MR. FRANZ SEDELMAYER v. THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION - I. FINAL ARBITRAL AWARD RENDERED IN 1998 IN AN AD HOC ARBITRATION IN STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN - II. JUDGMENT BY THE STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT RENDERED ON 18 DECEMBER 2002 - III. DECISION BY THE SVEA COURT OF APPEAL RENDERED ON 15 JUNE 2005 - Stockholm International Arbitration Review (SIAR) 2005 No. 2

Author(s): 

Walid Ben Hamida

Stefan Kröll

Jörn Griebel

Domenico Di Pietro

Page Count: 

110 pages

Media Description: 

1 PDF Download

Published: 

April, 2006

Jurisdictions: 

Russia

Practice Areas: 

Ad hoc,

Arbitral Awards,

Appeal to Arbitral Tribunal and Annulment,

Arbitral Decisions,

Judicial Decisions

Subscribe to download

PDF1 MB

$40.00

Add to cart

Description: 

Originally from: Stockholm International Arbitration Review

Includes:

Observations by Walid Ben Hamida 

Observations by Stefan Kröll and Jörn Griebel

Observations by Domenico di Pietro

 

Preview Page

 

MR. FRANZ SEDELMAYER v. THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

I. FINAL ARBITRAL AWARD RENDERED IN 1998 IN AN AD HOC ARBITRATION IN STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN

II. JUDGMENT BY THE STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT RENDERED ON 18 DECEMBER 2002

III. DECISION BY THE SVEA COURT OF APPEAL RENDERED ON 15 JUNE 2005

 

I. THE ARBITRATION

Subject Matters:

(1) Definition of “investor.”

(2) Scope of the definition of “investment.”

(3) The scope of expropriation provisions.

(4) Application of the principle of lis pendens.

(5) Propriety of State as respondent.

(6) Compliance with pre-arbitration procedures.

(7) Identification and valuation of investments subject to expropriation.

 

Findings:

(1) Where German investor carried out activities in Russia through a U.S. corporation, his indirect control of the local operating company qualified him as an “investor” under the applicable bilateral investment treaty, which was silent on the issue of indirect ownership.

(2) “Investment” should be given a broad definition. Each particular asset must be examined to determine whether it was invested in accordance with Russian law before it can be considered an “investment.” Most of the assets in question qualify as legal investments.