Türkiye
Results: 18
Results: 49
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2021 | Alamos Gold v. Turkey |
Investment: Investments in the Kirazlı gold mine project in the Çanakkale province in Turkey. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged non-renewal of the claimants’ mining licences and related permits for the Kirazlı gold mine development project, resulting in the suspension of construction activities on the Kirazlı project. |
Pending | Türkiye | Netherlands |
2 | 2021 | Enel v. Türkiye |
Investment: Investments in a renewable energy generation enterprise. Summary: |
Pending | Türkiye | Italy |
3 | 2020 | Akfel and I-Systems v. Turkey |
Investment: Investments in Akfel Group, a gas and power company, through a shareholding of 100% in Akfel Holding and of 50% in Akpol and ISystems Global B.V. (I-Systems Global), a company incorporated in Holland. Summary: |
Pending | Türkiye |
Netherlands Singapore |
4 | 2019 | Aljarallah v. Turkey |
Investment: Shareholding of 4% in Aydinli Hazir Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., a clothing company. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged non-payment of profit shares to the claimant and his removal from the Board of Directors of Aydinli Hazir Giyim, following the company’s placing under the trusteeship of the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (SDIF) of Turkey. |
Pending | Türkiye | Kuwait |
5 | 2018 | Cascade Investments v. Turkey |
Investment: Shareholding of 99.94% in Cihan Medya Dağitim (CMD), a local newspaper distribution company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s measures in relation to the claimant’s newspaper distribution company, including charging the company’s general manager with terrorism and coup-plotting, seizing the company and placing it under State control. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye | Belgium |
6 | 2018 | Ipek v. Türkiye |
Investment: Shareholding of 100% in the Turkish company Koza-İpek Holding A.Ş., the owner of the Koza Group of companies. Summary: Claims arising out of certain measures taken by the Government against the Koza Group of companies on the basis of their alleged involvement in financing terrorism, including the seizure of assets and the placement of Koza companies under the control of trustees. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye | United Kingdom |
7 | 2018 | Westwater Resources v. Turkey |
Investment: Licences for the exploration and development of two uranium mines, held by the local subsidiary Adur Madencilik Limited Sireketi. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s revocation of seven exploration and operating licences for the Temrezli and Sefaatli uranium mining projects, allegedly due to the creation of a state monopoly over uranium mining activities in the country. |
Decided in favour of investor | Türkiye | United States of America |
8 | 2015 | Nabucco v. Turkey |
Investment: Rights under a contract for the construction and operation of a major natural gas pipeline Nabucco, which was intended to enable gas transit from the Caspian Sea to Europe. Summary: Claims arising out of the cancellation of a contract for the construction and operation of a major natural gas pipeline Nabucco. |
Settled | Türkiye | Austria |
9 | 2014 | Uzan v. Turkey |
Investment: Rights under electricity concessions held by claimant's companies ÇEAŞ and Kepez. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged termination by the Government of electricity concessions held by the claimant, as well as the seizure of the assets owned by claimant's electricity companies. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye |
France United Kingdom |
10 | 2011 | Tulip Real Estate v. Turkey |
Investment: Majority shareholding in local investment vehicle that held rights under a license to complete a real estate development project in Turkey; loans; "direct out-of-pocket expenses"; performance bond. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged Government's termination of a mixed-use residential and commercial real estate development project in Istanbul, known as Ispartakule III, in which the claimant held interests. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye | Netherlands |
11 | 2008 | Alapli v. Turkey |
Investment: Rights under a concession agreement for electricity generation concluded between a Turkish Ministry and a company that later assigned its rights to another company in which the claimant had acquired shares. Summary: Claims arising out of a concession to develop, finance, construct, own, operate and transfer a combined cycle power plant in Turkey and a number of legislative changes in 2000 concerning infrastructure projects in Turkey. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye | Netherlands |
12 | 2007 | Europe Cement v. Turkey |
Investment: Minority shareholding in two Turkish utilities companies that had concluded electricity concession agreements with the Turkish Ministry of Energy. Summary: Claims arising out of the seizure of two Turkish utility companies, Cukarova Elektrik Anonim Sirketi and Kepez Elektrik Turk Anonim Sirketi, in respect of which the claimant held shares and the cancellation of electricity generation and distribution concession agreements between the latter two entities and Turkey. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye | Poland |
