Jurisdiction — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Meaning of legal dispute — Whether amount of compensation a legal dispute — Meaning of investment — Whether contract can be an investment — Conditions for contract to be an investment — Whether contribution by contractor can be in home country — Nature of contribution required — Duration of contract — Risk implied in contract — Requirement of a dispute with a State

Jurisdiction — Consent to ICSID jurisdiction — Scope of consent limited by Article 4 of Algeria-Italy Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991

Admissibility — Algeria-Italy Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991, Article 8 — Requirement of attempts at prior friendly settlement — Cooling-off period — Date from which cooling-off period running

Admissibility — Standing — Whether Consortium party to contract — Whether creation of Consortium notified to Algeria — Whether Consortium accepted by Algeria — Whether Consortium an agent for member companies — Whether Consortium can assert rights of member companies

Costs — Discretion of Tribunal — Inadmissible claim — Rejection of most of Respondent’s objections

Jurisdiction — Claims for compensation — Procedural default of Respondent State — Relevance — Independent evaluation of facts and legal arguments of Claimant — Claim under Moldovan law — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction under Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over claims of foreign investor — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over claims of companies incorporated in Moldova — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Respondent State — Whether Tribunal having authority to correct relief sought — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating principle of non–retroactivity under Moldovan law — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating obligations under BIT

State responsibility — Moldova — Department of Privatization — Whether conduct of Department attributable to State — Article 4 of ILC Articles on State Responsibility

Applicable law — Article 24 of SCC Arbitration Rules — Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Moldovan law — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating Moldovan law — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating its international treaty obligations under BIT

Municipal law — Moldovan law — Claim made under Moldovan law — Article 43 of Foreign Investment Act — Principle of non–retroactivity of legislation — Moldovan authority’s discretion — Whether Claimant accepting risk that compensation by Moldova unsatisfactory — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating Moldovan law

Treaties — Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Full protection standard — Whether Respondent State’s conduct violating Moldovan law — Whether full protection clause correction of host State’s legislation — Whether Respondent State’s conduct violating full protection standard — Article 2 of BIT

Treaties — Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Fair and equitable treatment — Whether Respondent State’s conduct violating fair and equitable treatment guarantee — Whether discriminatory — Relevance — Purpose of BIT — Legitimate expectation of foreign investor — Article 3 of BIT

Treaties — Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Indirect expropriation — Whether applying only to measures affecting totality or substantial part of investment — Whether Respondent’s conduct violating prohibition of indirect compensation without adequate compensation — Article 6 of BIT

Damages — Assessment — Liability for loss — Whether foreign investor partially responsible for signing contract with unlimited Moldovan authority discretion — Whether moral damages appropriate — Interest — Currency

Costs — Costs of the arbitration — Lack of cooperation by Respondent State — Relevance — Parties’ costs

Interpretation — ICSID award — Admissibility requirements for Application for Interpretation — Whether full payment of amount stipulated within Award precluding investor from seeking interpretation of Award — Application to interpret determination of “expropriation” in Award and its consequences for interrelationship between investor and State — Whether admissible under Article 50 of ICSID Convention

Interpretation — ICSID award — Whether determination in Award that investment subject to “expropriation” meaning total and permanent deprivation of investor’s fundamental rights of ownership in assets constituting the investment — Whether such a determination precluding State from legal actions presuming the contrary of Tribunal’s determination in Award

Interpretation — ICSID award — Application to determine consequences of determination of “expropriation” in Award for relationships between the investor and third parties — Whether admissible under Article 50 of ICSID Convention

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Legal stability agreement — Scope of arbitration agreement — Interpretation in good faith, objectively fair and functional approach — Consent to ICSID jurisdiction — Nature of dispute — Establishment of prima facie case for jurisdiction — Claims under investment contract — Characterization of investment — Unity of investment — Applicable law — ICSID Convention, Articles 25(1) and 42(1)

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Claimant as national of Contracting State — Respondent as Contracting State — Claims under investment contract only — Claimant and Respondent as parties to investment contract — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1)

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Time when actual dispute arising — Not time of dispute’s factual background — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1)

Admissibility — Standing of indirect shareholder — Effect of national court decision — Non-identity of parties, issues, cause of action, rights, obligations, relief — Decision in light of stabilized rights under investment agreement — Applicable law — ICSID Convention, Article 42(1) — Effect of tax amnesty

