Finland

Finland

NO. Year of initiation Short case name Full case name Applicable IIA Arbitral rules Administering institution Summary Details of investment Outcome of original proceedings Respondent State Home State of investor Economic sector Economic subsector Arbitrators Amount claimed Amount awarded (or settled for) Breaches alleged Breaches found Decisions Individual opinions Follow-on proceeding type Follow-on proceeding status Follow-on decisions Follow-on individual opinions ICSID annulment committee members
1 2021 Wang v. Finland Wang Jiazhu v. Republic of Finland China - Finland BIT (2004) UNCITRAL None Investment: Investments in the Nordic-China Centre, a wholesale distribution and logistics centre located in Kouvola, through Finnish-incorporated company, Nordic Finland Investment Oy.

Summary: Claims arising out of an alleged extensive raid of the claimant's Nordic-China Centre by Finnish Border Guards, the detention of the claimant and the subsequent sale of his real estate. According to the claimant, this resulted in the business collapse of Nordic-China Centre.
Investments in the Nordic-China Centre, a wholesale distribution and logistics centre located in Kouvola, through Finnish-incorporated company, Nordic Finland Investment Oy. Settled Finland China Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles Mance, J. - President

Bokhary, S. K. S. - Claimant

Hobér, K. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Indirect expropriation
Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Ruling on Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objection dated 10 June 2022

Termination Order dated 24 October 2023
None None None None None None
NO. Year of initiation Short case name Full case name Applicable IIA Arbitral rules Administering institution Summary Details of investment Outcome of original proceedings Respondent State Home State of investor Economic sector Economic subsector Arbitrators Amount claimed Amount awarded (or settled for) Breaches alleged Breaches found Decisions Individual opinions Follow-on proceeding type Follow-on proceeding status Follow-on decisions Follow-on individual opinions ICSID annulment committee members
1 2021 Bahgat v. Egypt (II) Mohamed Abdel Raouf Bahgat v. The Arab Republic of Egypt (II) Egypt - Finland BIT (2004) UNCITRAL Data not available Investment:

Summary:
Data not available Egypt Finland Primary: B - Mining and quarrying

Secondary: C - Manufacturing
7 - Mining of metal ores

24 - Manufacture of basic metals
Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available Data not available None None None None None
2 2011 Bahgat v. Egypt (I) Mohamed Abdel Raouf Bahgat v. Arab Republic of Egypt (I) (PCA Case No. 2012-07) Egypt - Finland BIT (2004) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investments in an iron ore venture and a steel plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of criminal charges allegedly brought against the claimant by the Government and a related seizure of the claimant’s assets. According to the claimant, the assets were not returned after the domestic courts’ dismissal of the criminal charges.
Investments in an iron ore venture and a steel plant. Decided in favour of investor Egypt Finland Primary: B - Mining and quarrying

Secondary: C - Manufacturing
7 - Mining of metal ores

24 - Manufacture of basic metals
Wolfrum, R. - President

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Respondent (replaced)

Reisman, W. M. - Claimant

Lévy, L. - Respondent
108.50 mln USD 43.80 mln USD Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

National treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Full protection and security, or similar

Indirect expropriation

Umbrella clause
Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 30 November 2017

Final Award dated 23 December 2019
None Judicial review by national courts Pending (Judicial review by national courts) None None None
3 2004 OKO v. Estonia OKO Pankki Oyj and others (formerly OKO Osuuspankkien Keskuspankki Oyj and others) v. Republic of Estonia (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/6) Estonia - Germany BIT (1992)

Estonia - Finland BIT (1992)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under certain loan agreement, payment agreement, guarantee issued to secure payments under loan agreement, and certain mortgage contract.

Summary: Claims arising out of Estonia's alleged default on a loan agreement which had been made to a joint venture Estonian company by the claimants, two Finnish banks and a German bank.
Rights under certain loan agreement, payment agreement, guarantee issued to secure payments under loan agreement, and certain mortgage contract. Decided in favour of investor Estonia Finland Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities 64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding De Witt Wijnen, O. L. O. - President

Veeder, V. V. - Claimant

Fortier, L. Y. - Respondent
24.00 mln EUR (30.00 mln USD) 12.00 mln EUR (17.70 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause
Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Award dated 19 November 2007 None None None None None None