13 | 2007 | Saba Fakes v. Turkey |
Investment: Majority shareholding in the Turkish telecommunications company Telsim. Summary: Claims arising out of the receivership and the alleged subsequent forced sale by Turkish authorities of assets held by Telsim, a major mobile phone company in which the claimant had invested. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye | Netherlands |
14 | 2006 | Cementownia v. Turkey (I) |
Investment: Shareholding in two Turkish hydroelectric companies, Cukurova Elektrik A.S. and Kepez Elektrik Türk A.S., that had concluded concession agreements with the Government for the generation, transmission, distribution and marketing of electricity. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unilateral termination of certain concession agreements by the Turkish government, followed by the alleged seizure and expropriation of assets of the two hydroelectric plants in which the claimant had invested without compensation. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye | Poland |
15 | 2006 | Cementownia v. Turkey (II) |
Investment: Ownership of several assets and companies formerly owned by members of the Uzan family. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation by Turkey Savings Deposit Insurance Fund of several assets and companies formerly owned by members of the Uzan family, as part of Turkey's fraud case against such family and in an effort to satisfy creditors of an Uzan-owned financial institution, Imar Bank. |
Discontinued | Türkiye | Poland |
16 | 2006 | Libananco v. Turkey |
Investment: Shareholding in two Turkish utilities companies that had concluded electricity concession agreements with the Turkish Ministry of Energy. Summary: Claims arising out of the seizure of two Turkish utility companies, Cukarova Elektrik Anonim Sirketi and Kepez Elektrik Turk Anonim Sirketi, in respect of which Libananco held shares and the cancellation of electricity generation and distribution concession agreements between the latter two entities and Turkey. |
Decided in favour of State | Türkiye | Cyprus |
17 | 2004 | Motorola v. Turkey |
Investment: Direct creditor of loans totalling over USD 2 billion to local company engaged in providing cellular telecommunications network. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s take-over of the telecommunications firm Telsim in which the claimant had invested, and the enactment of legislation ordering the firm's sale and placing Turkey's own financial claims against the telecoms firm ahead of those of the claimant. |
Settled | Türkiye | United States of America |
18 | 2002 | PSEG v. Turkey |
Investment: Rights under a concession agreement for the construction of a thermal power plant; assets of project company, including associated intangible property, licenses and permits. Summary: Claims arising out of several disagreements concerning a concession contract entered into with the government for the construction of an agnite-fired thermal power plant, as well as subsequent measures adopted by the respondent such as preventing the claimant from obtaining certain necessary treasury guarantee for the project. |
Decided in favour of investor | Türkiye | United States of America |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2023 | Güriş v. Saudi Arabia |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Saudi Arabia | Türkiye |
2 | 2022 | Ozkartallar and Campak v. Pakistan |
Investment: Rights under a contract for waste management services concluded with state-owned Lahore Waste Management Company. Summary: |
Settled | Pakistan | Türkiye |
3 | 2021 | Bayındır v. Pakistan (II) |
Investment: Highway construction contract to build a six-lane motorway (the Islamabad-Peshawar Motorway Project) entered into with an agency of the Pakistani government. Summary: |
Pending | Pakistan | Türkiye |
4 | 2021 | GAMA v. North Macedonia |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | North Macedonia | Türkiye |
5 | 2021 | Imeks Insaat v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
6 | 2021 | Obuz and others v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Uzbekistan | Türkiye |
7 | 2021 | Visor Mühendislik and Arasli v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Summary: |
Discontinued | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
8 | 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 |
9 | 2020 | Özer and Dirlik v. Libya |
Investment: Investments in construction projects. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimants’ construction projects in Libya. |
Pending | Libya | Türkiye |
10 | 2020 | Setta Insaat v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Investments in several construction projects in Turkmenistan based on contracts with state entities. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged interference with the claimant’s construction projects, including the seizure of the claimant’s machinery and equipment and its ownership rights over certain facilities. |
Discontinued | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
11 | 2019 | Akgun Insaat v. Ethiopia |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Ethiopia | Türkiye |
12 | 2019 | DSG v. Saudi Arabia |
Investment: Investments in a project for the construction of schools. Summary: |
