|Help

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

Author(s): 
Noah D. Rubins KC
Domenico Di Pietro
Page Count: 
52 pages
Media Description: 
PDF from "Investment Arbitration Decisions"
Published: 
January, 2012
Jurisdictions: 
Hungary, Republic of,
Norway
Practice Areas: 
Investment Disputes,
Institutional and Administered Arbitration,
International and Transnational Law,
Arbitral Awards,
Apportioning of Costs,
ICSID,
Arbitral Decisions,
BITS,
Washington Convention
Tags: 
Indirect Expropriation,
Fair and Equitable Treatment
Author Detail: 

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.

PDF280.09 KB

$40.00
Description: 

Originally from Investment Arbitration Decisions

Subject Matters:

  1. (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. (2)  Indirect expropriation
  3. (3)  The scope of application of Most Favoured Nation clauses.
  4. (4)  Allocation of costs
Findings:
  1. (1)  The Respondent’s objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was upheld.
  2. (2)  The Claimant failed to produce even prima facie evidence about any State conduct affecting the investment.
  3. (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. (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