Renta 4 S.V.S.A., et al v. The Russian Federation - Chapter 12 - Investment Arbitration Decisions
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.
Lucia Raimanova, Associate, International Arbitration Group, Allen & Overy LLP. The views expressed herein are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Allen & Overy LLP or its clients.
Originally from Investment Arbitration Decisions
RENTA 4 S.V.S.A., ET AL. v. THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION SCC CASE NO. ARBITRATION V (024/2007) AWARD ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS RENDERED ON 20 MARCH 2009
(ii) Whether Article 5 of the Spain/Russia BIT, which provides most favoured nation guarantees of fair and equitable treatment, permits the expansion of jurisdiction under Article 10 of the Spain/Russia BIT.
(iii) Whether certain Claimants qualified as “investors” under Article 1 of the Spain/Russia BIT?
(iv) Whether American Depository Receipts qualified as “investments” under Article 1 of the Spain/Russia BIT?
(v) Whether the Claimants had sufficiently demonstrated ownership over their investments?
(vi) Whether the claims were admissible?
(ii) Article 5 of the Spain/Russia BIT did not affect the Russian Federation’s obligations under Article 10 of that BIT because the subject matter of Article 10, investor-State arbitration, is not a constituent part of the Russian Federation’s obligation to accord fair and equitable treatment and hence there was no most favoured nation guarantee provided to Claimants.
(iii) Three Claimants, not being corporate bodies under Spanish law, did not qualify as investors under Article 1 of the Spain/Russia BIT.
(iv) American Depository Receipts issued by the Russian company Yukos were investments under Article 1 of the Spain/Russia BIT.
(v) Depository Statements issued on behalf of the Claimants were sufficient to demonstrate their beneficial ownership over American Depository Receipts, which ownership was protected under Article 1 of the Spain/Russia BIT.
(vi) The claims were admissible.
XII. Renta 4 S.V.S.A., et al v. The Russian Federation 905
(1) SCC Case V (024/2007) Award on Preliminary Objections Rendered on 20 March 2009
Whether the arbitral tribunal has subject-matter jurisdiction under Articles 10 and 5 of the Spain/Russia BIT, whether it has personal jurisdiction over the seven claimants, whether the claimants had made investments and, if so, whether their claims are admissible.
(2) Yukos and Some of Its Progeny
By Lucia Raimanova