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: 24

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	2019	Díaz Gaspar v. Costa Rica	Alejandro Diego Díaz Gaspar v. Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/13)	Costa Rica - Spain BIT (1997)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Investments in Ibérico SA, a local food processing company. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of alleged measures by Government agencies against the claimant’s company, including the forced closure of Ibérico’s food production facilities, the revocation of related permits and the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings.	Investments in Ibérico SA, a local food processing company.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Costa Rica	Spain	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	10 - Manufacture of food products	Mourre, A. - President Jiménez, A. E. - Claimant González García, L. - Respondent	101.00 mln USD	Data not available	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Indirect expropriation Other	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 29 June 2022 (Spanish)	Partial Dissenting Opinion by Luis A. González García (Spanish)	None	None	None	None	None
2	2017	Pawlowski and Projekt Sever v. Czech Republic	Pawlowski AG and Projekt Sever s.r.o. v. Czech Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/11)	Czech Republic - Switzerland BIT (1990)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Ownership of land acquired for real estate development in Benice, a district in the southeast of Prague. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged frustration of the claimants’ real estate development project through legal proceedings related to a land use plan which had permitted construction on the claimants’ land.	Ownership of land acquired for real estate development in Benice, a district in the southeast of Prague.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Czechia	Switzerland	Tertiary: F - Construction	41 - Construction of buildings	Beechey, J. - Claimant Fernández-Armesto, J. - President Lowe, V. - Respondent	5266.60 mln CZK (237.20 mln USD)	Data not available	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Indirect expropriation Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Other	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Award dated 1 November 2021	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	van Haersolte-Van Hof, J. J. - President Ohara, Y. - Member Pawlak, D. - Member
3	2016	Amlyn v. Croatia	Amlyn Holding B.V. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/28)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	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.	Investments in the construction of a biomass power plant.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Croatia	Netherlands	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent Drymer, S. L. - President	71.10 mln EUR (82.80 mln USD)	Data not available	Indirect expropriation 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 22 October 2021	None	None	None	None	None	None
4	2016	Güriş v. Libya	Güriş İnşaat ve Mühendislik A.Ş. v. Libya (ICC Case No. 22137/ZF/AYZ)	Libya - Turkey BIT (2009)	ICC	ICC	Investment: Summary:		Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Libya	Türkiye	Tertiary: F - Construction	41 - Construction of buildings	Tercier, P. - President Sachs, K. - Claimant Landau, T. - Respondent	118.80 mln EUR (133.70 mln USD)	Data not available	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Indirect expropriation Losses sustained due to insurrection, war, or similar events Umbrella clause	Indirect expropriation Full protection and security, or similar	Partial Award dated 4 February 2020 Final Award dated 23 November 2021	None	Judicial review by national courts	Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts)	Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 19 December 2023 (French) (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None
5	2016	Muszynianka v. Slovakia	Muszynianka Spółka z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnością v. Slovak Republic (PCA Case No. 2017-08)	Poland - Slovakia BIT (1994)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Investments in mineral water production. Summary: Claims arising out of the 2014 change to the Slovakian Constitution that forbade cross-border bulk transportation of drinking and mineral water derived from Slovak water sources and the rejection of the claimant’s application for a mineral water extraction permit. These actions allegedly frustrated the claimant’s venture to extract and transport (via pipeline) mineral water from a source in Slovakia to its bottling plant in a neighbouring town in Poland.	Investments in mineral water production.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Slovakia	Poland	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	11 - Manufacture of beverages	Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant (replaced) Thomas, J. C. - Respondent Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President Volterra, R. - Claimant	575.60 mln PLN (150.90 mln USD)	Data not available	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Indirect expropriation	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Award dated 7 October 2020	Partial Dissenting Opinion by Robert Volterra	None	None	None	None	None
