Croatia
Results: 19
Results: 3
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2020 | Adria Group v. Croatia |
Investment: Direct and indirect ownership (95.5 per cent) of Agrokor Group, a food and retail conglomerate. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s takeover and restructuring in the form of a “extraordinary administration” of Agrokor Group, owned by claimants. According to the claimants, they were coerced into transferring control over Agrokor to the State and illegally deprived of their investment based on false grounds. |
Pending | Croatia | Netherlands |
2 | 2020 | Frenkel v. Croatia |
Investment: Investments in the construction of a golf resort near Dubrovnik. Summary: Claims arising out of Croatia’s allegedly arbitrary and unfair actions that have led to a standstill in construction of a golf resort. |
Pending | Croatia | Israel |
3 | 2020 | OTP Bank v. Croatia |
Investment: Investments in the banking industry in Croatia through a local subsidiary. Summary: Claims arising out of the law that prescribed a change in the currency of loans, issued in Croatia, from Swiss Franc to the Euro. |
Settled | Croatia | Hungary |
4 | 2020 | Raiffeisen Bank v. Croatia (II) |
Investment: Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s takeover and restructuring in the form of a “extraordinary administration” of Agrokor Group. |
Discontinued | Croatia | Austria |
5 | 2019 | Mihaljevic v. Croatia |
Investment: Ownership rights over purchased real estate. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged invalidation by Croatia’s courts of a transaction between the claimant’s father and the State relating to real estate assets on the grounds that the transaction was not carried out in conformity with local law. |
Decided in favour of State | Croatia | Germany |
6 | 2019 | Société Générale v. Croatia |
Investment: Summary: |
Pending | Croatia | France |
7 | 2018 | Korsgaard v. Croatia |
Investment: Acquisition of real estate property in Croatia through local companies ReCap International d.o.o. and Zagreb Panorama d.o.o. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged measures to prevent the claimant from obtaining ownership over several formerly socially-owned real estate properties in Croatia, mostly located on the Adriatic coast. According to the claimant, it acquired the real estate from Serbian companies via two local subsidiaries. |
Decided in favour of State | Croatia | Canada |
8 | 2017 | Addiko Bank v. Croatia |
Investment: Investments in the banking industry in Croatia. Summary: Claims arising out of the law that prescribed a change in the currency of loans, issued in Croatia, from Swiss Franc to the Euro. |
Pending | Croatia | Austria |
9 | 2017 | Elitech and Razvoj v. Croatia |
Investment: Investments in constructing a golf resort development near Dubrovnik. Summary: Claims arising out of Croatia’s allegedly arbitrary and unfair actions that have led to a standstill in construction of a golf resort. Related facts include opposition from local politicians and residents, who complained that the project would damage the environment and threaten Dubrovnik's UNESCO World Heritage Site status, and the Croatian court rulings attempting to overturn the energy and environment ministry approval of the resort’s construction. |
Decided in favour of State | Croatia | Netherlands |
10 | 2017 | Erste Group Bank AG and others v. Croatia |
Investment: Investments in the banking industry in Croatia. Summary: Claims arising out of the law that prescribed a change in the currency of loans, issued in Croatia, from Swiss Franc to the Euro. |
Settled | Croatia | Austria |
11 | 2017 | Raiffeisen Bank v. Croatia (I) |
Investment: Investments in the banking industry in Croatia through Raiffeisenbank Austria d.d., a company organized under the laws of the Republic of Croatia and 100 per cent indirectly owned by Raiffeisen Bank International AG. Summary: Claims arising out of the law that prescribed a change in the currency of loans, issued in Croatia, from Swiss Franc to the Euro. |
Settled | Croatia | Austria |
12 | 2016 | Amlyn v. Croatia |
Investment: Investments in the construction of a biomass power plant. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of State measures that allegedly delayed and frustrated the claimant’s biomass power plant project, including the cancellation of a power purchase agreement with the Croatian Energy Market Operator (HROTE) and legislative changes that allegedly deprived the claimant of its status as an eligible power producer. |
Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Croatia | Netherlands |
13 | 2016 | UniCredit Bank and Zagrebačka Banka v. Croatia |
Investment: Investments in banking services and debt instruments. Summary: Claims arising out of Croatia’s law on conversion of loans denominated in Swiss francs into loans denominated in euros, requiring the claimants to adjust the respective terms of contract with customers and convert loans. |
Settled | Croatia | Austria |
14 | 2015 | B3 Croatian Courier v. Croatia |
Investment: Ownership of a postal services enterprise, City Ex. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to implement measures required by EU law since Croatia’s EU accession in 2013 for the liberalization of the country’s postal services market, as well as the allegedly anti-competitive market practices of the incumbent Croatian Post. |
Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Croatia | Netherlands |
15 | 2013 | MOL v. Croatia |
Investment: Controlling shareholding (49 per cent) in Industrija nafte, d.d. (INA), a Croatian oil and gas company 44.8 per cent owned by the State. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged failure by the Government to improve the gas trading business of the company in which MOL had invested (which was loss making), as well as alleged delays and irregularities in granting licenses and the criminal prosecution of claimant's chief executive. |
Decided in favour of investor | Croatia | Hungary |
16 | 2013 | van Riet v. Croatia |
Investment: Ownership of 47 plots of land along the Zablacé peninsula, acquired for developing a 15-villa luxury beachside resort. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged misrepresentation by Croatian authorities to the claimants by issuing them certificates affirming that certain land plots were located within the allowed construction area for the development of a real estate project, and later refusing them permission to construct on the basis that the plots were outside the construction zone and noting that the previous certificates were issued in disregard of the applicable planning laws. |
Decided in favour of State | Croatia | Belgium |
17 | 2012 | Gavrilovic v. Croatia |
Investment: Ownership and operation of a meat processing factory; ownership of related agricultural and grazing land in Croatia. Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over claimants' title to agricultural and grazing land for the investor's meat processing business in Croatia that led to unsuccessful domestic litigation for Mr. Gavrilovic and his company and the alleged subsequent statutory expropriation of his lands and commercial properties. |
Decided in favour of investor | Croatia | Austria |
18 | 2007 | Adria Beteiligungs v. Croatia |
Investment: Rights under two joint venture agreements concluded with the state-owned Croatian Lottery to exploit gaming arcades and casinos in Croatia. Summary: Claims arising out of the termination of the claimant's concession to operate casinos and gambling halls in Croatia, in the context of Croatia's war of independence in 1991. |
Decided in favour of State | Croatia | Austria |
19 | 2004 | Ulemek v. Croatia |
Investment: Shareholding in local joint venture engaged in activities concerning office machinery and equipment. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged mistreatment to claimant's investment in the Croatian joint venture Jugoturbina Select; particularly, concerning allegations that as a result of the general state of armed conflict and the claimant's Serbian ancestry, he was allegedly forced to leave Croatia in the spring of 1991, and his investment was confiscated and transferred to other companies. |
Decided in favour of State | Croatia | Canada |
NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2013 | Tvornica Šećera v. Serbia |
Investment: Summary: |
Decided in favour of State | Serbia | Croatia |
2 | 2005 | HEP v. Slovenia |
Investment: Rights under a 2001 agreement concluded between Slovenia and Croatia in order to resolve their disputes over a certain nuclear plant and resume electricity delivery. Summary: Claims arising out of a dispute between the investor -Croatia's national electric company- and Slovenia concerning the ownership and operation of the Krško nuclear power plant; particularly, alleged losses resulting from Slovenia's failure to resume electricity deliveries during a certain time period. |
Decided in favour of State | Slovenia | Croatia |
3 | 2005 | Pren Nreka v. Czech Republic |
Investment: Lease agreement concluded between the claimant and the Pedagogical Centre of Prague, an educational entity created by the Czech government, to renovate certain portions of a building and to lease two floors of that building for commercial activities. Summary: Claims arising out of the invalidation by respondent’s courts of a 15-year lease agreement concluded between the claimant and the Pedagogical Centre of Prague, resulting in the forced vacation of the investor's leased floors used as a pizzeria restaurant. |
Decided in favour of investor | Czechia | Croatia |