C-205/06 Commission v Austria and C-249/06 Commission v Sweden, judgments of 3 March 2009

The Court of Justice condemns two Member States for maintaining in force international agreements which are incompatible with Community law, entered into prior to their accession to the European Union.

Prior to their accession to the European Union, Austria and Sweden had entered into bilateral investment agreements with several third countries. These agreements contained a clause guaranteeing to the investors of the States concerned the free transfer, in freely convertible currency, of payments connected with an investment, without undue delay.

In the Commission’s view, these agreements could impede the application of certain provisions of the EC Treaty relating to restrictions on movements of capital between Member States and third countries. According to the second paragraph of Article 307 EC, Austria and Sweden had to take all appropriate steps to eliminate these incompatibilities with Community law. Since no action was taken, the Commission brought proceedings against these two Member States before the Court of Justice for failure to fulfil their obligations. The Court firstly declares that several provisions of the EC Treaty – and more specifically Articles 57(2), 59 and 60(1) – confer on the Council the power to restrict, in certain specific circumstances, movements of capital and payments between Member States and third countries. In order to ensure the effectiveness of these provisions, the Council measures restricting the free movement of capital must be capable of being applied immediately, including with regard to the States with which Austria and Sweden are bound by the agreements in question.

The Court points out in this respect that these agreements contain no provision which would allow compliance with the obligations under the EC Treaty to be ensured.

Furthermore, this result could not be achieved either by any international-law mechanism. In particular, the possibilities offered by international law for renegotiation of the agreements at issue or their suspension or denunciation are too uncertain to guarantee the effectiveness of any measures adopted by the Council under the aforementioned provisions of the EC Treaty.

The Court concludes from this that an incompatibility does exist between these

agreements and Community law. Consequently, it declares that Austria and Sweden have in fact breached the second paragraph of Article 307 EC.


source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/arrets/06c205_en.pdf

C-127/07 Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie et du Développement durable, Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie, judgment of 16 December 2008

The Court confirmed the validity of the directive on the scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading with regard to the principle of equal treatment
Directive 2003/87/EC establishes a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance
trading within the Community with the aim of contributing to compliance with the overall
commitment entered into under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce overall emissions of six
greenhouse gases by 8% as compared with the emission levels recorded in 1990.
Arcelor brought an action before the Conseil d'État [Council of State] for the annulment
of the Decree of 15 April 2004 which transposes that directive in France. The applicant
relied, inter alia, on the infringement of the constitutional principle of equal treatment,
since the Directive provides for a difference in treatment between installations in the
steel sector, which are subject to the allowance trading scheme, and the aluminium and
plastic industries, which, even though they also emit greenhouse gases, are not subject
to that scheme. The Conseil d'État asked the Court of Justice whether the Community
legislature breached the principle of equal treatment by applying unjustifiable different
treatment to comparable situations.
The Court pointed out first of all that the general principle of equal treatment requires
that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must
not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. It held
that the steel, chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors are in fact in a comparable
situation as far as the objective of the directive in question is concerned, even though
they are treated differently.
The Court then considered whether the difference in treatment between these sectors
introduced by the directive at issue can be justified by objective reasons. In this regard,
the Court recalled that the Community legislature has a broad discretion where its action
involves political, economic and social choices and where it is called on to undertake
complex assessments and evaluations. However, it remains obliged to base its choice on
objective criteria appropriate to the aim pursued by the legislation in question.
In this case, the Court took the view, first, that the allowance trading scheme introduced
by Directive 2003/87/EC is a novel and complex scheme whose implementation and
functioning could have been disturbed by the involvement of too great a number of
participants and, second, that the original definition of the scope of the directive was
dictated by the objective of attaining a critical mass of emissions covered by the
scheme.
In this context, the exclusion of the chemical sector, which has a number of particularly
significant installations, from the scope of the Directive can be justified by reason of the
desire to avoid making the allowance trading scheme more difficult and increasing the
administrative burden, and thus to ensure that its functioning is not disturbed. Similarly,
the exclusion of the non-ferrous metal sector is permissible in view of the difference in
its level of emissions as compared with the other sectors covered.
The Court concluded that the Community legislature did not infringe the principle of
equal treatment by excluding the chemical and non-ferrous metal sectors from the
scope of Directive 2003/87/EC.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/arrets/07c127_en.pdf 

T-257/04 Poland v Commission, judgment of 10 June 2009

In November 2003, on the basis of the 2003 Treaty of Accession, the Commission
adopted Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, which introduced, inter alia, by way of
transitional derogation from the Community rules which would otherwise be applicable,
a system of charges on holders of surplus stocks of certain agricultural products which
appear in the list contained in that regulation. In April 2004 the Commission adopted
Regulation (EC) No 735/2004, under which seven agricultural products were added to
that list.
Poland brought an action before the Court of First Instance for the annulment of
Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 735/2004.
In so far as it concerns Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, the action was brought after the
expiry of the time-limit of two months laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance considers that the action is inadmissible as
regards the agricultural products contained in the initial version of the list which appears
in that regulation.
The Court of First Instance rejected the various arguments submitted by Poland,
according to which the time-limit for bringing an action started to run only at the time of
its accession. As regards the argument that Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 was not
published in the 20 official languages, the Court of First Instance found that the
Commission was not required to publish that regulation in Polish in November 2003.
Concerning the fact that the regulation at issue entered into force only subject to, and
on the date of, the entry into force of the Treaty of Accession, that is to say, on 1 May
2004, the Court of First Instance held that that does not affect the start of the timelimit
for bringing an action, which is defined not by the date of the entry into force of the
contested measure but by the date of its challengeability, namely the completion of all
the requisite formalities as to publicity. Lastly, the Court observed that the Community rules concerning procedural time-limits have to be strictly applied and that they may not be derogated from save where the circumstances are quite exceptional, which Poland has not demonstrated.
The Court of First Instance noted that the right to effective judicial protection has not
been infringed. Prior to its accession, a new Member State may, like any non-member
state and any sub-state body, contest the legality of a Community act within the
time-limit laid down in its capacity as a legal person if it is directly and individually
concerned by that measure. The Court of First Instance refered to its settled case-law
that a measure of general application such as a regulation can be of individual concern
to natural or legal persons only if it affects them by reason of certain attributes peculiar
to them or by reason of the factual situation which differentiates them from all other
persons. That was true of Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 when it imposed various obligations on Poland. By contrast, the Court of First Instance considered the action admissible in so far as it
also concerns the seven agricultural products which Regulation (EC) No 735/2004 added
to the list appearing in Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, given that the time-limit for
bringing an action to contest Regulation (EC) No 735/2004 had not yet expired when the
application was lodged. It observes that, where a provision in a regulation is amended, a
fresh right of action arises, not only against that provision alone, but also against all the
provisions which, even if not amended, form a whole with it. In addition, the Court of First Instance dismissesd the action on the substance.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/arrets/04t257_en.pdf

Tiffany & Co v Swatch Group.

