Romania
Results: 26
Results: 1
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2022 | Aderlyne v. Romania |
Investment: Investments in renewable energy projects. Summary: |
Pending | Romania | Cyprus |
2 | 2022 | Clara Petroleum v. Romania |
Investment: Investments in the exploration and production of hydrocarbons. Summary: |
Pending | Romania | United Kingdom |
3 | 2022 | Plaza Centers v. Romania |
Investment: Investments in a shopping and entertainment center project in Bucharest, known as the "Casa Radio" and “Dambovita center” project. Summary: |
Pending | Romania | Netherlands |
4 | 2021 | KELAG and others v. Romania |
Investment: Investments in wind farms. Summary: Claims arising out of certain changes to Romania’s incentive scheme for investments in the renewable energy sector. |
Pending | Romania | Austria |
5 | 2020 | EP Wind v. Romania |
Investment: Investments in a 80 MW wind farm located in Chirnogeni, Dobrogea region. Summary: Claims arising out of certain changes to Romania’s incentive scheme for investments in the renewable energy sector. |
Pending | Romania | Cyprus |
6 | 2020 | Fin.Doc and others v. Romania |
Investment: Investments in photovoltaic power plants in Romania. Summary: Claims arising out of certain changes to Romania’s incentive scheme for investments in the renewable energy sector. |
Pending | Romania |
Cyprus Czechia Germany Greece Italy Luxembourg Türkiye |
7 | 2020 | Sukyas v. Romania (I) |
Investment: Ownership rights in Cinegrafia Română’s (CIRO Films) assets, real estate and business. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to restitute assets in Cinegrafia Română (CIRO Films), a film company held by the claimants’ family members before its seizure by the communist regime in 1948. |
Pending | Romania | United States of America |
8 | 2020 | Sukyas v. Romania (II) |
Investment: Ownership rights in Cinegrafia Română’s (CIRO Films) assets, real estate and business. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to restitute assets in Cinegrafia Română (CIRO Films), a film company held by the claimants’ family members before its seizure by the communist regime in 1948. |
Pending | Romania | Canada |
9 | 2019 | Petrochemical v. Romania |
Investment: 96.5% shareholding in RAFO S.A., an oil refinery in Onești, Romania. Summary: |
Pending | Romania | Austria |
10 | 2018 | Alverley and Germen v. Romania |
Investment: Indirect investments in Băneasa Investments SA, a joint venture to develop a shopping mall as well as commercial and residential buildings in Bucharest. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged sequestration order placed on a land plot used by Băneasa Investments SA for commercial real estate development, and subsequent proceedings to seize the land relating to corruption charges. |
Decided in favour of State | Romania | Cyprus |
11 | 2018 | LSG Building Solutions and others v. Romania |
Investment: Interest in a photovoltaic power plant located in Romania’s Giurgiu region. Summary: Claims arising out of certain changes to Romania’s incentive scheme for investments in the renewable energy sector. |
Pending | Romania |
Austria Cyprus Germany Netherlands |
12 | 2016 | Nova Group v. Romania |
Investment: Majority shareholding in Astra Asigurari, a local insurance company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s actions that allegedly led to the bankruptcy of an insurance company, Astra Asigurari, majority owned by the claimant. |
Pending | Romania | Netherlands |
13 | 2015 | Fin.Co.Ge.Ro v. Romania |
Investment: Concession contracts with local authorities to develop real estate projects in Constanța and Brăila, and an international airport in Galați. Summary: Claims arising out of local authorities’ alleged failure to fulfill obligations arising out of concession contracts signed with the claimant for real estate development projects, preventing their effective implementation. |
Decided in favour of State | Romania | Italy |
14 | 2015 | Gabriel Resources v. Romania |
Investment: Majority shareholding in Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, a Romanian mining company, co-owned with a State-owned entity. Summary: Claims arising out of the allegedly discriminatory measures relating to the approval of an environmental impact assessment and the issuance of an environmental permit required to start exploitation of the claimant's mining project. |
Pending | Romania |
Canada United Kingdom |
15 | 2014 | Alpiq v. Romania |
Investment: Rights under two electricity generation and distribution contracts concluded between claimant's local subsidiaries and a Romanian State-owned entity. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's cancellation of two long-term energy delivery contracts concluded between claimant's local subsidiaries, Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie, and Romania’s state-owned electricity utility Hidroelectrica, after the latter was declared insolvent. |
Decided in favour of State | Romania | Switzerland |
16 | 2014 | Micula v. Romania (II) |
Investment: Interests in Romanian beverage production enterprises. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to enforce its tax laws and to prevent the growth of illegal alcohol sales, causing harm to the claimants’ spirits business; and the Government’s imposition of unilateral price increases related to the claimants’ mineral water business conducted under a long-term sale and purchase contract with a national company. |
