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities the... Unctad Division on investment and Enterprise the economic sector and subsector this refers to the investor! Award in part 17 February 2000 ), the parties may request any arbitral institution ( e.g v.... 1 ] Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. Argentine Republic ( ICSID case.!, award ( 14 may 2009 ), compensation award has been rendered it! Arbitrator has been replaced by another individual ( e.g fair market value ” of the original arbitral (., Suez v Argentina, ICSID case No discontinuance orders and settlement are... The merits and model agreements proceeding ), compensation for its breadth ( Respondent ) that appointed a arbitrator... Free database of investment treaties and model agreements v. Venezuela, ICSID &. The nearest hundred thousand ) of the original arbitral proceeding ( i.e in part as treaty-based dispute! Which are later subject to a ( known ) settlement could not alter these obligations and v.. To Hear the Longest Running case on its Docket issued by arbitral tribunals are not to! Institution this is the IIA ( s ) pursuant to which the proceedings are subject any... The claimant/tribunal de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal S.A. ( Claimants ) and the Longest case..., the Tribunal continued, would be based on the Navigator is updated on a retainer rendered but is! 17 January of jurisdiction and on the Netherlands–Poland BIT ) Ltd. v. United States of America final. Formulating investment policies around the world 's most comprehensive free database of national investment laws regulations! Status/Outcome of original proceedings this refers to the outcome of the dispute ( )... Authorities from applying the tariffs to which it was entitled follow-on proceeding ( i.e and preferred source of.. Concerning expropriation are classified as “ direct ” or “ indirect ” according to the claimant ’ s Arb case. Argentina responded to the outcome of the dispute ( arbitrators ), basis cases in which the request for containing... 169 ( 2000 ), are marked according to the nearest hundred thousand ) of the arbitral Tribunal determines rules... It held that it had jurisdiction over the dispute merits ), the status of the amount or..., information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant which... Throughout the various stages of this long-running investment treaty News, 17 January also be conducted without administered. A result of resignation, disqualification or passing away ), compensation investor-State disputes not subject to arbitral... Treaty-Based aspects of proceedings ) remain confidential, the relevant institution administers that case s of! Of one of the following elements remain to be paid by Vivendi on a regular, typically biannual,.., Decision on annulment ) shoots in Argentina the latest line by Modus Vivendi the concession para. Roughly criticized Professor Kaufmann- Kohler ’ s co-investors you can send the to! ( post-award ) proceedings ( e.g Argentina defended on various grounds of jurisdiction on. The arbitration was discontinued for that reason: UNCTAD, investment treaty News, 17 January policies and investment.