Moldova, Republic of
Results: 13
Results: 1
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2022 | Rotalin v. Moldova |
Investment: Ownership (100%) of locally incorporated subsidiary, Rotalin Gaz Trading S.R.L., holding licences for the supply and distribution of natural gas. Summary: Claims arising out of government agencies’ alleged measures to restrict the claimants’ access to the country’s natural gas network and the setting of unfair tariffs for the claimants’ natural gas distribution service. |
Pending | Moldova, Republic of | Liechtenstein |
2 | 2020 | Komaksavia v. Moldova |
Investment: Majority shareholding (95 per cent) in SC Avia Invest SRL, the concessionaire operating the Chisinau airport. Summary: Claims arising out of the Public Property Agency’s notified termination of the concession contract with Avia Invest for alleged breaches of contract obligations by the concessionaire. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | Cyprus |
3 | 2016 | Evrobalt and Kompozit v. Moldova |
Investment: Shareholdings in Agroindbank, a Moldovan commercial bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the Moldovan National Bank’s decision obliging the claimants to sell their shares in Agroindbank within a three-month period and ordering the cancellation of the shares after this period. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
4 | 2016 | Grot and others v. Moldova |
Investment: Rights under lease agreements for agricultural land concluded with landowners for a 3-year period. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unlawful termination of the lease agreements for agricultural land concluded by the claimants with the landowners in two villages in the north-east of Moldova. A year after the agreements had been concluded, the respective local city halls revoked the registration of the agreements due to the claimants’ alleged non-performance of their contractual obligations, and registered lease agreements with a different lessee for the same land plots. |
Decided in favour of investor | Moldova, Republic of |
United States of America Poland |
5 | 2014 | TSIKinvest v. Moldova |
Investment: Shareholding of 4.16 per cent in the capital of Victoriabank, a Moldovan bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the suspension of claimant’s voting rights in a Moldovan bank and the forced sale of its shares within 3 months allegedly ordered by Moldova’s national bank. |
Discontinued | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
6 | 2012 | Bogdanov v. Moldova (IV) |
Investment: Ownership of paint-manufacturing company. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged tax and environmental policy modifications which adversely affected the claimant's operation of a local company involved in the production and sale of paints, varnishes and similar products in Moldova. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
7 | 2012 | State Enterprise v. Moldova |
Investment: Creditor of a USD 1.7 million debt against a Moldovan State-owned entity for electricity supply. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged responsibility for its judiciary in claimant's collection of a debt against a company owned by Moldova's Ministry of Energy concerning electricity supply; specifically, by the Moldovan courts' decision that the debt was to be paid to a third party. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | Ukraine |
8 | 2011 | Arif v. Moldova |
Investment: Ownership of the Moldovan company Le Bridge, which had won a tender to set up and run a network of five duty free stores at the border with Romania; rights under related lease agreements; construction of four duty free stores; related authorizations and licenses. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged Government interference in the investor's duty-free business at Chisinau Airport and at five border stores with Romania which delayed or prevented the opening of such duty free stores. |
Decided in favour of investor | Moldova, Republic of | France |
9 | 2010 | Energoalians v. Moldova |
Investment: Shareholding in an electricity production company. Summary: Claims arising out of the non-payment of accumulated debt by the State-owned entity Moldtranselectro and by another former partner of Energoalians, for energy supplied in 1999-2000. |
Decided in favour of investor | Moldova, Republic of | Ukraine |
10 | 2009 | Bogdanov v. Moldova (III) |
Investment: Ownership of the chemicals import company "Grand Torg", domiciled in the Free Enterprise Zone Expo-Business-Chisinau. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged wrongdoing on the part of Moldova's Customs Department, after it supposedly restricted the operations of claimant's company in a so-called free economic zone by unilaterally collecting from claimant's investment a fee for each customs declaration which was considered by the investor as a more onerous customs regime than that existing at its time of registration. |
Decided in favour of investor | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
11 | 2005 | Bogdanov v. Moldova (II) |
Investment: Ownership of a paint-manufacturing company. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged wrongdoing on the part of Moldova's Customs Department, after it supposedly restricted the operations of claimant's paint-manufacturing company in a so-called free economic zone. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
12 | 2004 | Bogdanov v. Moldova (I) |
Investment: Ownership of local investment company that had a privatization contract with Moldovan authorities for the purchase of a majority shareholding in the capital of certain privatized company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Moldovan Department of Privatization's refusal to fully compensate the value of the investors' assets that were transferred to the State in accordance with certain privatization contract. |
Decided in favour of investor | Moldova, Republic of | Russian Federation |
13 | 1999 | Link Trading v. Moldova |
Investment: U.S.-Moldovan joint venture company engaged in the import of consumer products into the Free Economic Zone of Chisinau and resale to retail customers. Summary: Claims arising out of changes in the rates of duties and VAT exemptions introduced by the 1998 Moldovan Law on the Budget which allegedly destroyed the economic viability of claimant's business. |
Decided in favour of State | Moldova, Republic of | United States of America |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2010 | Stati and others v. Kazakhstan |
Investment: Rights under certain subsoil use contracts held by Ascom's local operating companies, KPM and TNG; capital contributions for oil exploration and development; assets and infrastructure related to oil field operations, including a Liquid Petroleum Gas plant. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged campaign of harassment by the Kazakh State which culminated with the abrupt cancellation of oil and gas exploration contracts held by claimant's local operating companies, followed by the seizure of its Kazakh assets. |
Decided in favour of investor | Kazakhstan |
Moldova, Republic of Romania Gibraltar |