An Amsterdam court has overturned Swiss watchmaker Swatch’s US$450 million award against US jeweller Tiffany.
In a decision , the District Court of Amsterdam ordered the 2013 award to be set aside, ruling that the arbitral tribunal had stepped outside its authority in finding Tiffany in breach of a number of implied terms of a joint venture contract.
The court relied on an article in the arbitration clause of the contract, which limited the tribunal’s authority to “change, modify or alter” the terms of agreement.
A Netherlands Arbitration Institute tribunal chaired by Belgium’s Filip de Ly issued the award a few days before Christmas in 2013, compensating Swatch for profits lost through the failed joint venture.
The companies had entered the joint venture in 2007, agreeing that they should share the profits from Swatch’s production and distribution of Tiffany-branded watches over a 20-year period. But Swatch terminated the agreement in 2011, alleging that Tiffany had sought to block and delay the development of the joint venture.
The majority of the tribunal composed of De Ly and Switzerland’s Georg von Segesser upheld Swatch’s claim on the merits, finding Tiffany liable for four breaches of implied terms to the agreement. These included an implied obligation to use reasonable efforts to meet the targets set out in the joint venture’s business plan.
The arbitrator appointed by Tiffany, Belgium’s Bernard Hanotiou, dissented.
The tribunal was unanimous, however, as to the damages owed, ordering Tiffany to pay US$450 million of the US$5 billion Swatch originally claimed. It also rejected Tiffany’s US$500 million counterclaim.
Although the majority of the tribunal made express mention of the provision relied on by the Amsterdam District Court, it took the view that it was permitted to interpret the agreement but not to supplement it.
However the court said that by analysing the agreement against the background of the joint venture’s business plan, the arbitrators had added to the explicit provisions of the contract.
Counsel to Tiffany in the court proceeding, Eelco Meerdink of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek in Amsterdam, says: “When parties agree to a specific limitation on the authority of the tribunal, it is ultimately for the courts to review whether the arbitrators have observed that restriction. In ruling that the majority of the tribunal exceeded its mandate by not taking into account the limitation agreed upon in the arbitration agreement, the court correctly applied this review.”


Source: http://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1034274/dutch-court-has-tiffany-award-for-breakfast

Investment treaty cases -grouped thematically

Subject area

Annulment, correction and revision of awards

• Alapli Elektrik B.V. v Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13) (www.practicallaw.com/8-576-9925) - (ICSID; annulment)
• AWG Group v Argentina (UNCITRAL) (www.practicallaw.com/0-503-0247) - (Annulment proceedings; defence of necessity).
• Azurix Corp v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12) (Annulment proceeding) (www.practicallaw.com/9-500-1617) - (Annulment proceedings; ICSID; shareholder).
• Azurix Corp. v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12) (www.practicallaw.com/5-380-2896) - (Request for annulment; stay of enforcement; security).
• CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/01/8) (www.practicallaw.com/9-376-5236) - (Partial annulment; ICSID award).
• Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/97/3) (Annulment Proceeding) (www.practicallaw.com/8-384-1491) - (Stay of enforcement; ICSID annulment proceedings).
• Continental Casualty Company v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/03/9) - (Annulment; stay of enforcement).
• Daimler Financial Services AG v Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1 (www.practicallaw.com/9-595-8925) - (Annulment; Jurisdiction; ICSID; MFN).
• Enron Creditors Recovery Corp, Ponderosa Assets, LP v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/01/3) (www.practicallaw.com/4-503-0293) - (Annulment; defence of necessity).
• Enron Corporation Ponderosa Assets, LP v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case Number ARB /01/3) (www.practicallaw.com/7-383-6107) - (Annulment; stay of enforcement; security).
• Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v The Philippines (ICSID Case No ARB/03/25) (www.practicallaw.com/1-504-9581) - (Annulment; right to be heard).
• Gold Reserve Inc. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1 (www.practicallaw.com/0-594-4725) - (Corrections to award; Article 56(1); ICSID)
• Helnan International Hotels A/S v Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/05/19) (Annulment proceeding) - (Annulment; exhaustion of local remedies).
• Impregilo SpA v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/07/17) (Annulment Proceeding (www.practicallaw.com/2-556-5785)) - (ICSID; application for annulment, MFN).
• Industria Nacional de Alimentos SA v Peru (ICSID Case no ARB 03/4) (www.practicallaw.com/5-376-3673) - (Application for annulment; treaty interpretation; manifest excess of powers).
• Kardassopoulos and Fuchs v Georgia (ICSID Case Nos ARB/05/18 and ARB/07/15) (www.practicallaw.com/9-504-0906) - (Stay of enforcement; pending annulment proceedings).
• MCI Power Group LC and New Turbine Inc v Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/03/6) (Annulment Proceeding) - (Annulment refused; manifest excess of power; failure to state reasons).
• Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/06/11) (Stay of enforcement; continuation, annulment).
• Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11) (www.practicallaw.com/2-583-0247) - (Enforcement; pending annulment; stay).
• Republic of Kazakhstan v Rumeli Telekom AS and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri AS (ICSID Case No ARB/05/16) - (Annulment proceedings; Article 52 ICSID Convention).
• RSM Production Corporation v Grenada (ICSID Case No ARB/05/14 (Annulment proceeding)) - (ICSID; annulment; jurisdiction; attempt to reopen evidence).
• Sempra Energy International v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/02/16) (Annulment proceeding) - (ICSID; annulment; manifest excess of powers).
• Sempra Energy International v Argentine Republic (ARB/02/16) (www.practicallaw.com/6-383-8786) - (Stay of enforcement lifted; ICSID).
• Sempra Energy International v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/12/16) (www.practicallaw.com/1-385-2930) - (Conditional stay of enforcement).
• Suez, Societad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and InterAgua Servicios Integrales del Agua SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/03/17) (www.practicallaw.com/0-503-0247) - (Annulment proceedings; defence of necessity).
• RSM Production Corporation v Grenada (ICSID Case ARB/05/14) (Annulment Proceeding) (www.practicallaw.com/9-506-1084) - (Order for costs; discontinuance; annulment proceedings).
• Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No ARB/98/2) (www.practicallaw.com/0-541-7866) (Request for supplementary decision; annulment).
• Victor Pey Casado and Foundation "Presidente Allende" v Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2) (www.practicallaw.com/8-523-5829) (Partial annulment; departure from a fundamental rule of procedure).

CAFTA

• Railroad Development Corp v Guatemala (ICSID Case No ARB/07/23) (Decision on Objection to Jurisdiction, CAFTA Article 10.20.5) (www.practicallaw.com/3-384-1078) - (CAFTA; scope of waiver).
• Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12) (www.practicallaw.com/1-519-8260) (CAFTA; jurisdiction; denial of benefits).
• Pac Rim Cayman LLC v The Republic of El Salvador (ICSID Case No ARB/09/12). Decision on the Respondent's Preliminary Objections under CAFTA Articles 10.20.4 and 10.20.5) (www.practicallaw.com/4-503-0306) - (CAFTA; Preliminary objections).
• Railroad Development Corporation v Republic of Guatemala (Award, 29 June 2012) (www.practicallaw.com/9-520-3234)(DR-CAFTA; minimum standard of treatment).

Challenges to arbitrators, counsel and experts

• Abaclat and others (Case formerly known as Beccara and others) v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5) (www.practicallaw.com/2-519-1215) - (ICSID Convention; disqualification of arbitrator).
• Abaclat and others (Case formerly known as Beccara and others) v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5) (www.practicallaw.com/1-557-2946) - (Arbitrator challenge, ICSID Convention, Application for disqualification).
• Alpha Projektholding GmbH v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/07/16) - (Arbitrator challenge; Article 57 ICSID Convention).
• Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/20) (www.practicallaw.com/5-551-3686)(Arbitrator challenge; Disqualification).
• Caratube International Oil Company LLP and another v Republic of Kazakhstan (ICSID Case No ARB/113/13) (www.practicallaw.com/1-563-5128) - (Disqualification of arbitrator; ICSID).
  Cemex Caracas Investments BV and another v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/08/15) - (Arbitrator challenge; time limit).
• Cia de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/97/3) (Annulment Proceeding) (www.practicallaw.com/8-503-0601) - (ICSID; duties of arbitrators; conflicts of interest).
• ConocoPhillips Company et al v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case no ARB/07/30) (www.practicallaw.com/6-518-4171) (Arbitrator challenge; merger of law firm).
• ConocoPhillips Company et al v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case no ARB/07/30) (www.practicallaw.com/4-567-9446) (Arbitrator challenge; Impartiality; ICSID).
• ED & F International SA and ors v Argentina, (ICSID Case No ARB/03/23) (www.practicallaw.com/1-383-9991) - (Challenge to arbitrator; arbitrator independence; impartiality).
• Flughafen Zürich AG and Gestión e Ingenería IDC SA v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/19) (www.practicallaw.com/0-521-5547) (Application to disqualify expert).
• Hrvatsa Elektroprivreda, dd v Republic of Slovenia (ICSID Case No ARB/05/24) (www.practicallaw.com/9-384-3116) - (Barrister excluded; arbitrator; same set of Chambers).
• İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/24) (www.practicallaw.com/5-576-1266) - (ICSID; disqualification; arbitrators and appointments).
• OPIC Karimum Corporation v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/10/14) (www.practicallaw.com/3-506-4207) - (Arbitrator challenges; multiple appointments).
• Participaciones Inversiones Portuarias SARL v Gabonese Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/08/17) - (Arbitrator challenge; impartiality).
• Perenco Ecuador Limited v The Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador (PCA Case No IR-2009/1) - (Arbitrator challenge; impartiality and independence).
• Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/12/13) (www.practicallaw.com/0-525-1229) (Challenge to arbitrator; independence and impartiality).
• Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Aqua S.A. v Argentine Republic (Case No ARB/03/17) Decision on the Proposal for the Disqualification (www.practicallaw.com/1-379-8325) - (Challenge to arbitrator; arbitrator independence/impartiality; ICSID).
• Suez and others v Argentina (Case Nos ARB/03/19 and ARB/03/17) (www.practicallaw.com/0-382-1859) - (Challenge to arbitrator; independence; impartiality; ICSID).
• Tidewater Inc and others v Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/10/5) (www.practicallaw.com/2-504-9156) - (ICSID; arbitrator challenge; multiple appointments).
• The Rompetrol Group NV v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/06/3) - (Challenge to legal representatives; no power to remove counsel).
• Universal Compression International Holdings SLU v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/10/9) (www.practicallaw.com/6-506-3843) - (Arbitrator challenge; multiple appointments).
• Urbaser SA and another v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/07/27) (Decision on Claimants' Proposal to Disqualify) (www.practicallaw.com/2-503-0623) - (Challenge to arbitrator; published articles; awards).
• Vito G Gallo v Government of Canada (14 October 2009) - (NAFTA; Challenge to arbitrator; impartiality and independence).

Claims manifestly without legal merit

• Brandes Investment Partners, LP v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/08/3) - (Jurisdiction; Rule 41(5); manifestly without legal merit).
• Cementownia "Nowa Huta" SA v Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No Arb(AF)/06/2) - (Fraudulent claim dismissed).
• Emmis International Holding, BV and others v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/12/2) (www.practicallaw.com/9-525-6915) - (Manifestly without legal merit; Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules).
• Global Trading Resource Corp and Globex International Inc v Ukraine (ICSID Case ARB/09/11) (www.practicallaw.com/2-504-1645) - (Rule 41(5) ICSID Arbitration Rules; claims manifestly without legal merit).
• MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company Plc v Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No ARB/13/3) (www.practicallaw.com/7-592-7586) (Claims manifestly without legal merit; ICSID; Rule 41(5)).
• PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd. v Independent State of Papua New Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/33 (www.practicallaw.com/8-588-8872) - (ICSID; Rule 41.5 ICSID Arbitration Rules; claims manifestly without legal merit).
• RSM Production Corporation and others v Grenada (ICSID Case No ARB/10/6) (Award) (10 December 2010) (www.practicallaw.com/1-504-2462) - (Rule 41.5 ICSID Arbitration Rules; claims were manifestly without legal merit).
• Trans-global Petroleum Inc v Jordan (ICSID Case no ARB/07/25) (www.practicallaw.com/0-382-5678) - (Rule 41(5) ICSID Arbitration Rules; manifestly without legal merit).

Class actions

• Abaclat and others v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/07/5) (www.practicallaw.com/9-507-4388) - (Jurisdiction; class actions).
• Ambiente Ufficio SpA and others (formerly known as Giordano Alpi and others) v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/08/09) (www.practicallaw.com/5-524-1407) (Jurisdiction; multi-party; class; collective).

Costs

• ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (ICSID Case No ARB/08/2) (Annulment proceeding) (www.practicallaw.com/5-506-9044) - (Order for costs; discontinued annulment proceedings).
• David Minnotte & Robert Lewis v Republic of Poland, (ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/10/1) (www.practicallaw.com/9-586-9825) - (ICSID; BIT; Interpretation; Costs award).
• Piero Foresti and others v Republic of South Africa (ICSID Case No ARB (AF) /07/1) (www.practicallaw.com/4-503-0071) - (Costs; discontinuance of ICSID proceedings).
• Quadrant Pacific Growth Fund LP and Canasco Holdings Inc v Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/08/1) - (Costs decision; procedural order).
• RSM Production Corporation v Saint Lucia (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10) (www.practicallaw.com/8-579-3586) (Security for costs).

Damages

• Occidental Petroleum Corporation and another v Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/06/11) (www.practicallaw.com/8-521-8679) (Damages; farmout agreement).

Defence of necessity

• AWG Group v Argentina (UNCITRAL) (www.practicallaw.com/0-503-0247) - (Annulment proceedings; defence of necessity).
• Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/09) (www.practicallaw.com/5-383-2619) - (Necessity defence; BIT).
• Enron Corporation, Ponderosa Assets L.P. v Argentine Republic (Award) (22 May 2007) (www.practicallaw.com/2-366-1973) - (Defence of necessity; BIT).
• Enron Creditors Recovery Corp, Ponderosa Assets, LP v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/01/3) (www.practicallaw.com/4-503-0293) - (Annulment; defence of necessity).
• National Grid plc v Argentine Republic (Final Award) (3 November 2008) (www.practicallaw.com/3-385-1374) - (Necessity defence; ILC Articles on State Responsibility; UNCITRAL).
• Suez, Societad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and InterAgua Servicios Integrales del Agua SA v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/03/17) (www.practicallaw.com/0-503-0247) - (Annulment proceedings; defence of necessity).

Effective means of asserting claim

• Chevron Corporation (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Company (USA) v The Republic of Ecuador (UNCITRAL arbitration) (Partial Award on the Merits) (30 March 2010) - (Breach of BIT; effective means of asserting claim).
• White Industries Australia Ltd v Republic of India (UNCITRAL) (www.practicallaw.com/4-518-2521) - (Delays; effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights)

Energy Charter Treaty

• AES Summit Generation Ltd and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v Republic of Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/07/22) (www.practicallaw.com/8-503-5364) - (Energy Charter Treaty; EU law).
• Europe Cement Investment & Trade S.A. v Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/07/2) (www.practicallaw.com/3-422-4132) - (Energy Charter Treaty (ECT); fraudulent claim).
• Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v The Russian Federation (PCA Case No AA 226) - (Energy Charter Treaty; provisional application).
• Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v The Russian Federation (PCA Case No AA 226) (www.practicallaw.com/0-576-3965) - (UNCITRAL; arbitral awards; Energy Charter Treaty).
• Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria (ICSID Case No ARB/03/24) (www.practicallaw.com/9-384-9825) - (Energy Charter Treaty; fraudulent misrepresentation).
• Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v The Russian Federation (PCA Case No AA 228) - (Energy Charter Treaty; provisional application).
• Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v The Russian Federation (PCA Case No AA 228) (www.practicallaw.com/0-576-3965) - (UNCITRAL; arbitral awards; Energy Charter Treaty).
• Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation (PCA Case No AA 227) - (Energy Charter Treaty; provisional application).
• Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation (PCA Case No AA 227) (www.practicallaw.com/0-576-3965) - (UNCITRAL; arbitral awards; Energy Charter Treaty).

EU issues

• AES Summit Generation Ltd and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v Republic of Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/07/22) (www.practicallaw.com/8-503-5364) - (Energy Charter Treaty; EU law).
• Eastern Sugar BV (Netherlands) v The Czech Republic (UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration SCC No 088/2004) (www.practicallaw.com/9-378-9464) - (EU accession; BIT).
• European Commission v Republic of Slovakia [2011] EUECJ (Case C-264/09) (www.practicallaw.com/5-505-3670) - (EC Treaty; investment contract).

Expropriation

• Achmea BV v The Slovak Republic (PCA Case No. 2013-12) (www.practicallaw.com/5-571-6207) - (BIT; expropriation; fair and equitable treatment).
• Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe (ICSID Case No ARB/05/6) (www.practicallaw.com/2-385-8615) - (BIT; expropriation; measure of damages).
• Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No ARB/05/22) (www.practicallaw.com/1-382-9553) - (Expropriation; breach of BIT; damages).
• Compania de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case no ARB/97/3) (www.practicallaw.com/7-376-3139) - (BIT; fair and equitable treatment; expropriation).
• Emmis International Holding, BV v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/12/2) (www.practicallaw.com/7-566-3731) - (Expropriation; BIT; Jurisdiction; Contractual right).
• Glamis Gold Ltd v USA (UNCITRAL) (NAFTA) (www.practicallaw.com/6-386-6816) - (NAFTA; expropriation; breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard).
• RosInvestCo UK Ltd v Russian Federation (SCC arbitration V (079/2005) (www.practicallaw.com/6-504-4411) - (Expropriation; BIT).
• Saipem SpA v The People's Republic of Bangladesh (ICSID Case No ARB/05/7) (www.practicallaw.com/9-386-3562) - (Court intervention; expropriation).
• Venezuela Holdings and others v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27) (www.practicallaw.com/5-585-2186) - (Fair and equitable treatment; expropriation; compensation).

Fair and equitable treatment

• Arif v Republic of Moldova (ICSID Case No ARB/11/23) (www.practicallaw.com/2-525-7447) - (Breach of fair and equitable treatment standard; Restitution and compensation).
• ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (ICSID Case No ARB/08/2) - (Inadmissible claim; ratione temporis; fair and equitable treatment; legitimate expectations).
• Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret VE Sanayi A.S. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No ARB/03/29) - (Contract and treaty claims; MFN; fair and equitable treatment).
• Compania de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case no ARB/97/3) (www.practicallaw.com/7-376-3139) - (BIT; fair and equitable treatment; expropriation).
• Hochtief AG v the Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31) (www.practicallaw.com/1-598-9285) - (BIT; Admissibility of claims; Fair and equitable treatment; ICSID).
• Ioan Micula and others v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20) (www.practicallaw.com/0-554-4685) (Fair and equitable treatment standard; umbrella clause; EU law).
• Jan de Nul NV Dredging International NV v Arab Republic of Egypt, (ICSID Case No ARB/04/13) (www.practicallaw.com/1-384-0664) - (Principles of attribution; BIT; denial of justice; fair and equitable standard).
• Joseph Charles Lemire v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/06/18) - (Breach of settlement agreement; fair and equitable standard treatment).
• Merrill & Ring Forestry LP v Canada (UNCITRAL, ICSID Administered Case (NAFTA)) - (NAFTA; fair and equitable treatment).
• Metalpar SA and Buen Aire SA v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/03/5) (www.practicallaw.com/8-383-2967) - (No adverse impact on investments; BIT).
• Renta 4 SVSA v Russian Federation (Arbitration V 024/2007) (www.practicallaw.com/0-385-8579) - (SCC arbitration; BIT; MFN clause; fair and equitable treatment).
• Rompetrol Group NV v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/06/3) (www.practicallaw.com/9-529-0306) (Criminal proceedings; fair and equitable treatment).
• Sempra v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB 02/16) (www.practicallaw.com/1-376-6273) - (BIT; fair and equitable treatment; umbrella clause).
• Swisslion DOO Skopje v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (ICSID Case No ARB/09/16) (www.practicallaw.com/9-520-9778) FET standard; judicial proceedings).
• Venezuela Holdings and others v. the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27) (www.practicallaw.com/5-585-2186) - (Fair and equitable treatment; expropriation; compensation).
• Vigotop Ltd v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/11/22) (www.practicallaw.com/2-590-7406) - (ICSID; Expropriation; BIT).
• Walter Bau AG (in Liquidation) v The Kingdom of Thailand (UNCITRAL, 1 July 2009) - (Fair and equitable treatment; pre-treaty conduct).

Fork-in-the-road

• Desert Line Projects LLC v The Republic of Yemen (ICSID Case No ARB/05/17) (www.practicallaw.com/5-380-8271) - (BIT; jurisdiction; investment certificate; fork in the road).
• Pantechniki v Albania (ICSID Case No ARB/07/21) (www.practicallaw.com/0-422-1842) - (BIT; fork in the road provision; denial of justice).

Jurisdiction

• Abaclat and others v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/07/5) (www.practicallaw.com/9-507-4388) - (Jurisdiction; class actions).
• Antoine Goetz and Consorts and another v Republic v Burundi (ICSID Case No ARB/01/2) (www.practicallaw.com/7-521-7576) (Jurisdiction; counterclaim).
• Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v United States of America, (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1) (www.practicallaw.com/5-586-2048) - (NAFTA; Jurisdictional issues; Arbitral awards and challenges).
• Alasdair Ross Anderson and others v Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/07/3) - (Jurisdiction; BIT; funds; investment).
• Austrian Airlines v Slovak Republic (UNCITRAL, 20 October 2009) - (Jurisdiction; expropriation; MFN).
• Brandes Investment Partners LP v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/08/3) (www.practicallaw.com/8-507-2634) - (Jurisdiction; consent; Venezuelan investment legislation).
• Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control BIVAC BV v The Republic of Paraguay (ICSID Case No ARB/07/9) (www.practicallaw.com/7-522-1352) (Jurisdiction; umbrella clause; stay; local court proceedings).
• Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC BV v The Republic of Paraguay (ICSID Case No ARB/07/9) - (Jurisdiction; umbrella clause; admissibility).
• Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/08/5) - (Jurisdiction; non-expropriation; tax legislation).
• Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB 08/5) (www.practicallaw.com/9-523-4754) (Privity; jurisdiction; umbrella clause).
• Cementownia "Nowa Huta" SA v Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No Arb(AF)/06/2) - (Fraudulent claim dismissed).
• Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL (www.practicallaw.com/1-384-1687) - (Jurisdictional objections; BIT).
• ConocoPhillips Petrozuata and others v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30) (www.practicallaw.com/2-562-2385) - (ICSID; Jurisdiction).
• Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA [2007] EWHC 2851 (Comm) (www.practicallaw.com/6-379-8653) - (Jurisdiction; Interpretation of BIT).
• Desert Line Projects LLC v The Republic of Yemen (ICSID Case No ARB/05/17) (www.practicallaw.com/5-380-8271) - (BIT; jurisdiction; investment certificate; fork in the road).
• Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil SA v Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19) (www.practicallaw.com/8-383-1166) - (Contract and treaty claims; cumulative jurisdiction).
• Emmis International Holding BV and others v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/12/2) (www.practicallaw.com/1-533-2249) (Jurisdiction; bifurcation).
• Government of the Province of East Kalimantan v PT Kaltim Prima Coal, Rio Tinto PLC, BP PLC, Pacific Resources Investments Ltd, BP International Ltd, Sangatta Holdings Ltd and Kalimantan Coal Ltd (ICSID Case No ARB/07/3) (www.practicallaw.com/8-504-4617) - (Jurisdiction; Article 25 ICSID Convention).
• Grand River Enterprises et al. v United States of America, UNCITRAL (NAFTA) (www.practicallaw.com/7-504-8932) - (NAFTA; jurisdiction; foreign investment).
• Helnan International Hotels A/S v The Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/05/19) (www.practicallaw.com/0-382-7385) - (Res judicata; contractual dispute; ICSID).
• Hochtief AG v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31) (www.practicallaw.com/9-511-1017) - (MFN clauses; jurisdiction).
• ICS Inspection and Control Services Ltd (United Kingdom) v Argentine Republic (PCA Case No 2010-9) (www.practicallaw.com/9-518-2509) - (Jurisdiction; MFN; PCA)
• Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GMBH and others v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/08/8) (www.practicallaw.com/0-502-3770) - (Jurisdiction; investment).
• Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/05/20) (Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility) (www.practicallaw.com/1-383-5403) - (ICSID jurisdiction; effective nationality test).
• Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN BHD v Malaysia (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10) (www.practicallaw.com/3-385-8196) - (ICSID jurisdiction; Article 25 ICSID Convention; meaning of investment).
• Malaysian Historical Salvors v The Government of Malaysia (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10) (www.practicallaw.com/2-368-0976) - (ICSID jurisdiction; Article 25 ICSID Convention; meaning of investment).
• Malicorp Ltd v The Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/08/18) (www.practicallaw.com/9-504-8356) - (Jurisdiction; investment; Article 25 ICSID Convention).
• Metal-Tech Ltd v The Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3) (www.practicallaw.com/0-552-6605) (Jurisdiction; corruption).
• Mobil Corporation and others v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/07/27) - (Jurisdiction; interpretation of national law).
• Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/08/4) (www.practicallaw.com/8-504-3118) - (Jurisdiction; cooling-off period).
• Mytilineos Holdings SA V (1) The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (2) Republic of Serbia 8 September 2006 (released October 2008) (www.practicallaw.com/6-383-9088) - (Jurisdiction; definition of investment; BIT).
• OPIC Karimun Corporationv Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/10/14) (www.practicallaw.com/3-570-0108) - (Jurisdiction; consent; Venezuelan investment legislation).
• Paushok and others v Government of Mongolia (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules) Award of 28 April 2011 on Jurisdiction and Liability (www.practicallaw.com/5-506-1444) - (Jurisdiction; counterclaims).
• Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v The Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6) (www.practicallaw.com/1-584-3448) - (Jurisdiction; what is an investor; control).
• Philip Morris Brand Sarl and others v Uruguay (ICSID Case No ARB/10/7) (www.practicallaw.com/2-535-4518) (Litigation requirement; precondition).
• Phoenix Action Ltd v The Czech Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/06/5) (www.practicallaw.com/7-385-6591) - (ICSID jurisdiction; Article 25 ICSID Convention; meaning of investment).
• Quiborax SA, Non Metallic Minerals SA and Allan Fosk Kaplún v Plurinational State of Bolivia (ICSID Case No ARB/06/2) (www.practicallaw.com/6-521-9142) (Jurisdiction; definition of investment).
• Railroad Development Corporation (RDC) v Republic of Guatemala (ICSID Case No ARB/07/23) - (Jurisdictional objections; CAFTA).
• Renée Rose Levy and Gremcitel S.A. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/17 (www.practicallaw.com/4-597-5545) - (ICSID; Jurisdictional challenges; Abuse of process).
• RosInvestCo UK Ltd v The Russian Federation Case Number V 079/2005 (www.practicallaw.com/7-380-5974) - (Jurisdiction; MFN clause; BIT).
• RSM Production Corporation v Grenada (ICSID Case No ARB/05/14) (www.practicallaw.com/4-385-5852) - (Jurisdiction; breach of contract; meaning of investment; ICSID Convention).
• Roussalis v Romania (ICSID Case No ARB/06/1) (www.practicallaw.com/9-516-2691) - (Jurisdiction; state counterclaim).
• Ruby Roz Agricol and Kaseem Omar v Kazakhstan, UNCITRAL (Award on Jurisdiction) (www.practicallaw.com/5-540-1132) - (Jurisdiction; UNCITRAL arbitration).
• Société Générale v The Dominican Republic (LCIA Case No UN 7927), UNCITRAL (www.practicallaw.com/2-383-6812) - (Jurisdiction; BIT).
• Teinver SA and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1) (www.practicallaw.com/9-523-4216) (Jurisdiction; BIT pre-conditions).
• The Rompetrol Group NV v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3) (www.practicallaw.com/0-381-7428) - (Jurisdiction; nationality; BIT).
• Toto Construzioni Generali SpA v Republic of Lebanon (ICSID Case No ARB/07/12) - (Meaning of investment; jurisdiction).
• Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands BV v Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB/11/28) (www.practicallaw.com/0-525-6514) - (Pre-arbitration negotiation; compliance with BIT).
• Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v Egypt (ICSID Case No ARB/05/150) - (Jurisdiction; BIT).