Discontinued | Saudi Arabia | Türkiye |
13 | 2018 | Ersoy v. Azerbaijan |
Investment: Ownership of a locally-incorporated company that held contracts for the construction of two water and sewage collector tunnels in Baku. Summary: Claims arising out of Azerbaijani water and tax authorities’ alleged unfair treatment and indirect expropriation of the claimant’s investment in a tunnel construction project. |
Settled | Azerbaijan | Türkiye |
14 | 2018 | SECE v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Contracts for the construction of residential and government buildings. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s termination of construction contracts with the claimant, non-payment of fees and harassment of the claimant’s employees, including by means of travel bans. |
Discontinued | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
15 | 2017 | BM Mühendislik v. United Arab Emirates |
Investment: Summary: |
Data not available | United Arab Emirates | Türkiye |
16 | 2017 | Bursel Tekstil and others v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Investments in three cotton textile plants. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to uphold promises made to the claimants, including the right to buy cotton at discounted prices and the exemption from value-added tax on export products, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the claimants’ companies. |
Pending | Uzbekistan | Türkiye |
17 | 2017 | Lotus v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Investments in two electric power plants and a refinery. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to make a retention payment for the construction of two 254-megawatt electric power plants, and of unlawfully terminating the agreement relating to the refinery. |
Decided in favour of State | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
18 | 2017 | Prens Turizm v. Egypt |
Investment: Investments in tourism activities. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to put in place security systems at the Sharm el Sheikh airport compliant with international standards, related to the 2015 crash of an international chartered passenger flight (Metrojet Flight 9268) operated by a Russian airline. According to the claimant, this caused economic harm to its travel agency and tour operator activities with Russian tourists in Egypt. |
Decided in favour of State | Egypt | Türkiye |
19 | 2017 | Ustay v. Libya |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Libya | Türkiye |
20 | 2017 | Vardan v. Libya |
Investment: Shareholding of 98% in Çukurova İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., a company holding contracts for the construction of residential units, public facilities and infrastructure in Libya. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to protect construction projects undertaken by claimant’s company Çukurova İnşaat under contracts with a Libyan entity. |
Discontinued | Libya | Türkiye |
21 | 2016 | Attila Doğan v. Oman |
Investment: Engineering and construction concession contract for an oil and gas project with the State-owned company Petroleum Development of Oman LLC. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged frustration of investments related to an engineering and construction contract concluded by the claimant with Petroleum Development of Oman, a majority State-owned company, after winning the tender. According to the claimant, authorities delayed or prevented the entry of its qualified foreign personnel into Oman and required the claimant to hire additional Omani nationals from a local construction company. Petroleum Development of Oman later redistributed 60 per cent of the contract work to the previous local contract-holder and eventually terminated the contract in favour of the latter and other contractors. |
Data not available | Oman | Türkiye |
22 | 2016 | Cengiz v. Libya |
Investment: Contracts with a state-owned company for the construction of several infrastructure projects. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged actions and omissions during the civil war in Libya, which resulted in the destruction of the claimant’s construction sites. |
Decided in favour of investor | Libya | Türkiye |
23 | 2016 | Etrak v. Libya |
Investment: Investments in construction projects. Summary: Claims arising out of the government’s non-payment of compensation under a 2013 settlement agreement with the claimant related to various constructions projects. |
Decided in favour of investor | Libya | Türkiye |
24 | 2016 | Görkem Inşaat v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Investments in the construction of a shopping and trade center. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged non-payment under a contract for the construction of a shopping mall. |
Settled | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
25 | 2016 | Güriş and Yamantürk v. Syria |
Investment: Majority shareholding in two cement companies, Güriş Raqqa Cement Company (91%) and Hasakah Cement LLC (87%), incorporated in Syria. Summary: |
Decided in favour of investor | Syrian Arab Republic | Türkiye |
26 | 2016 | Güriş v. Libya |
Investment: Summary: |
Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Libya | Türkiye |
27 | 2016 | Nurol v. Libya |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Libya | Türkiye |