Arbitration — ICSID — Legal Stability Agreements — Stable interpretation — Peruvian Merger Revaluation Law — Depreciation Assessment — Merger Revaluation Assessment — Estoppel — Whether acts of entities other than national tax services binding Respondent on transactions with tax implications — Whether free remittance of capital covering tax stabilization or non-discrimination guarantee — Whether Depreciation Assessment breaching Tax Stabilization Guarantee — Whether Depreciation Assessment breaching doctrine of actos propios — Whether legal stability of laws and regulations also covering specific interpretation and application — Whether Merger Revaluation Assessment breaching Tax Stabilization Guarantee — Whether Merger Revaluation Assessment breaching doctrine of actos propios — Whether Respondent breaching non-discrimination guarantee

Damages — Applicable standard — Sustainment of damages through subsidiary’s dividends — Calculation of damages — Transparency of parties’ calculations

Costs — Allocation between parties — ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) — Parties bearing own legal costs

Procedure — Counterclaim — Whether requiring involvement of third party — Whether counterclaim closely connected to primary investment dispute

Jurisdiction — Acquisition of shares — Whether acquisition of shares an “investment” — Investor — Whether good faith required — Whether real and continuous social and economic links required

Treaties — BIT — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute — Whether Czech Republic acting in breach of BIT — Expropriation — Forced administration of bank — Whether indirect expropriation — Public financial assistance — Refusal to negotiate in good faith — Predictable and transparent framework — Government official leaking negative information — Suspension of trading of shares — Whether breach of obligation to treat fairly and equitably — Whether unreasonable and discriminatory measures — Whether failure to prevent unjust enrichment — Whether breach of non-impairment obligation — Whether breach of obligation to provide full security and protection — Whether Czech Republic acting in breach of Articles 3 and 5 of BIT — Whether Czech Republic liable for damages — Appropriate redress for breach and questions of quantum for second phase of arbitration

Award — Arbitration — Challenge to validity of partial arbitral award before Swiss Federal Court — Articles 190–2 of Swiss Private International Law Act — Whether parties entitled to second round of pleadings

Award — Arbitration — Challenge to validity of partial arbitral award before Swiss Federal Court — Article 192 of Swiss Private International Law Act — Whether parties waived right to set aside partial arbitral award

Award — Arbitration — Challenge to validity of partial arbitral award before Swiss Federal Court — Article 190(2)(b) of Swiss Private International Law Act — Whether arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute — State responsibility — State entity — Manifest lack of a link with the State — ILC Articles on State Responsibility — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Definition of an investment — Duration — BITs between Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Egypt in 1977 and 2002 — Meaning of “communications” for purpose of 1977 BIT — Applicability ratione tempo ris of 2002 BIT — Time at which dispute arose — Whether a new dispute existed — Reliance on a BIT — Exclusive jurisdiction clause — Claims juridically distinct from contract claims — Existence of an investment — Time at which dispute arose — ICSID Convention, Article 25

Award — Applicable law — Consent to arbitration — State organ — Exercise of governmental authority — Attribution to the State — ILC Articles on State Responsibility — Denial of justice — Exhaustion of local remedies — Fair and equitable treatment — Fraud — Due diligence — Duty to inform — Legitimate expectations — Continuous protection and security of an investment — Duty to promote investments — 1977 and 2002 BITs between Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Egypt — Whether Egypt breaching its obligations under BITs

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — For merits phase — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Actual and constructive knowledge — Time when loss or damage incurred — Burden of proof — NAFTA, Articles 1116(2) and 1117(2)

Admissibility — Amendment of claim — UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Article 20

Applicable law — Whether Agreement between Government of Hungary and Government of Cyprus on Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investment (“BIT”) applicable in arbitration by ICSID — Article 7 of BIT and Article 42(1) of ICSID Convention — Relevance of case law in arbitration — Whether arbitral awards constituting binding precedents

Jurisdiction — Whether dispute arising out of an investment — Whether Claimants making investments in Hungary — Meaning of “investment” — Whether dispute arising “directly” out of an investment — Whether dispute with “a national of another Contracting State” — Whether “national” including juridical persons — Article 25 of ICSID Convention — Article 1 of BIT

Expropriation — Whether Amending Act and Decree amounting to expropriation — Whether contravening Article 4 of BIT

Foreign investment — Investment protection standards — Fair and equitable treatment — Unreasonable or discriminatory measures — Full security and protection — Determination — Whether Respondent’s actions violating standards — Article 3 of BIT

Damages — Applicable standards in assessment of damages for unlawful expropriation — Whether standard of BIT or customary international law applicable — Assessment of damages — Whether date of valuation date of Award or date of expropriation

Interest — Rate of interest — Whether compound interest can be awarded in investor-State arbitration

Costs — Discretion of Tribunal to order for payment of costs — Article 61(2) of ICSID Convention — Rule 28 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules