Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

Concluded original arbitration proceedings:

About

Open this in NEW TAB
ISDS data set in excel format (as of 31 December 2023)

ISDS Navigator

The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator – the ISDS Navigator – is maintained by UNCTAD’s IIA Section. The ISDS Navigator contains information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements (IIAs). Such arbitrations are also referred to as treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.

Please cite as: UNCTAD, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement

UNCTAD's Work Programme on International Investment Agreements (IIAs) actively assists policymakers, government officials and other IIA stakeholders to reform IIAs with a view to making them more conducive to sustainable development and inclusive growth.

International investment rulemaking is taking place at the bilateral, regional, interregional and multilateral levels. It requires policymakers, negotiators, civil society and other stakeholders to be well informed about foreign direct investment, international investment agreements (IIAs) and their impact on sustainable development.

Main goals of UNCTAD’s Work Programme on IIAs

• Reform the international investment agreements (IIAs) regime to enhance its sustainable development dimension,

• Provide comprehensive analysis on key issues arising from the complexity of the international investment regime,

• Develop a wide range of tools to support the formulation of more balanced international investment policies.

The three pillars of activities

• Research and policy analysis: monitoring trends, identifying key emerging issues and providing cutting-edge knowledge on IIAs from a sustainable development perspective,

• Technical assistance: delivering trainings, seminars and workshops; conducting IIA and model BIT reviews; offering ad-hoc advice to strengthen the capacity of beneficiaries in handling the complexities of the IIA regime,

• Intergovernmental consensus-building: exchanging and sharing best practices and experience with the view to fostering global investment governance.

For further information, please contact us via the online contact form.
Methodology

Open this in NEW TAB

Disclaimer

The ISDS Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive.

While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data.

We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Please contact us using the online contact form.

Cases included in the Navigator

• an international arbitration between an investor and a State;

• fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation);

• submitted to arbitration through a notice of arbitration or a request for arbitration, and upon registration of such request if applicable (not included are cases where a disputing party has only notified the other party of the existence of a dispute or signalled its intention to submit a claim, but has not yet commenced the arbitration).

Sources of information and frequency of updating

The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Primary sources (i.e. official documents relating to the case and information provided by the administering institutions) are the main and preferred source of information. Secondary sources, such as specialized reporting services and other sources deemed reliable, are used to supplement primary sources and/or obtain case information otherwise unavailable.
The Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis. The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page.

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Full case name
The full case name is recorded as it appears in the official case documents and as it is registered at the administering institution if applicable (listing the claimants in alphabetical order). If there are more than five claimants in the case, the names of all claimants can be replaced by the name of the first three claimants followed by the words “and others”.

Short case name
The short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name.

If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. is added to the name of each subsequent case.

Year of initiation
This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used.

Applicable IIA
This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings.

Arbitral rules
These are the arbitral rules in accordance with which the proceedings are conducted. Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”.

Administering institution
This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. PCA). Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution.

Common abbreviations for administering institutions:

• CRCICA: Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
• ICC: International Chamber of Commerce (International Court of Arbitration)
• ICSID: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
• LCIA: London Court of International Arbitration
• MCCI: Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry
• PCA: Permanent Court of Arbitration
• SCC: Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute)

Details of investment and summary of the dispute
The details of investment are presented as argued by the claimant, unless otherwise expressly identified by an arbitral tribunal in its decisions or awards.

The summary of the dispute describes in very general terms the conduct allegedly in breach of IIA obligations as argued by the claimant (non-exhaustive).

Economic sector and subsector
This refers to the economic sector to which the investment at issue allegedly belongs. The structure of economic activities follows the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 (UN ISIC Rev.4).

Status/Outcome of original proceedings
This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings.

• Decided in favour of State: the tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or found that the respondent State has not committed any breach of the applicable IIA.

• Decided in favour of investor: the tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA and awarded monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.

• Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.

• Settled: the disputing parties settled the case and the arbitral proceedings were discontinued for that reason.

• Discontinued: the arbitration was discontinued for any reason other than due to a (known) settlement. This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons).

• Pending: the arbitration proceedings are pending. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet.

Additional notes:

• The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims.

• Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Arbitral decisions rendered
These are decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. Discontinuance orders and settlement agreements are also recorded if such information is available.

Not included are any other (supplementary) arbitral decisions, e.g. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section.

Amounts claimed and awarded
Amount claimed refers to the amount of monetary compensation claimed by the investor, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section.

Amounts are recorded in the currency used by the claimant/tribunal. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list.

To enable comparisons between cases, all amounts are also converted to US dollars. For the purposes of such conversion, the OANDA Historical Currency Converter is being used; the date of conversion is the date of the document or other source from which the information was obtained (e.g. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award).

Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. As a general rule, a rounded figure (to the nearest hundred thousand) of the amount claimed or awarded is provided.

If the claimant provides more than one valuation of damages claimed, the highest of these amounts is recorded.

IIA breaches alleged and found
Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. When the relevant case documentation is not publicly available, information about breaches alleged may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings.

Composition of tribunal
These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators).

The disputing party (i.e. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. both types of appointment are recorded under “Appointed by / designated to Respondent” without further distinction).

In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded.

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings
Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings:

• ICSID annulment proceedings;

• Judicial review by national courts (set-aside proceedings); and

• ICSID resubmission proceedings.

Initiation of a follow-on proceeding by either disputing party does not affect the field “Case Status/Outcome” of the original proceeding, until the follow-on proceeding is completed. For example, in a case where a final award has been rendered but it is later subject to a follow-on proceeding (e.g. ICSID annulment proceeding), the status of the case is marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Decisions, judgments and/or awards rendered in the course of follow-on (post-award) proceedings, as well as any individual opinions appended to them, are recorded.

The composition of the ICSID ad hoc committees that adjudicate requests for annulment under the ICSID Convention is recorded.

Link to Italaw’s case page
The Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for many investor-State disputes. It makes available not only the main arbitral decisions, but also procedural orders, parties’ submissions, expert opinions and other types of documents.

A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand.

Additional information
This section provides links to sources of information used for gathering data for the case at hand or otherwise relevant to that case. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources.

Home >
Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

Advanced Search

Case name and number

Results: 268

Year

Results: 0

Countries

Results: 146

Economic sector and subsector

Results: 0

Applicable IIA

Results: 0

Arbitral rules and administering institution

Results: 0

Arbitrators and annulment committee members

Results: 0

Amount of compensation (USD or USD equivalent)

Results: 0

Breaches of IIA provisions alleged and found

Results: 0

Follow-on proceedings

Results: 0

Case name

Case number

Clear selection

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	2020	Nachingwea and others v. Tanzania	Nachingwea U.K. Limited, Ntaka Nickel Holdings Limited and Nachingwea Nickel Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/38)	United Republic of Tanzania - United Kingdom BIT (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Rights under mining licences for the Ntaka Hill Nickel Project located in the Nachingwea region of south-eastern Tanzania. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s cancellation of retention licences held by the claimants for the Ntaka Hill Nickel Project and the subsequent public tender for the joint development of areas covered by these licences without offering compensation to the claimants.	Rights under mining licences for the Ntaka Hill Nickel Project located in the Nachingwea region of south-eastern Tanzania.	Decided in favour of investor	Tanzania, United Republic of	United Kingdom	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	7 - Mining of metal ores	Bull, C. - President Bishop, D. - Claimant Monageng, S. M. - Respondent	76.70 mln USD	76.70 mln USD	Indirect expropriation 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	Award dated 14 July 2023	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Knieper, R. - President Cooper-Rousseau, B. - Member Muigai, G. - Member
2	2020	United Agencies v. Algeria (I)	United Agencies Limited SA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/1)	Algeria - Switzerland BIT (2004)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Summary:		Decided in favour of investor	Algeria	Switzerland	Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities	64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding	Hanotiau, B. - President Patocchi, P. M. - Claimant Bencheneb, A. - Respondent	Data not available	36.00 mln USD	Transfer of funds	Transfer of funds	Award dated 25 July 2022	Dissenting Opinion by Ali Bencheneb	None	None	None	None	None
3	2019	Kenon and IC Power v. Peru	Kenon Holdings Ltd and IC Power Ltd v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/19)	Peru - Singapore FTA (2008)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Shareholding in Kallpa Generación S.A. and Samay I S.A., local electric energy companies. Summary: Claims arising out of a regulatory agency’s withdrawal of an exclusive right the local subsidiary Kallpa had been awarded through a bid procedure in 2016 to provide a service related to the frequency of the power generation system, as well as changes to the calculation of transmission line tolls for energy generators, allegedly benefitting state-owned electricity companies to the claimants’ detriment.	Shareholding in Kallpa Generación S.A. and Samay I S.A., local electric energy companies.	Decided in favour of investor	Peru	Singapore	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Radicati di Brozolo, L. - President Haigh, D. - Claimant Siqueiros, E. - Respondent	195.30 mln USD	110.70 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 3 October 2023 (English) Award dated 3 October 2023 (Spanish)	None	None	None	None	None	None
4	2019	Mercuria v. Poland (II)	Mercuria Energy Group Limited v. The Republic of Poland (II) (SCC Case No. 2019/126)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	SCC	SCC	Investment: Ownership of local subsidiary J&S Energy S.A. (“JSE”), a company importing and trading in petrochemicals. Summary: Claims arising out of a government agency’s imposition of a financial penalty on the claimant’s subsidiary JSE, which Polish administrative courts later overturned, and the government agency’s subsequent failure to repay accrued interest to the claimant upon the reimbursement of the penalty.	Ownership of local subsidiary J&S Energy S.A. (“JSE”), a company importing and trading in petrochemicals.	Decided in favour of investor	Poland	Cyprus	Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles	46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles	Sachs, K. - President Blanch, J. - Claimant Boisson de Chazournes, L. - Respondent	152.90 mln PLN (34.60 mln USD)	145.10 mln PLN (32.90 mln USD)	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Other	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Other	Final Award dated 29 December 2022	None	None	None	None	None	None
5	2018	BBVA v. Bolivia	Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/18/5)	Bolivia, Plurinational State of - Spain BIT (2001)	ICSID AF	ICSID	Investment: Majority shareholding in BBVA Previsión AFP, a pension fund administrator. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to agree on the terms for transferring pension fund administration from BBVA Previsión AFP to a public entity, following the 2010 enactment of a law that nationalized the country’s pension fund sector.	Majority shareholding in BBVA Previsión AFP, a pension fund administrator.	Decided in favour of investor	Bolivia, Plurinational State of	Spain	Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities	65 - Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security	Galíndez, V. - Claimant Derains, Y. - Respondent Alexandrov, S. A. - President	118.50 mln USD	94.80 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Award dated 12 July 2022 (Spanish)	None	Judicial review by national courts	Pending (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None	None
6	2018	DTEK v. Russia	JSC DTEK Krymenergo v. the Russian Federation (PCA Case No. 2018-41)	Russian Federation - Ukraine BIT (1998)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Ownership of electric power distribution assets in Crimea. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimant’s electricity distribution business in the Crimea region by the Russian Federation.	Ownership of electric power distribution assets in Crimea.	Decided in favour of investor	Russian Federation	Ukraine	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Fernández-Armesto, J. - President Rowley, J. W. - Claimant Pavić, V. - Respondent	421.20 mln USD	207.80 mln USD	Direct expropriation National treatment Most-favoured nation treatment Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Other	Direct expropriation Other Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Award dated 1 November 2023	Separate Opinion on Quantum of J. William Rowley	None	None	None	None	None
7	2018	Elliott v. Korea	Elliott Associates L.P. v. Republic of Korea (PCA Case No. 2018-51)	Korea, Republic of - United States FTA (2007)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Shareholding in the Samsung C&T Corporation. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s conduct that allegedly led to the merger of Samsung C&T Corporation with Cheil Industries and thereby caused financial losses to the claimant.	Shareholding in the Samsung C&T Corporation.	Decided in favour of investor	Korea, Republic of	United States of America	Data not available	Data not available	Heiskanen, V. - President Garibaldi, O. M. - Claimant Thomas, J. C. - Respondent	581.30 mln USD	48.50 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims National treatment	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 20 June 2023 Decision on Request for Correction and Interpretation dated 1 September 2023	Separate Opinion of J. Christopher Thomas	Judicial review by national courts	Pending (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None	None
8	2018	Lee-Chin v. Dominican Republic	Michael Anthony Lee-Chin v. Dominican Republic (ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/3)	CARICOM - Dominican Republic FTA (1998)	UNCITRAL	ICSID	Investment: Majority shareholding in Lajún Corporation, a locally incorporated company that held a concession to operate the La Duquesa landfill in the municipality of Santo Domingo Norte. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s termination of a concession for the operation of a waste facility owned by the claimant’s subsidiary and the alleged illegal expropriation of the landfill site.	Majority shareholding in Lajún Corporation, a locally incorporated company that held a concession to operate the La Duquesa landfill in the municipality of Santo Domingo Norte.	Decided in favour of investor	Dominican Republic	Jamaica	Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities	38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery	Fernández Arroyo, D. P. - President Leathley, C. - Claimant Kohen, M. G. - Respondent	681.20 mln USD	43.60 mln USD	Direct expropriation 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 Umbrella clause Indirect expropriation	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Umbrella clause	Partial Award on Jurisdiction dated 15 July 2020 (English) Partial Award on Jurisdiction dated 15 July 2020 (Spanish) Final Award dated 6 October 2023 (English) Final Award dated 6 October 2023 (Spanish)	Dissenting Opinion of Marcelo Kohen (English) Dissenting Opinion of Marcelo Kohen (Spanish) Dissenting Opinion of Marcelo G. Kohen (English) Dissenting Opinion of Marcelo G. Kohen (Spanish)	None	None	None	None	None
9	2018	Manolium-Processing v. Belarus	OOO Manolium-Processing v. The Republic of Belarus (PCA Case No. 2018-06)	Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (2014)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Contract concluded with the Government for the construction of buildings in Minsk and its outskirts. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s termination of a 2003 investment agreement to develop land in Minsk for the construction of a luxury hotel, upon vacating the area from a trolley bus parking facility and rebuilding it on the city outskirts. Challenged measures also include the alleged confiscation of the relocated facility by the Government in order to cover a USD 20 million tax debt imposed on the claimant.	Contract concluded with the Government for the construction of buildings in Minsk and its outskirts.	Decided in favour of investor	Belarus	Russian Federation	Tertiary: F - Construction	41 - Construction of buildings	Fernández-Armesto, J. - President Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	176.30 mln USD	20.40 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Indirect expropriation	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Final Award dated 22 June 2021	None	None	None	None	None	None
10	2018	Olympic Entertainment v. Ukraine	Olympic Entertainment Group AS (Estonia) v. Republic of Ukraine (PCA Case No. 2019-18)	Estonia - Ukraine BIT (1995)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Ownership (100% interest) of Olympic Casino Ukraine TOV, a local subsidiary operating casinos in Ukraine, and three related companies (Alea Private Company, Ukraine Leisure Company and Eldorado Leisure Company). Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s ban on gambling in 2009, which revoked operators’ licenses for gambling activities and resulted in the bankruptcy of the claimant’s local subsidiaries.	Ownership (100% interest) of Olympic Casino Ukraine TOV, a local subsidiary operating casinos in Ukraine, and three related companies (Alea Private Company, Ukraine Leisure Company and Eldorado Leisure Company).	Decided in favour of investor	Ukraine	Estonia	Tertiary: R - Arts, entertainment and recreation	92 - Gambling and betting activities	Kaplan, N. - President Pryles, M. C. - Claimant Thomas, J. C. - Respondent	15.10 mln EUR (18.10 mln USD)	7.50 mln EUR (9.00 mln USD)	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar	Indirect expropriation	Award dated 15 April 2021	None	None	None	None	None	None
11	2018	PACC v. Mexico	PACC Offshore Services Holdings Ltd. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/5)	Mexico - Singapore BIT (2009)	UNCITRAL	ICSID	Investment: Investments in a vessel charter business in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of certain actions by Mexican authorities that prevented the claimant and its subsidiaries from continuing to charter vessels to Pemex, Mexico’s national oil and gas company, thereby allegedly destroying the claimant’s investment.	Investments in a vessel charter business in Mexico.	Decided in favour of investor	Mexico	Singapore	Tertiary: N - Administrative and support service activities	77 - Rental and leasing activities	Rigo Sureda, A. - President Reisman, W. M. - Claimant Sands, P. - Respondent	227.10 mln USD	6.70 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Most-favoured nation treatment Indirect expropriation	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 11 January 2022 Decision on Claimant’s Application for Additional Award and on the Applicable Interest Rate dated 9 May 2022 (English) Decision on Claimant’s Application for Additional Award and on the Applicable Interest Rate dated 9 May 2022 (Spanish)	Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of W. Michael Reisman Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of W. Michael Reisman (English) Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of W. Michael Reisman (Spanish)	None	None	None	None	None
12	2018	Rand Investments and others v. Serbia	Rand Investments Ltd., Allison Ruth Rand, Kathleen Elizabeth Rand and others v. Republic of Serbia (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8)	Canada - Serbia BIT (2014) Cyprus - Serbia BIT (2005)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Indirect majority shareholding in BD Agro AD (“BD Agro”), a dairy farm located on the outskirts of Belgrade, Serbia. Summary: Claims arising out of a state agency’s 2015 termination of an agreement for the privatization of BD Agro concluded with a Serbian buyer after a public auction in 2005. According to the claimants, the termination involved the subsequent seizure of majority shares in BD Agro held by the Serbian buyer, which were beneficially owned by the claimants. The state agency’s actions allegedly led to BD Agro’s bankruptcy in 2016.	Indirect majority shareholding in BD Agro AD (“BD Agro”), a dairy farm located on the outskirts of Belgrade, Serbia.	Decided in favour of investor	Serbia	Canada Cyprus	Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing	1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities	Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President Vasani, B. S. - Claimant Kohen, M. G. - Respondent	87.50 mln EUR (95.70 mln USD)	14.60 mln EUR (15.90 mln USD)	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Direct expropriation	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 29 June 2023 Decision on the Claimants’ Request for a Supplementary Decision dated 27 October 2023	Dissenting Opinion by Marcelo G. Kohen	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Boo, L. - President Annacker, C. - Member Ó Hoisín, C. - Member
13	2018	RusHydro v. Kyrgyzstan	PJSC RusHydro v. Kyrgyz Republic (PCA Case No. 2018-21)	Eurasian Investment Agreement (2008) Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (2014)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Shareholding of 50 per cent in a joint venture with state-owned company OJSC Electric Power Plants to build four hydroelectric power plants in the Naryn region. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s termination of an intergovernmental agreement for the construction and operation of the Upper-Naryn hydroelectric power plants, in which the claimant participated as a joint venture partner, and alleged failure to reimburse the claimant for costs incurred related to the construction project.	Shareholding of 50 per cent in a joint venture with state-owned company OJSC Electric Power Plants to build four hydroelectric power plants in the Naryn region.	Decided in favour of investor	Kyrgyzstan	Russian Federation	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Tertiary: F - Construction	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 42 - Civil engineering	Tomka, P. - President Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant Thomas, C. - Respondent	37.00 mln USD	Data not available	Data not available	Data not available	Award dated July 2022	None	None	None	None	None	None
14	2018	Sunlodges v. Tanzania	Sunlodges Ltd (BVI) and Sunlodges (T) Limited v. The United Republic of Tanzania (PCA Case No. 2018-09)	Italy - United Republic of Tanzania BIT (2001)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Ownership of the Mikindani (or Kabisela) estate used for cattle farming activities. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged seizure of the claimants’ cattle farming land in order to build a cement works and a power station.	Ownership of the Mikindani (or Kabisela) estate used for cattle farming activities.	Decided in favour of investor	Tanzania, United Republic of	Italy	Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing	1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities	Heiskanen, V. - President Williams, D. A. R. - Claimant Onwuamaegbu, U. - Respondent	34.70 mln USD	11.30 mln USD	Direct expropriation Indirect expropriation 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 National treatment Most-favoured nation treatment	Indirect expropriation	Award dated 20 December 2019	None	None	None	None	None	None
15	2018	Unionmatex v. Turkmenistan	Dirk Herzig as Insolvency Administrator over the Assets of Unionmatex Industrieanlagen GmbH v. Turkmenistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/35)	Germany - Turkmenistan BIT (1997)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Contracts with a state-owned agricultural company for the construction of several grain production facilities and bakeries. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged interference with the claimant’s construction projects and a state-owned company’s failure to make payments to the claimant, which led to delays and the halting of construction works. A local court subsequently terminated the claimant’s construction contracts, allegedly resulting in the claimant’s insolvency.	Contracts with a state-owned agricultural company for the construction of several grain production facilities and bakeries.	Decided in favour of investor	Turkmenistan	Germany	Tertiary: F - Construction	41 - Construction of buildings	Voser, N. - Claimant Sands, P. - Respondent Reed, L. - President	46.00 mln EUR (50.50 mln USD)	2.50 mln EUR (2.70 mln USD)	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Indirect expropriation Umbrella clause	Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Award dated 30 November 2023	None	None	None	None	None	None
16	2018	Westwater Resources v. Turkey	Westwater Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46)	Turkey - United States of America BIT (1985)	ICSID	ICSID	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.	Licences for the exploration and development of two uranium mines, held by the local subsidiary Adur Madencilik Limited Sireketi.	Decided in favour of investor	Türkiye	United States of America	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	7 - Mining of metal ores	Binnie, I. - President Volterra, R. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	36.50 mln USD	1.30 mln USD	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 3 March 2023 Decision on the Rectification of the Award dated 27 July 2023	None	None	None	None	None	None
17	2018	Zhongshan Fucheng v. Nigeria	Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria	China - Nigeria BIT (2001)	Ad hoc	None	Investment: Summary:		Decided in favour of investor	Nigeria	China	Tertiary: F - Construction	42 - Civil engineering	Neuberger, D. - President Gearing, M. - Claimant Oguneso, R. - Respondent	1078.00 mln USD	55.70 mln USD	Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Indirect expropriation	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Final Award dated 26 March 2021	None	Judicial review by national courts	Discontinued (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None	None
18	2017	Air Canada v. Venezuela	Air Canada v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/17/1)	Canada - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1996)	ICSID AF	ICSID	Investment: Investment in air transportation services. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to approve the claimant’s requests to convert its Bolivar-denominated returns into U.S. dollars for repatriation.	Investment in air transportation services.	Decided in favour of investor	Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of	Canada	Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage	51 - Air transport	Tercier, P. - President Poncet, C. - Claimant Villanúa Gómez, D. - Respondent	213.10 mln USD	20.80 mln USD	Direct expropriation Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Transfer of funds	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Transfer of funds	Award dated 13 September 2021	None	None	None	None	None	None
19	2017	Bank Melli and Bank Saderat v. Bahrain	Bank Melli Iran and Bank Saderat Iran v. Bahrain (PCA Case No. 2017-25)	Bahrain - Iran, Islamic Republic of BIT (2002)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Investments in Future Bank, a local commercial bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision of Bahrain’s central bank to close Future Bank in 2016, after placing it under administration in 2015.	Investments in Future Bank, a local commercial bank.	Decided in favour of investor	Bahrain	Iran, Islamic Republic of	Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities	64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding	Gaillard, E. - Claimant (replaced) Collins, L. - Respondent Dolzer, R. - President (replaced) Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President Hanotiau, B. - Claimant	444.30 mln EUR (514.20 mln USD)	243.00 mln EUR (281.20 mln USD)	Direct expropriation Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Other	Indirect expropriation	Award dated 9 November 2021	None	None	None	None	None	None
20	2017	De Sutter and others v. Madagascar (II)	Kristof de Sutter, Peter de Sutter and (DS)2, S.A. v. Republic of Madagascar (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/18)	BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Madagascar BIT (2005)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Ownership and operation of a textile factory by the local company Polo Garments Majunga, which is (directly and indirectly) owned by Peter and Kristof De Sutter. Summary: Claims arising out of the Attorney-General’s intervention in a local court case, which allegedly led to the halting of the enforcement of a claim against the Madagascan insurer Ny Havana. Polo Garments Majunga had commenced enforcement proceedings to collect an insurance payout from Ny Havana for a burned down textiles factory.	Ownership and operation of a textile factory by the local company Polo Garments Majunga, which is (directly and indirectly) owned by Peter and Kristof De Sutter.	Decided in favour of investor	Madagascar	Luxembourg Belgium	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	13 - Manufacture of textiles	Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President Malinvaud, C. - Claimant Pellet, A. - Respondent	25.20 mln EUR (27.40 mln USD)	6.90 mln EUR (7.50 mln USD)	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	Full protection and security, or similar	Award dated 17 April 2020 (French)	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings)	Decision on Annulment dated 14 October 2022 (ICSID annulment proceedings)	Dissenting Opinion of Gabriel Bottini (Decision on Annulment dated 14 October 2022)	Harris, C. - President Bottini, G. - Member van Leeuwen, M. - Member Fathallah, R. - Member (replaced)
21	2017	Diag and Šťáva v. Czechia	Diag Human SE and Josef Šťáva v. The Czech Republic (PCA Case No. 2018-20)	Czech Republic - Switzerland BIT (1990)	Ad hoc	PCA	Investment: Summary:		Decided in favour of investor	Czechia	Switzerland	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	21 - Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations	Hanotiau, B. - President Price, D. M. - Claimant Knieper, R. - Respondent	52000.00 mln CZK (2209.50 mln USD)	8300.00 mln CZK (352.70 mln USD)	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 18 May 2022	None	Judicial review by national courts	Pending (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None	None
22	2017	EcoDevelopment and EcoEnergy v. Tanzania	EcoDevelopment in Europe AB and EcoEnergy Africa AB v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/33)	Sweden - United Republic of Tanzania BIT (1999)	ICSID	ICSID	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.	Investment of the alleged USD 52 million in developing 20,000 hectares of land to grow sugar cane and produce ethanol.	Decided in favour of investor	Tanzania, United Republic of	Sweden	Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing Secondary: C - Manufacturing	1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities 20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products	Greenwood, C. - President Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant Adekoya, O. - Respondent	Data not available	164.60 mln USD	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Data not available	Award dated 13 April 2022	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Discontinued (ICSID annulment proceedings)	Decision on preliminary objections pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) dated 1 November 2022 (ICSID annulment proceedings) Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rules 53 and 43(1) dated 16 May 2023 (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	Nolan, M. D. - President Malinvaud, C. - Member Muigai, G. - Member
23	2017	Gardabani and Silk Road v. Georgia	Gardabani Holdings B.V. and Silk Road Holdings B.V v. Georgia (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/29)	Georgia - Netherlands BIT (1998)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Investments in electricity generation plants. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged refusal to raise electricity tariffs.	Investments in electricity generation plants.	Decided in favour of investor	Georgia	Netherlands	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Álvarez, H. C. - President Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant Douglas, Z. - Respondent Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant (replaced)	206.30 mln USD	75.90 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Umbrella clause	Umbrella clause	Award dated 27 October 2022	Dissenting Opinion by Zachary Douglas	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Mourre, A. - President Nolan, M. D. - Member Ó Hoisín, C. - Member
24	2017	Magyar Farming and others v. Hungary	Inicia Zrt, Kintyre Kft and Magyar Farming Company Ltd v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/27)	Hungary - United Kingdom BIT (1987)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Leasehold rights to 760 hectares of State-owned agricultural land located in Hungary’s North-Western region of Ikrény. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation by the National Land Agency of the claimants’ leasehold rights to agricultural land, following new legislation and amendments in 2010-2013 which concerned the re-distribution of certain State-owned agricultural land through tenders. According to the claimants, a tender conducted by the National Land Agency resulted in the conclusion of lease contracts with third parties for the land leased by the claimants, which allegedly breached the claimants’ contractual and statutory pre-lease rights.	Leasehold rights to 760 hectares of State-owned agricultural land located in Hungary’s North-Western region of Ikrény.	Decided in favour of investor	Hungary	United Kingdom	Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing	1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities	Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant Hanefeld, I. - Respondent	17.90 mln EUR (19.70 mln USD)	7.10 mln EUR (7.90 mln USD)	Direct expropriation	Direct expropriation	Award dated 13 November 2019	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings)	Decision on Annulment dated 16 November 2021 (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	Bastid Burdeau, G. - President Conthe, M. - Member Nolan, M. D. - Member
25	2017	Rockhopper v. Italy	Rockhopper Exploration Plc, Rockhopper Italia S.p.A. and Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd v. Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: 100% working interest in the Ombrina Mare oil and gas discovery project and a related offshore exploration permit. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision in February 2016 by the Ministry of Economic Development not to award the claimants a production concession covering the Ombrina Mare field located within 12 miles of the coast of Italy, following the Government’s re-introduction of a general ban on oil and gas exploration and production activity within the 12 mile limit of the coastline.	100% working interest in the Ombrina Mare oil and gas discovery project and a related offshore exploration permit.	Decided in favour of investor	Italy	United Kingdom	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas	Poncet, C. - Claimant Dupuy, P.-M. - Respondent Reichert, K. - President	281.70 mln EUR (281.30 mln USD)	190.70 mln EUR (190.50 mln USD)	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Indirect expropriation	Indirect expropriation	Decision on the Intra-EU Jurisdictional Objection dated 26 June 2019 Final Award dated 23 August 2022	Individual Opinion by Pierre-Marie Dupuy	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	Nolan, M. D. - President Kalnina, E. - Member Wallgren-Lindholm, C. - Member

