Uzbekistan
Results: 9
Results: 1
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2021 | Obuz and others v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Uzbekistan | Türkiye |
2 | 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 |
3 | 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 |
4 | 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 |
5 | 2013 | Kim and others v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Indirect majority shareholding in two Uzbek cement companies, JSC Bekabadcement and JSC Kuvasaycement, through a Cypriot holding company, United Cement Group Plc. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of regulatory and judicial measures taken by different branches of the Uzbek government, including criminal investigations, allegedly leading to the unlawful nationalisation of two cement companies in which the claimants had invested. |
Settled | Uzbekistan | Kazakhstan |
6 | 2013 | Spentex v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Ownership of three Uzbek cotton processing plants for yarn production. Summary: Claims arising out of the withdrawal by the Government of a VAT subsidy to cotton input purchases and other incentives, allegedly leading to the bankruptcy of claimant's investment in Uzbekistan. |
Decided in favour of State | Uzbekistan | Netherlands |
7 | 2011 | Oxus Gold v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Direct and indirect shareholding in subsidiaries that held interests in two mining projects in Uzbekistan. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged misappropriation by the Uzbek Government of claimant’s Khandiza and Amantaytau Goldfields mining/exploration assets in Uzbekistan. |
Decided in favour of investor | Uzbekistan | United Kingdom |
8 | 2010 | Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Rights as a member to a joint venture established by a government resolution to manufacture molybdenum products from ore deposits in the Tashkent region; capital contributions for the construction of two processing plants in the towns of Almalik and Chirchik in eastern Uzbekistan. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's termination of a raw material supply contract, the cancellation of claimant's exclusive right to export refined molybdenum oxide, and criminal proceedings against management of the company in which the claimant had investment for alleged abuse of authority. |
Decided in favour of State | Uzbekistan | Israel |
9 | 2006 | Romak v. Uzbekistan |
Investment: Claims to money, including rights under certain supply agreement concluded with a State institution with responsibility for cereal production and distribution and an arbitration award. Summary: Claims arising out of the investor's unsuccessful attempts to enforce an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the Grain and Feed Trade Association concerning Romak and a Uzbek counterparty for difficulties in obtaining payment of wheat deliveries under a set of contracts (concluded between the investor and several companies specialized in the trading of grain). |
Decided in favour of State | Uzbekistan | Switzerland |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2016 | JSC Tashkent and others v. Kyrgyzstan |
Investment: Management and operation of resorts and recreational facilities. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged expropriation of tourist resorts managed and operated by the claimants. |
Decided in favour of investor | Kyrgyzstan | Uzbekistan |