6	2016	Safa v. Greece	Iskandar Safa and Akram Safa v. Hellenic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/20)	Greece - Lebanon BIT (1997)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Co-ownership of the Privinvest Group, a naval shipbuilding group, which acquired a majority stake in Hellenic Shipyards SA in 2010. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s allegedly unlawful actions related to Hellenic Shipyards, an operator of a large shipyard near Athens, including a claim for EUR 300 million from a State-owned entity, a prohibition for the shipyard to work for foreign navies and stopped payments under contracts.	Co-ownership of the Privinvest Group, a naval shipbuilding group, which acquired a majority stake in Hellenic Shipyards SA in 2010.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Greece	Lebanon	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	30 - Manufacture of other transport equipment	Heiskanen, V. - President Reichert, K. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	Data not available	Data not available	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	Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 24 July 2020 Award dated 30 June 2023	None	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	King, B. D. - President Adekoya, O. - Member Tonova, S. - Member
7	2015	B3 Croatian Courier v. Croatia	B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5)	Croatia - Netherlands BIT (1998)	ICSID	ICSID	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.	Ownership of a postal services enterprise, City Ex.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Croatia	Netherlands	Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage	53 - Postal and courier activities	Hanotiau, B. - President Stern, B. - Respondent Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant	53.00 mln EUR (57.80 mln USD)	0.00 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Indirect expropriation Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 5 April 2019	None	None	None	None	None	None
8	2014	Infinito Gold v. Costa Rica	Infinito Gold Ltd. v. Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/5)	Canada - Costa Rica BIT (1998)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Rights under an exploration permit and an exploitation concession for the development of a gold mine in Costa Rica, known as Las Crucitas Project. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s revocation of claimant's concession for a gold mining project at Crucitas de Cutris, in northern Costa Rica, through alleged court and executive measures without payment of adequate compensation.	Rights under an exploration permit and an exploitation concession for the development of a gold mine in Costa Rica, known as Las Crucitas Project.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Costa Rica	Canada	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	7 - Mining of metal ores	Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President Hanotiau, B. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	93.80 mln USD	Data not available	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar Most-favoured nation treatment Other Umbrella clause	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Decision on Jurisdiction dated 4 December 2017 Award dated 3 June 2021 (English) Award dated 3 June 2021 (Spanish)	Separate Opinion by Brigitte Stern (English) Separate Opinion by Brigitte Stern (Spanish)	ICSID annulment proceedings	Pending (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	None	King, B. D. - President Moreno Rodríguez, J. A. - Member Villanúa Gómez, D. - Member
9	2013	Cementos La Union v. Egypt	Cementos La Union S.A. and Aridos Jativa S.L.U v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/29)	Egypt - Spain BIT (1992)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Majority shareholding (60 per cent) in the cement manufacturing company Arabian Cement Company that had concluded the construction of a cement production facility in Suez. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged overpricing by the Government of an operating license for a cement manufacturing plant, and the application of an allegedly uncommon system of granting the licenses through tenders.	Majority shareholding (60 per cent) in the cement manufacturing company Arabian Cement Company that had concluded the construction of a cement production facility in Suez.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Egypt	Spain	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	23 - Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products	Söderlund, C. - President Brower, C. N. - Claimant Sands, P. - Respondent	Data not available	Data not available	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Other	Other	Award dated 30 October 2020	Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Charles N. Brower	ICSID annulment proceedings	Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings)	Decision on Annulment dated 31 July 2023 (ICSID annulment proceedings)	None	Pinto, M. - President Miles, W. J. - Member Wallgren-Lindholm, C. - Member
10	2013	Cervin and Rhone v. Costa Rica	Cervin Investissements S.A. and Rhone Investissements S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/2)	Costa Rica - Switzerland BIT (2000)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Ownership of the Costa Rican company Gas Nacional Zeta S.A. that held gas concession agreements. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of regulatory changes by the Government concerning liquid petroleum gas (LPG) sales, including tariff adjustments and the filling of canisters in which gas is sold, that had an alleged negative impact on claimants' gas distribution business.	Ownership of the Costa Rican company Gas Nacional Zeta S.A. that held gas concession agreements.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Costa Rica	Switzerland	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Mourre, A. - President Ramírez Hernández, R. - Claimant Jana Linetzky, A. - Respondent	40632.00 mln CRC (75.00 mln USD)	0.00 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 National treatment	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Decision on Jurisdiction dated 15 December 2014 Award dated 7 March 2017	Dissenting Opinion of Ricardo Ramírez Hernández (Decision on Jurisdiction) Separate Opinion Regarding Costs by Ricardo Ramírez Hernández	None	None	None	None	None
11	2012	MNSS and RCA v. Montenegro	MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V v. Montenegro (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8)	Macedonia, The former Yugoslav Republic of - Netherlands BIT (1998)	ICSID AF	ICSID	Investment: Majority shareholding in a steel production company located in Montenegro. Summary: Claims arising out of alleged Government interference with the operation and management of a steel production facility in which the claimants had invested, leading to its bankruptcy.	Majority shareholding in a steel production company located in Montenegro.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Montenegro	Netherlands	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	24 - Manufacture of basic metals	Rigo Sureda, A. - President Gaillard, E. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent Schreuer, C. H. - Respondent (replaced)	100.00 mln EUR (114.50 mln USD)	0.00 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 Most-favoured nation treatment Transfer of funds Indirect expropriation Direct expropriation	Full protection and security, or similar	Award dated 4 May 2016 Decision on the Request for Supplementary Decision dated 24 October 2016	None	None	None	None	None	None
12	2012	Swissbourgh and others v. Lesotho	Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited, Josias Van Zyl, The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust and others v. The Kingdom of Lesotho (PCA Case No. 2013-29)	SADC Investment Protocol (2006)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Rights under mining leases entered into with the Government. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s conduct in relation to a SADC Tribunal proceeding over the expropriation of the claimants’ mining leases.	Rights under mining leases entered into with the Government.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Lesotho	South Africa	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	8 - Other mining and quarrying	Williams, D. A. R. - President Bishop, D. - Claimant Nienaber, P. M. - Respondent	Data not available	0.00 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Direct expropriation Other	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Other	Partial Award on Jurisdiction and the Merits dated 18 April 2016 Interpretation Award dated 27 June 2016	Dissenting Opinion by P. M. Nienaber	Judicial review by national courts	Award/decision set aside in its entirety (Judicial review by national courts)	Judgment of the High Court of Singapore on the Set Aside Application dated 14 August 2017 (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of the Singapore Court of Appeal dated 27 November 2018 (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None
13	2011	Agility v. Pakistan	Agility for Public Warehousing Company K.S.C. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/8)	Kuwait - Pakistan BIT (1983)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Ownership of the Pakistan Automated Customs Clearance System software introduced by the Government at Pakistan's Karachi International Container Terminal and later extended to other ports and airports in the country. Summary: Claims arising out of outstanding payments from the Government concerning claimant's automated customs clearing system to assess duties on imports passing through Pakistani ports.	Ownership of the Pakistan Automated Customs Clearance System software introduced by the Government at Pakistan's Karachi International Container Terminal and later extended to other ports and airports in the country.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Pakistan	Kuwait	Tertiary: O - Public administration and defence; compulsory social security	84 - Public administration and defence; compulsory social security	Fortier, L. Y. - President Brower, C. N. - Claimant Moollan, S. - Respondent	650.00 mln USD	0.00 mln USD	Data not available	Data not available	Decision on jurisdiction dated 27 February 2013 Award dated 1 August 2016	None	None	None	None	None	None
14	2011	Al Warraq v. Indonesia	Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia	OIC Investment Agreement (1981)	UNCITRAL	None	Investment: Indirect ownership of capital in Bank Century through a wholly-owned company (FGAH First Gulf Asia Holdings) and through claimant's personal shareholding through another company (ABN Amro). Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's bailout of a bank in which the claimant had allegedly invested, followed by criminal investigations and the subsequent prosecution of Mr. Al-Warraq for fraudulent activities in the Indonesian financial sector.	Indirect ownership of capital in Bank Century through a wholly-owned company (FGAH First Gulf Asia Holdings) and through claimant's personal shareholding through another company (ABN Amro).	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Indonesia	Saudi Arabia	Tertiary: K - Financial and insurance activities	64 - Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding	Cremades, B. M. - President Hwang, M. - Claimant Nariman, F. S. - Respondent	19.60 mln USD	0.00 mln USD	Indirect expropriation 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 on Respondent's Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Claims dated 21 June 2012 Final Award dated 15 December 2014	None	None	None	None	None	None