28 | 2016 | Öztaş Construction v. Libya |
Investment: Investments in a water supply and transport project along a section of the “great man-made river” pipeline under a contract with the Libyan Investment Development Company (LIDCo). Summary: Claims arising out of the Libyan Investment Development Company’s alleged non-payment of compensation to the claimant pursuant to a mutual termination of a 2008 contract between the claimant and the Libyan company. |
Decided in favour of State | Libya | Türkiye |
29 | 2015 | Aktau Petrol v. Kazakhstan |
Investment: Ownership of enterprise engaged in oil transportation. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of measures taken by the respondent's courts, which allegedly resulted in the unlawful transfer of claimant's assets to a third party, connected to the government. |
Decided in favour of investor | Kazakhstan | Türkiye |
30 | 2015 | Mağdenli v. Kazakhstan |
Investment: Shareholding of 50 per cent in “ATMA - Atyrau Airport and Transportation” JSC, a local joint venture company providing services in the aviation sector. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged measures to deprive the claimant of its business in aircraft refueling, cargo handling and helicopter services at the Atyrau airport. The Government allegedly established another airport operator. |
Decided in favour of State | Kazakhstan | Türkiye |
31 | 2015 | Tekfen and TML v. Libya |
Investment: Investments in the construction of a large water pipeline network undertaken by the joint venture Tekfen TML JV. Summary: Claims arising out of the suspension of operations of the claimants’ joint venture Tekfen TML JV related to the Great Man Made River project, in which Tekfen TML JV was involved since 2006 as a contractor of the Libyan Man-Made River Authority, and the evacuation of its work sites owing to civil unrest and to adverse developments in Libya since February 2011. |
Decided in favour of State | Libya | Türkiye |
32 | 2013 | Erhas and others v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Summary: Claims arising out of construction-related disputes for works undertaken in Turkmenistan. |
Decided in favour of State | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
33 | 2013 | Federal Elektrik Yatirim and others v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Shareholding in a joint venture with the Uzbek company Uzfedgaz to modernize and develop a gas distribution system. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged wrongful criminal prosecution, denial of justice and expropriation of claimant's investment by Uzbek authorities on the basis of tax evasion. |
Settled | Uzbekistan | Türkiye |
34 | 2013 | Güneş Tekstil and others v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Ownership of the Turkuaz shopping centre in Uzbekistan, and certain other shopping centers operating under the Turkuaz brand name. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged seizure of claimants' shopping centres by Uzbek authorities on the basis of tax evasion, allegedly including physical mistreatment and the wrongful conviction of company personnel for various customs, import and taxation offences. |
Decided in favour of investor | Uzbekistan | Türkiye |
35 | 2013 | Karkey Karadeniz v. Pakistan |
Investment: Rights under a contract concluded with a State-owned electricity company to provide four power-generating vessels to the port of Karachi. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged unlawful detention by the Government of four electricity-generating vessels owned by the claimant, as well as alleged breaches of contractual payment obligations for electricity generated. |
Decided in favour of investor | Pakistan | Türkiye |
36 | 2013 | Serter v. France |
Investment: Intellectual property rights concerning the design of advanced hull forms. Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over certain ship hull design related to Mr. Serter's experience, as ship designer and architect, in research, development and design of advanced hull forms. |
Discontinued | France | Türkiye |
37 | 2012 | Çap and Sehil v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Rights under numerous contracts entered into with Turkmenistan concerning building projects. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of governmental measures that allegedly led to the unlawful expropriation of claimants' construction projects in Turkmenistan, including defaulted payments and the termination of some of the contracts at issue before domestic courts. |
Decided in favour of State | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
38 | 2011 | TPAO v. Kazakhstan |
Investment: Shareholding in the joint venture KazakhTurkMunai with Kazakh state entity KazMunaiGas that held oil exploration and production licenses. Summary: Claims arising out of Government's measures allegedly affecting claimant's investment in an oil exploration and production joint venture which held exploration and production activities in seven oil fields in the Mangistau and Aktobe regions in Kazakhstan. |
Settled | Kazakhstan | Türkiye |
