Sweden
Results: 1
Results: 14
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2022 | Huawei v. Sweden |
Investment: Indirect shareholding in Huawei Technologies Sweden AB (“Huawei Sweden”) through a wholly-owned subsidiary, Huawei Technologies Coöperatief U.A. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged exclusion of Huawei Sweden from participation in an auction conducted by the national telecommunications regulator concerning licences for the Swedish 5G Network. According to the claimant, the mandatory requirements for auction participants included a prohibition to use any equipment or services from Huawei for 5G networks and phase out those in use for existing 3G and 4G networks by 2025. |
Pending | Sweden | China |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2024 | Fortum v. Russia (I) |
Investment: Indirect shareholding in local subsidiary PAO Fortum (later renamed to “Forward Energo”), including ownership of several power plants and shares in joint ventures. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged unlawful expropriation of the claimant’s assets following Presidential decree No. 302 of 2023. |
Pending | Russian Federation |
Netherlands Sweden |
2 | 2024 | Fortum v. Russia (II) |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Russian Federation |
Netherlands Sweden |
3 | 2021 | Misen v. Ukraine |
Investment: Rights to produce hydrocarbons under a joint activity agreement between Misen Enterprises AB and the local subsidiary LLC Karpatygaz (together 50.01%) concluded with JSC Ukrgasvydobuvannya (49.99%), a subsidiary of the NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s imposition of a 70% subsoil use charge for the production of natural gas from depths of up to 5,000 meters, applying to enterprises established under joint activity agreements. According to the claimants, this led to the termination of the joint activity agreement for gas production in which the claimants and a local subsidiary held the majority interest. |
Pending | Ukraine | Sweden |
4 | 2021 | Taheri v. United Arab Emirates |
Investment: Investments in companies Epoch and Reezmouj. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s failure to renew the claimant’s permit to reside in the country, affecting his investments in import-export activities and the trading of general commodities. |
Settled | United Arab Emirates | Sweden |
5 | 2018 | Corral v. Morocco |
Investment: 67% shareholding in Société Anonyme Marocaine de l'Industrie du Raffinage (SAMIR), a local oil refinery and storage company. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unfair treatment of SAMIR, a local company majority owned by the claimant, including the seizure of its bank accounts and the prevention of oil tankers from docking and unloading cargo. |
Decided in favour of investor | Morocco | Sweden |
6 | 2017 | EcoDevelopment and EcoEnergy v. Tanzania |
Investment: Investment of the alleged USD 52 million in developing 20,000 hectares of land to grow sugar cane and produce ethanol. Summary: Claims arising out of the cancellation by the Government, in 2016, of the claimants’ sugar cane and ethanol project on the grounds that it would have adverse impact on local wildlife. |
Decided in favour of investor | Tanzania, United Republic of | Sweden |
7 | 2015 | Hydro Energy 1 and Hydroxana v. Spain |
Investment: Investments in renewable energy generation enterprise. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. |
Decided in favour of investor | Spain |
Luxembourg Sweden |
8 | 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 |
9 | 2012 | Vattenfall v. Germany (II) |
Investment: Shareholding in two nuclear power plants located in Brunsbüttel and Krümmel, Germany. Summary: Claims arising out of Germany's enactment of legislation to phase out nuclear power plants in the country by 2022. |
Settled | Germany | Sweden |
10 | 2011 | Accession Eastern v. Bulgaria |
Investment: Indirect shareholding in company that held a waste management concession agreement for the city of Sofia, Bulgaria. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's early termination of a 15-year concession to provide waste collection, street cleaning and snow-clearing services in Sofia, Bulgaria, due to alleged health and safety concerns. |
Discontinued | Bulgaria | Sweden |
11 | 2009 | Vattenfall v. Germany (I) |
Investment: Rights under an agreement concluded between the Vattenfall Group and the Hamburg Government for the construction of a coal-fired power plant known as the Moorburg powerplant. Summary: Claims arising out of the conduct of the Hamburg government authorities relating to the administrative procedure for the issuing of permits for a new power plant being constructed by Vattenfall Generation at the site of a former plant located at Hamburg-Moorburg. |
Settled | Germany | Sweden |
12 | 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 |
13 | 2001 | Nykomb v. Latvia |
Investment: Ownership of local joint stock company holding contractual rights with a State enterprise for an investment project. Summary: Claims arising out of a dispute over the purchase price to be paid under a contract entered into between claimant's subsidiary and a State enterprise for the building of a cogeneration plant in Latvia. |
Decided in favour of investor | Latvia | Sweden |
14 | 1999 | Swembalt v. Latvia |
Investment: Ownership of vessel for the rental of accommodation and office space. Summary: Claims arising out of the loss of a vessel owned by the claimant which was moored in the Port of Riga with the permission of the relevant Latvian authorities and in accordance with a land lease agreement with the Kurzeme district of Riga. |
Decided in favour of investor | Latvia | Sweden |