1. The present dispute arises from Romania’s introduction and subsequent revocation of certain economic incentives, contained in Emergency Government Ordinance 24/1998 (“EGO 24”), for the development of certain disfavored regions of Romania. The Claimants claim that, in reliance on those incentives, and in reliance on the expectation that these incentives would be maintained during a 10-year period, they made substantial investments in the Ştei-Nucet-Drăgăneşti disfavored region located in Bihor County in northwestern Romania. The Claimants further claim that Romania’s premature revocation of these incentives was in breach of its obligations under the Agreement Between the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden and the Government of Romania on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (the “BIT” or the “Treaty”), which entered into force on 1 April 2003 (Exh. C-1), and caused damages to the Claimants, as described further below.