39 | 2010 | Bozbey v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Construction and operation of an agro-industrial complex in Turkmenistan under a contract concluded with the Turkmen President’s Foundation. Summary: Claims arising out of the initiation of criminal proceedings against the investor, the imposition of taxes and fines by Turkmen tax authorities upon his agro-industrial facility despite allegedly receiving a 21-year tax exemption under a special presidential decree, and the subsequent confiscation of claimant's property. |
Discontinued | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
40 | 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 |
41 | 2010 | İçkale v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Rights under thirteen contracts for the construction of schools, hotels, cinemas and other facilities. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged interference with the execution of the claimant's work under construction contracts concluded with various State organs and State entities, including the blocking of bank accounts, the termination of contracts and the initiation of judicial proceedings. |
Decided in favour of State | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
42 | 2010 | Kılıç v. Turkmenistan |
Investment: Rights under a number of building contracts in connection with projects in the Turkmen cities of Mary, Dashoguz and Ashgabat between Kiliç and various municipal governors, and other state officials. Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over the parties' respective performance under several construction contracts, including the alleged failure to pay certain amounts owed under various construction projects that the investor had designed and built. |
Decided in favour of State | Turkmenistan | Türkiye |
43 | 2008 | ATA Construction v. Jordan |
Investment: Contract concluded between ATA Construction and a State-controlled entity to construct a dike at a site on the Dead Sea; claims to money in the form of an award rendered in claimant's favour. Summary: Claims arising out of the annulment by the Jordanian courts of an arbitral award rendered in favour of the claimant following a dispute arising from the collapse of a dike constructed by ATA for the Arab Potash Company, an entity based in Jordan and controlled by the respondent. |
Decided in favour of investor | Jordan | Türkiye |
44 | 2008 | Karmer Marble v. Georgia |
Investment: Rights under a highway construction contract concluded with the Georgian Government. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged termination of Karmer Marble's contract to build a highway linking the cities of Batumi and Kobuleti in the Georgian region of Adjara and its replacement by a local company, in the context of Georgia's Rose Revolution. |
Decided in favour of investor | Georgia | Türkiye |
45 | 2008 | Turkcell v. Iran |
Investment: Majority shareholding in the Irancell consortium through an Iranian special purpose vehicle announced as the winner for the second global system for mobile communication (GSM) license to be awarded in Iran, and contractual rights under such license agreement. Summary: Claims arising out of Turkcell's participation in a tender process concerning a private GSM license in Iran and a change in Iranian's legislation preventing Turkcell to operate the project it had tendered for by requiring that the GSM license had to be run by a company which was majority owned by a domestic Iranian company, and Iran's subsequent assignment of the project to another operator. |
Decided in favour of State | Iran, Islamic Republic of | Türkiye |
46 | 2006 | Barmek v. Azerbaijan |
Investment: Rights under a privatisation agreement relating to a long-term electricity distribution contract. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged breach of a contract concluded between the Government of Azerbaijan and the investor to provide electricity services in the cities of Baku and Sumgayit for 25 years, which in turn led to criminal accusations against Barmek's managers for embezzlement, “abuse of office” and the illegal sale of electricity. |
Settled | Azerbaijan | Türkiye |
47 | 2006 | Sistem v. Kyrgyzstan |
Investment: Ownership of a hotel in Kyrgyzstan. Summary: Claims arising out of events following the investor's construction and operation of a hotel in Bishkek leading to the abrogation of its ownership rights in the hotel by local court decisions, after the overthrow of president Askar Akayev and his government during the Tulip Revolution of 2005. |
Decided in favour of investor | Kyrgyzstan | Türkiye |
48 | 2005 | Rumeli v. Kazakhstan |
Investment: Shareholding in a local Kazakh telecoms company that had been awarded a license to operate the second mobile telephone network in Kazakhstan; know-how and marketing services in the field of telecommunications; guarantors of loans made by the locally-incorporated investment company. Summary: Claims arising out of the government's termination of an investment contract for the creation and exploration of digital cellular radiotelephone connection on Kazakhstan. |
Decided in favour of investor | Kazakhstan | Türkiye |
49 | 2003 | Bayindir v. Pakistan (I) |
Investment: Highway construction contract to build a six-lane motorway entered into with an agency of the Pakistani government. Summary: Claims arising out of the implementation of a construction contract concluded between the National Highway Authority of Pakistan and the investors. |
Decided in favour of State | Pakistan | Türkiye |