Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v. The Republic of Hungary - Chapter 9 - Investment Arbitration Decisions

PDF280.09 KB
Page Count: 
52 pages
Media Description: 
PDF from "Investment Arbitration Decisions"
Jurisdictions: 
$35.00
Published: 
January, 2012
Description: 

Originally from:

Investment Arbitration Decisions

Preview Page

TELENOR MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS A.S. v. THE
REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY
ICSID CASE NO. ARB/04/15
ARBITRAL AWARD RENDERED ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2006

Subject Matters:
(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
Findings:
(1) The Respondent’s objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
was upheld.
(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
itself

Parties:

Claimant: Telenor Mobile Communications A.S.

Respondent: The Republic of Hungary

Arbitral Tribunal:

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

Applicable Law:
International Law

Language:
English

 

Table of Contents: 

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

SUBJECT- MATTERS:
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

 

Author Detail: 

About the Editor:

Noah Rubins is a Partner in the Paris office of Freshfields, where he is a member of the international arbitration and public international law groups. Mr. Rubins is a U.S. qualified lawyer and has advised and represented clients in arbitrations under ICSID, ICC, ICDR, SCC and UNCITRAL rules. He specializes in disputes in the former Soviet Union and investment treaty arbitration. In addition to advising clients, Mr. Rubins has served as arbitrator in a range of disputes, conducted under the ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SCC and UNCITRAL rules.

 

Observations by:

Domenico Di Pietro, J.D. (Rome), LLM (London), Avvocato (Italy) and Solicitor (England and Wales)
International Arbitration Group, Chiomenti Studio Legale, Rome. The views expressed in
this article are the author’s only and should not be attributed to Chiomenti Studio Legale.