TELENOR MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS A.S. v. THE
REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY
ICSID CASE NO. ARB/04/15
ARBITRAL AWARD RENDERED ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2006
(1) Challenge of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction grounded on the fact that
the relevant BIT limited recourse to international arbitration for
claims of expropriation only.
(2) Indirect expropriation
(3) The scope of application of Most Favoured Nation clauses.
(4) Allocation of costs
(1) The Respondent’s objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
(2) The Claimant failed to produce even prima facie evidence about
any State conduct affecting the investment.
(3) With regard to the attempt to expand the protection of the BIT to
claims different from claims for expropriation the Tribunal found
that the Claimant’s argument could not be upheld as the MFN
clause contained in the relevant BIT was not broad enough to
allow such reading.
(4) The Tribunal, considering the circumstances of the case and
giving ample explanation, ordered the Claimant to pay not only
the Defendant’s legal costs but also the costs of the arbitration
Claimant: Telenor Mobile Communications A.S.
Respondent: The Republic of Hungary
Chairman: Professor Sir Roy Goode, CBE, QC
Arbitrator: Mr Nicholas W Allard
Arbitrator: Mr Arthur L Marriott, QC
Seat of Arbitration:
Washington D.C. (hearings held in London)
Applicable Investment Treaty:
Bilateral Investment Treaty between Hungary and Norway
IX. Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v.
The Republic of Hungary 763
ICSID Case No. Arb/04/15
Arbitral Award Rendered on 13 September 2006
1) Challenge of the Tribunal's jurisdiction grounded on the fact
that the relevant BIT limited recourse to international
arbitration for claims of expropriation only.
2) Indirect expropriation.
3) The scope of application of Most Favoured Nation clauses.
4) Allocation of costs.
Observations by Domenico Di Pietro