Interim measures

• British Caribbean Bank Limited v The Government of Belize [2013] CCJ 4 (AJ) (www.practicallaw.com/3-533-6430) (Anti-arbitration injunction).
• Burlington Resources Inc and others v Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No ARB/08/5) (www.practicallaw.com/2-386-3481) - (Provisional measures; ICSID).
• Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No ARB/13/13 (www.practicallaw.com/1-595-5105) (Provisional measures; criminal investigations by state).
• Cemex Caracas Investments BV v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/08/15) - (Provisional measures; aggravation; irreparable harm test).
• Chevron and another v Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No 2009-23) (www.practicallaw.com/8-524-1397) (Breach if interim awards).
• Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/12/14 and 12/40 (www.practicallaw.com/1-595-5105) (Provisional measures; criminal investigations by state).
• City Oriente Limited v The Republic of Ecuador and others (ICSID Case No ARB/06/21) (www.practicallaw.com/4-382-1305) - (Provisional measures; requirement of irreparable harm).
• Commerce Group Corp and San Sebastian Gold Mines Inc v El Salvador (ICSID Case No ARB/09/17 (Annulment Proceeding)) (www.practicallaw.com/5-521-5564) (Security for costs)
• ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia and another [2008] EWCA Civ 880 (www.practicallaw.com/7-382-8602) - (Freezing injunction; jurisdiction; English Court of Appeal).
• ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia and another [2008] EWHC 1689 (Comm) (www.practicallaw.com/1-382-7078) - (Freezing injunction; jurisdiction; English High Court).
• Lao Holdings NV v The Lao People's Democratic Republic (ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/12/6) (www.practicallaw.com/7-571-3986) - (Provisional measures; application to modify; criminal investigation; ICSID).
• Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB/06/11) (www.practicallaw.com/0-376-6754) - (Interim measures; specific performance).
• Perenco Ecuador Ltd v The Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petroleos Del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No ARB/08/6) (www.practicallaw.com/6-386-1847) - (ICSID; provisional measures).
• Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v Australia) (Order of 3 March 2014 on a Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures) (www.practicallaw.com/8-560-5608) - (ICJ; Interim measures; Protection of communications).
• RSM Production Corporation v Grenada (ICSID Case No ARB/10/6) (Application for Security of Costs) (14 October 2010) - (Provisional measures; security for costs).
• Sergei Paushok and others v Government of Mongolia (Order on Interim Measures), UNCITRAL (www.practicallaw.com/6-383-8729) - (Interim measures; UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules).
• Tethyan Copper Company Pty Ltd v Pakistan (ICSID Case No ARB/12/1) (www.practicallaw.com/7-523-2256) (Provisional measures; state ordered to provide updates).
• TSA Spectrum de Argentina SA v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/05/5) (www.practicallaw.com/9-384-3630) - (Jurisdiction; ICSID Convention; corporate nationality grounds).

Meaning of investment

• Alps Finance and Trade AG v Slovak Republic (Switzerland/Slovak Republic BIT) Award (redacted version), 5 March 2011 (www.practicallaw.com/6-505-8709) - (Assignment; meaning of investment).
• GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/08/16) (www.practicallaw.com/6-505-7936) - (Meaning of investment; costs).
• Quiborax SA, Non Metallic Minerals SA and Allan Fosk Kaplún v Plurinational State of Bolivia (ICSID Case No ARB/06/2) (www.practicallaw.com/6-521-9142) (Jurisdiction; definition of investment).
• Romak SA v Uzbekistan (PCA Case No AA280) - (UNCITRAL; meaning of investment).
• Toto Construzioni Generali SpA v Republic of Lebanon (ICSID Case No ARB/07/12) - (Meaning of investment; jurisdiction).

Meaning of investor

• Cementownia "Nowa Huta" SA v Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No Arb(AF)/06/2) - (Fraudulent claim dismissed).
• Cemex Caracas Investments BV and Cemex Caracas II Investments BV v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No ARB/08/15) (www.practicallaw.com/1-504-4611) - (Indirect investors; BIT; Venezuelan Investment Law).
• HICEE BV v Slovak Republic (PCA Case No 2009-11) Partial Award (23 May 2011) (www.practicallaw.com/7-515-1957) - (Meaning of investor; PCA).

Most Favoured Nation (MFN)

• Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret VE Sanayi A.S. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No ARB/03/29) - (Contract and treaty claims; MFN; fair and equitable treatment).
• Daimler Financial Services AG v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1) (Award on Jurisdiction) (www.practicallaw.com/9-521-2506) (Most favoured nation).
• Deutsche Bank AG v Sri Lanka (ICSID Case No ARB/09/02) (www.practicallaw.com/9-525-4681) (Definition of investment; Salini).
• EDF International SA and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/03/23) (www.practicallaw.com/8-520-6148) (MFN clause, umbrella clauses).
• Garanti Koza LLP v Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No ARB/1120) (www.practicallaw.com/7-536-5208) (MFN; dispute resolution provisions)
• Hochtief AG v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31) (www.practicallaw.com/9-511-1017) - (Investment treaty; MFN clauses; jurisdiction).
• ICS Inspection and Control Services Ltd (United Kingdom) v Argentine Republic (PCA Case No 2010-9) (www.practicallaw.com/9-518-2509) - (Jurisdiction; MFN clause; PCA)
• Impregilo SpA v Argentina Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/07/17) (www.practicallaw.com/8-506-8745) - (MFN clauses; dissenting opinion).
• Kiliç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No ARB/10/01) (www.practicallaw.com/0-534-6497).
• Mr Tza Yap Shum v The Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/07/6) - (MFN clause; nationality requirements; interpretation of investment).
• Renta 4 SVSA v Russian Federation (Arbitration V 024/2007) (www.practicallaw.com/0-385-8579) - (SCC arbitration; BIT; MFN clause; fair and equitable treatment).
• RosInvestCo UK Ltd v The Russian Federation Case Number V 079/2005 (www.practicallaw.com/7-380-5974) - (Jurisdiction; MFN clause; BIT).
• Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/04/14) (www.practicallaw.com/6-384-4626) - (MFN clause; BIT).

NAFTA

• Apotex Inc v United States, UNCITRAL (NAFTA) Procedural Order No 2 (www.practicallaw.com/9-516-9353) - (NAFTA; non-disputing parties submissions).
• Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v United States of America, (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1) (www.practicallaw.com/5-587-0185) - (NAFTA; Jurisdictional issues; Arbitral awards and challenges).
• Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas Inc v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/05) (www.practicallaw.com/2-382-9350) - (NAFTA Chapter 11; counter-measures defence).
• Bayview Irrigation District et al v Mexico (ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/1) (www.practicallaw.com/6-369-5971) - (NAFTA Chapter 11; foreign investments).
• Corn Products International, Inc v The United Mexican States (ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/01) (www.practicallaw.com/6-385-6167) - (NAFTA Chapter 11; counter-measures defence).
• Grand River Enterprises et al. v United States of America, UNCITRAL (NAFTA) (www.practicallaw.com/7-504-8932) - (NAFTA; jurisdiction; foreign investment).
• Merrill & Ring Forestry LP v Canada (UNCITRAL, ICSID Administered Case (NAFTA)) - (NAFTA; fair and equitable treatment).
• St Mary’s VCNA v the Government of Canada (NAFTA/UNCITRAL) (www.practicallaw.com/5-526-7968) (Procedure; disclosure, legal privilege).
• United Parcel Service of America II v Government of Canada (11 June 2007) (www.practicallaw.com/4-369-9017) - (NAFTA Chapter 11; national treatment obligation).
• Vito G Gallo v Government of Canada (14 October 2009) - (NAFTA; Challenge to arbitrator; impartiality and independence).

Nationality requirement

• Mr Tza Yap Shum v The Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No ARB/07/6) - (MFN clause; nationality requirements; interpretation of investment).
• Saba Fakes v Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB/07/20) - (Investment; nationality requirement).

Procedure

• Cambodia Power Company v Kingdom of Cambodia and another (ICSID Case No ARB/09/18) (www.practicallaw.com/9-525-7905) - (Multiple contracts; single arbitration proceeding).
• Emmis International Holding BV and others v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/12/2) (www.practicallaw.com/1-533-2249) (Bifurcation; jurisdictional phase).
• Forminster Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL (www.practicallaw.com/7-597-7265) - (Article 34(2), UNCITRAL Rules 1976; notice of withdrawal; arbitration not terminated).
• Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd v Czech Republic (Final award, PCA, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 12 November 2010) (www.practicallaw.com/2-504-7459) - (BIT; public policy; enforcement).
• Giovanni Alemanni and Others v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8 (www.practicallaw.com/8-589-9045) - (Third party funding; Multi-party).
• Guaracachi America, Inc. and Rurelec PLC v The Plurinational State of Bolivia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2011-17 (www.practicallaw.com/8-557-4386) - (Multi-party; Joinder of BITs; Denial of benefits).
• Itera International Energy LLC and Itera Group NV v Georgia (ICSID Case No Arb/08/07) - (Ancillary claims).
• LG&E v Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1) (www.practicallaw.com/7-382-8112) - (Supplementary decisions; ICSID Convention).
• Libananco Holdings Co Ltd v Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No ARB/06/9) (www.practicallaw.com/2-382-8609) - (Interception of privileged communications).
• Railroad Development Corporation v Republic of Guatemala, (ICSID Case No ARB/07/23) (www.practicallaw.com/9-383-9992) - (Preserving evidence; ICSID).

Transparency and amicus curiae

• Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No ARB/05/22) (Procedural Order No 5) (2 February 2007) (www.practicallaw.com/7-225-3964) - (Amicus curiae briefs; ICSID).
• Giovanna a Beccara and others v Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/05) - (Confidentiality; ICSID Convention).
• Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and others v Republic of South Africa (ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/07/1) - (ICSID; non-disputing parties; amicus curiae).
• Suez and others v The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/03/19) (Order in response to a petition by five NGOs for permission to make an amicus brief) (12 February 2007) (www.practicallaw.com/7-223-1967) - (Amicus curiae briefs; NGOs; investment treaty arbitration).

Treaty interpretation

• Churchill Mining Plc v Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No ARB/12/14) (www.practicallaw.com/0-559-2285) - (Treaty interpretation; Vienna Convention).
• Hrvatska Elektroprivreda DD v The Republic of Slovenia (ICSID Case No ARB/05/24) (www.practicallaw.com/3-386-4833) - (Treaty interpretation; Vienna Convention).
• Kilic Insaat Ithalat Ihracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1) (www.practicallaw.com/7-519-7724) - (Inconsistencies in language of BIT texts)
• Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No ARB/12/40) (www.practicallaw.com/0-559-2285) - (Treaty interpretation; Vienna Convention).

Umbrella clause

• Bosh International Inc and another v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/08/11) (www.practicallaw.com/6-522-2941) (Umbrella clause; breach of a contract; non-party).
• Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control BIVAC BV v The Republic of Paraguay (ICSID Case No ARB/07/9) (www.practicallaw.com/7-522-1352) (Jurisdiction; umbrella clause; stay; local court proceedings).
• Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC BV v The Republic of Paraguay (ICSID Case No ARB/07/9) - (Jurisdiction; umbrella clause; admissibility).
• Burlington Resources Inc v Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No ARB 08/5) (www.practicallaw.com/9-523-4754) (Privity; jurisdiction; umbrella clause).
• EDF International SA and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No ARB/03/23) (www.practicallaw.com/8-520-6148) (MFN clause, umbrella clauses).
• Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Republic of Ghana (ICSID Case No ARB/07/24) (www.practicallaw.com/4-503-5323) - (Contractual claims; BIT).
• Ioan Micula and others v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20) (www.practicallaw.com/0-554-4685) (Fair and equitable treatment standard; umbrella clause; EU law).
• Sempra v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB 02/16) (www.practicallaw.com/1-376-6273) - (BIT; fair and equitable treatment; umbrella clause).
• SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance SA v The Republic of Paraguay (ICSID Case No ARB/07/29) (www.practicallaw.com/8-518-5344) - (Obligations under investment contract; umbrella clause).

Source: http://uk.practicallaw.com/4-518-1668?q=icsid+enforcement+problems

Arbitration Institutions in Central and Western Europe

Albanian Commercial Mediation and Arbitration Center - Tirana, Albania
Alternative Dispute Resolution Center - Rome, Italy
Alternative Dispute Resolution Chambers UK - London, England
Alternative Dispute Resolution Services (ADRS) - Newcastle, England
Amsterdam ADR Institute - Amsterdam, Netherlands
Arab Association for International Arbitration (AAIA) - Paris, France
Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Institute of the Oslo Chamber of Commerce - Oslo, Norway
Arbitration and Mediation Centre of Paris (CMAP) - Paris, France
Arbitration and Mediation Tribunal of the Balearic Islands (TAMIB) - Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Arbitration Centre of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Geneva - Geneva, Switzerland
Arbitration Court at the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic - Prague, Czech Republic
Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce (HK) - Hamburg, Germany
Arbitration Court of the Estonian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACECCI) - Tallinn, Estonia
Arbitration Court of the Slovak Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Bratislava, Slovakia
Arbitration Institute of the Central Chamber of Commerce of Finland - Helsinki, Finland
Arbitration Court of the Latvian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) - Riga, Latvia
Arbitration Service of the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Nicosia, Cyprus
Association for International Arbitration (AIA) - Brussels, Belgium
Association Française d’Arbitrage (AFA) – Paris, France
Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI-CEPINA) - Brussels, Belgium
Board of Arbitration of the Central Chamber of Commerce of Finland - Helsinki, Finland
Center for Arbitration and Mediation (CVM) - Munich, Germany
Centre Européen d’Arbitrage (European Centre of Arbitration)(CEA) - Strasbourg, France
Centre for Commercial Arbitration of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce and Industry - London, England
Centre for International Mediation and Arbitration (CIMA) - Paris, France
Chamber of National and International Arbitration Milan (Camera Arbitrale Milano)(CAM) - Milan, Italy
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) - London, England
Chinese European Arbitration Centre (CEAC) - Hamburg, Germany
City Disputes Panel (CDP) - London, England
Commercial Arbitration Court – Iceland Chamber of Commerce - Reykjavík, Iceland
Court of Arbitration at the Zurich Chamber of Commerce - Zurich, Switzerland
Court of Arbitration Attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Budapest, Hungary
Court of Arbitration of the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowyprzy KrajowejIzbie Gospodarczej)(SAKIG) - Warsaw, Poland
Court of Arbitration for Sport - Lausanne, Switzerland
Court of International Commercial Arbitration Attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (CICA) - Bucharest Romania
Danish Centre for Conflict Resolution - Copenhagen, Denmark
Danish Institute of Arbitration - Copenhagen, Denmark
Dublin International Arbitration Centre - Dublin, Ireland
Energy Arbitration Court (EAVB) - Budapest, Hungary
Eurochambres – Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry - Brussels, Belgium
European Centre for Financial Dispute Resolution (EUROARBITRATION) - Paris, France
Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration at the Serbian Chamber of Commerce - Belgrade, Serbia
Frankfurt International Arbitration Centre (FIAC) - Frankfurt, Germany
Galician Association of Arbitration and Mediation (ASGAME) - Coruña, Spain
German Institution of Arbitration (DIS) - Köln, Munich, Berlin, Germany
Greek Chamber of Commerce (ACCI) - Athens, Greece
Hellenic Mediation and Arbitration Centre - Athens, Greece
Institute for the Study and Promotion of International Commercial Law and Arbitration (ISDACI) - Milan, Italy
Insurance and Reinsurance Arbitration Society (ARIAS) - London, England
International Arbitration – Venice Chamber of National and International Arbitration - Venice, Italy
International Arbitration Chamber of Paris - Paris, France
International Arbitration Institute (IAI) - Paris, France
Italian Association for Arbitration - Rome, Italy
Law Society of Ireland Arbitration Committee - Dublin, Ireland
Malta Arbitration Centre - Valletta, Malta
Maritime Arbitral Chamber of Paris - Paris, France
Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) - London, England
National Institute for Conciliation and Arbitration (NIPA) - Sofia, Bulgaria
Netherlands Arbitration Institute (NAI) - Rotterdam, Netherlands
Permanent Arbitration Court at the Croatian Chamber of Commerce - Zagreb, Croatia
Permanent Court of Arbitration Attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia - Ljubljana, Slovenia
Riga International Arbitration Court - Riga, Latvia
Scottish Arbitration Centre (SAC) - Edinburgh, Scotland
Spanish Court of Arbitration - Madrid, Spain
Spanish Society of Arbitration (SEA) - Madrid, Spain
Stockholm Arbitration and Litigation Center (SALC) - Stockholm, Sweden
Tribunal Arbitrajo del ICAV (TAV) - Valencia, Spain
Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) - Vienna, Austria
Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration (VCCA) - Vilnius, Lithuania
World Intellectual Property Organisation Arbitration and Mediation Centre (WIPO) - Geneva, Switzerland



Source: http://www.ezcarbitrationlawfirm.com/arbitral-institutions.html