Decided in favour of State | Romania | Sweden |
17 | 2012 | Gavazzi v. Romania |
Investment: Majority shareholding in a local steel manufacturing enterprise under a privatisation agreement concluded with the Government. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of measures by the respondent allegedly in breach of its obligations under certain privatisation agreement concerning a steel plant in which the claimants had invested, leading to its liquidation. |
Decided in favour of investor | Romania | Italy |
18 | 2010 | Awdi v. Romania |
Investment: Majority shareholding in a press distribution company that held a concession to operate kiosks across Romania; ownership of a historical building in the centre of Bucharest serving as boutique hotel and restaurant. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged failure to protect claimants' press distribution and boutique hotel investments, following a decision issued by the Romanian Constitutional Court declaring a law that guaranteed claimants' investment as unconstitutional. |
Decided in favour of investor | Romania | United States of America |
19 | 2010 | Dede v. Romania |
Investment: Majority shareholding in SC IMUM SA, an agricultural machinery and equipment enterprise, through a share purchase agreement concluded with a Romanian agency; financial contributions into said company; payment of penalties as a precondition to acquiring shares in that company. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision by Romania's privatisation agency AVAS to take possession of claimant's shares in an agricultural machinery manufacturer in the south-eastern city of Medgidia. |
Decided in favour of State | Romania | Türkiye |
20 | 2007 | S&T Oil v. Romania |
Investment: Shareholding and contractual rights under an agreement concluded between the claimant and Romania's privatization authority to take over the privatization of Nitramonia S.A., a large ammonia manufacturing and processing plant. Summary: Claims arising out of contractual disagreements between the parties and the Government's termination of certain privatization agreement concluded with the investor, followed by the cancellation of the company's shareholdings, the taking of its Romanian assets, and the re-privatization of the assets by putting them out to tender. |
Discontinued | Romania | United States of America |
21 | 2006 | Rompetrol v. Romania |
Investment: Controlling shareholding in Rompetrol Rafinare S.A., a privatised Romanian company which owned and operated an oil refinery and petrochemical complex. Summary: Claims arising out of investigations undertaken by Romanian anti-corruption and criminal prosecution authorities relating to the privatisation of an oil refinery company, shortly after the sale of the controlling shares to the claimant, allegedly including the arrest, detention, travel-ban and wire-tapping of key company's executives. |
Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Romania | Netherlands |
22 | 2006 | Roussalis v. Romania |
Investment: Share purchase agreement concluded between the claimant and Romania's Authority for State Assets Recovery to acquire a controlling interest in a formerly State-owned enterprise engaged in the frozen-food warehousing business. Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over compliance with a post-investment obligation related to claimant's purchase of shares in a large frozen food warehousing facility from the Romanian government's privatization authority; also, other measures such as tax liabilities and penalties allegedly imposed on the investor's company by the Romanian authorities and the enforced closure of his operation because of an alleged failure to comply with EU-mandated food safety regulations. |
Decided in favour of State | Romania | Greece |
23 | 2005 | EDF v. Romania |
Investment: Interests in two joint venture companies with Romanian entities owned by the Romanian Government, engaged in providing duty-free services. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged arbitrary taking of a concession to provide duty free and other retail services at several Romanian airports and on board airplanes. |
Decided in favour of State | Romania | United Kingdom |
24 | 2005 | Micula v. Romania (I) |
Investment: Contributions of over EUR 200 million through the purchase or importation of machinery, raw materials, lands, buildings, equipment and means of transportation for food production facilities in disfavored regions of Romania. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's introduction of a series of investment incentives for the development of certain disfavoured regions of Romania and from the subsequent partial withdrawal or amendment of those incentives, in the context of Romania's accession to the European Union. |
Decided in favour of investor | Romania | Sweden |
25 | 2002 | Pol Am Pack v. Romania |
Investment: Majority shareholding (90 per cent) in SC AMEP American Packaging SA Tecuci. Summary: |
Settled | Romania | Poland |
26 | 2001 | Noble Ventures v. Romania |
Investment: Share purchase agreement entered into with the Romanian State Ownership Fund. Summary: Claims arising out of a privatization agreement concerning the acquisition, management, operation and disposition of a substantial steel mill with associated and other assets located in Romania. |
Decided in favour of State | Romania | 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 |