No results found

No.	Name	Cases as Respondent State	Cases as Home State of claimant
1	Albania	13	1
2	Algeria	13	1
3	Argentina	65	5
4	Armenia	6	0
5	Australia	4	9
6	Austria	1	32
7	Azerbaijan	7	1
8	Bahamas	0	2
9	Bahrain	4	1
10	Bangladesh	1	0
11	Barbados	1	7
12	Belarus	4	2
13	Belgium	3	20
14	Belize	4	0
15	Benin	1	0
16	Bermuda	0	1
17	Bolivia, Plurinational State of	19	1
18	Bosnia and Herzegovina	5	0
19	British Virgin Islands	0	1
20	Bulgaria	12	2
21	Burundi	4	0
22	Cabo Verde	1	0
23	Cambodia	1	0
24	Cameroon	3	0
25	Canada	34	68
26	Chile	7	9
27	China	9	19
28	Colombia	23	4
29	Congo	3	0
30	Congo, Democratic Republic of the	4	0
31	Costa Rica	14	2
32	Croatia	19	3
33	Cuba	1	0
34	Cyprus	5	36
35	Czechia	42	7
36	Denmark	2	9
37	Dominican Republic	11	2
38	Ecuador	29	0
39	Egypt	46	7
40	El Salvador	4	0
41	Equatorial Guinea	2	0
42	Estonia	5	3
43	Ethiopia	5	0
44	European Union	2	0
45	Finland	1	3
46	France	3	67
47	Gabon	3	0
48	Gambia	2	0
49	Georgia	18	1
50	Germany	7	84
51	Ghana	3	0
52	Gibraltar	0	2
53	Greece	5	15
54	Grenada	2	0
55	Guatemala	9	1
56	Guyana	1	0
57	Honduras	7	0
58	Hong Kong, China SAR	0	2
59	Hungary	17	3
60	India	28	12
61	Indonesia	7	0
62	Iran, Islamic Republic of	1	6
63	Iraq	6	0
64	Ireland	0	2
65	Israel	0	8
66	Italy	14	51
67	Jamaica	0	1
68	Japan	1	6
69	Jordan	10	9
70	Kazakhstan	19	7
71	Kenya	1	0
72	Korea, Republic of	10	8
73	Kuwait	7	9
74	Kyrgyzstan	18	0
75	Lao People's Democratic Republic	4	0
76	Latvia	10	5
77	Lebanon	5	6
78	Lesotho	2	0
79	Libya	22	1
80	Liechtenstein	0	1
81	Lithuania	8	8
82	Luxembourg	0	45
83	Macao, China SAR	0	1
84	Madagascar	4	0
85	Malaysia	3	9
86	Malta	1	4
87	Mauritius	4	15
88	Mexico	52	7
89	Moldova, Republic of	13	1
90	Mongolia	6	0
91	Montenegro	6	0
92	Morocco	9	0
93	Mozambique	3	0
94	Myanmar	2	0
95	Nepal	1	0
96	Netherlands	3	132
97	Nicaragua	3	0
98	Nigeria	5	0
99	North Macedonia	11	0
100	Norway	3	5
101	Oman	4	2
102	Pakistan	12	0
103	Panama	20	10
104	Papua New Guinea	1	0
105	Paraguay	3	0
106	Peru	34	5
107	Philippines	7	0
108	Poland	37	8
109	Portugal	1	8
110	Qatar	2	9
111	Romania	26	1
112	Russian Federation	28	26
113	Rwanda	1	0
114	Saudi Arabia	11	5
115	Senegal	6	0
116	Serbia	15	0
117	Seychelles	0	2
118	Sierra Leone	1	0
119	Singapore	0	12
120	Slovakia	14	1
121	Slovenia	6	3
122	South Africa	1	3
123	Spain	56	73
124	Sri Lanka	5	0
125	Sudan	2	0
126	Sweden	1	12
127	Switzerland	1	51
128	Syrian Arab Republic	2	0
129	Tajikistan	2	0
130	Tanzania, United Republic of	13	0
131	Thailand	2	0
132	Trinidad and Tobago	2	0
133	Tunisia	3	1
134	Türkiye	18	49
135	Turkmenistan	16	0
136	Uganda	1	0
137	Ukraine	31	17
138	United Arab Emirates	6	12
139	United Kingdom	1	109
140	United States of America	24	232
141	Uruguay	5	1
142	Uzbekistan	9	1
143	Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of	64	3
144	Viet Nam	13	0
145	Yemen	3	0
146	Zimbabwe	3	0

No results found

Top

Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

Known treaty-based ISDS cases:

About

Methodology

Disclaimer

Cases included in the Navigator

Sources of information and frequency of updating

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Share

Case name and number

Year

Countries

Economic sector and subsector

Applicable IIA

Arbitral rules and administering institution

Arbitrators and annulment committee members

Amount of compensation (USD or USD equivalent)

Breaches of IIA provisions alleged and found

Follow-on proceedings

Arbitrations initiated

Arbitral decisions issued

Follow-on decisions issued

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

BITs

Treaties with Investment Provisions

Year of signature

Applicable arbitration rules

Administering institution

Appointments in original proceedings

ICSID annulment committee members

Appointed by claimant

Appointed by / Designated to Respondent

President

Sole arbitrator

Sought by claimant(s)

Awarded by tribunal

Agreed in settlement

Breaches of IIA provisions alleged

Breaches of IIA provisions found

ICSID annulment proceedings

Judicial review by national courts

ICSID resubmission proceedings

Related Products