15	2010	AES v. Kazakhstan	AES Corporation and Tau Power B.V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/16)	Kazakhstan - United States of America BIT (1992) The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Ownership of a number of power facilities and trading companies that held rights under long-term concessions concluded with the Government. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions including fines and tariff restrictions imposed to claimants by Kazakh competition authorities concerning energy prices that allegedly had adverse financial impacts on the company’s operations in the country.	Ownership of a number of power facilities and trading companies that held rights under long-term concessions concluded with the Government.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Kazakhstan	United States of America Netherlands	Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply	Tercier, P. - President Born, G. B. - President (replaced) Sachs, K. - Claimant Lowe, V. - Respondent	1290.00 mln USD	0.00 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Umbrella clause Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Transfer of funds Full protection and security, or similar	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 1 November 2013	None	None	None	None	None	None
16	2010	Bosca v. Lithuania	Luigiterzo Bosca v. Republic of Lithuania (PCA Case No. 2011-05)	Italy - Lithuania BIT (1994)	UNCITRAL	PCA	Investment: Know-how by way of providing services to wine producing company in Lithuania; "making of contract" rights as winner of a public tender for the acquisition of a sparkling wines manufacturing company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's annulment of claimant's successful bid for the company AB Alita, a Lithuanian alcoholic beverage producer.	Know-how by way of providing services to wine producing company in Lithuania; "making of contract" rights as winner of a public tender for the acquisition of a sparkling wines manufacturing company.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Lithuania	Italy	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	11 - Manufacture of beverages	Lalonde, M. - President Price, D. M. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	207.00 mln EUR (279.20 mln USD)	0.00 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims National treatment Most-favoured nation treatment Direct expropriation Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award dated 17 May 2013	None	None	None	None	None	None
17	2008	Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan	Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. The Republic of Tajikistan (SCC Case No. 064/2008)	The Energy Charter Treaty (1994)	SCC	SCC	Investment: Rights under four hydrocarbon exploration agreements concluded between Mr. Al-Bahloul and Tajikistan. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged failure to ensure the issuance of licenses pursuant to several hydrocarbon exploration agreements concluded between Mr. Al-Bahloul and Tajikistan's State Committee for Oil and Gas for four areas (Rengan, Sargazon, Yalgyzkak and East Soupetau) in Tajikistan.	Rights under four hydrocarbon exploration agreements concluded between Mr. Al-Bahloul and Tajikistan.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Tajikistan	Austria	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	6 - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas	Hertzfeld, J. M. - President Happ, R. - Claimant Zykin, I. S. - Respondent	228.00 mln USD Non-pecuniary relief	0.00 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 National treatment Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Umbrella clause	Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 2 September 2009 Final Award dated 8 June 2010	None	None	None	None	None	None
18	2007	Paushok v. Mongolia	Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia	Mongolia - Russian Federation BIT (1995)	UNCITRAL	None	Investment: Direct and indirect ownership of all outstanding shares of two Mongolian gold mining companies (KOO Golden East-Mongolia and KOO Bumbat) and an oil and gas company (KOO Vostokneftegaz) operating in Mongolia; capital contributions to these companies. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's enactment of the law "On Imposition of Price Increase (Windfall) Taxes on Some Commodities" which included the sale of gold and the law "On Minerals" that allegedly affected claimants' investments in the business of exploring and developing placer gold deposits in Mongolia.	Direct and indirect ownership of all outstanding shares of two Mongolian gold mining companies (KOO Golden East-Mongolia and KOO Bumbat) and an oil and gas company (KOO Vostokneftegaz) operating in Mongolia; capital contributions to these companies.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Mongolia	Russian Federation	Primary: B - Mining and quarrying	7 - Mining of metal ores	Lalonde, M. - President Grigera Naón, H. A. - Claimant Stern, B. - Respondent	1000.00 mln USD	Data not available	Indirect expropriation Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Full protection and security, or similar National treatment Most-favoured nation treatment Customary rules of international law Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims	Award on Jurisdiction and Liability dated 28 April 2011 Additional Award dated 11 July 2011	None	Judicial review by national courts	Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts)	Judgment of The Hague District Court dated 17 March 2021 (Judicial review by national courts) Judgment of The Hague Court of Appeal dated 28 February 2023 (Judicial review by national courts)	None	None
19	2007	Urbaser and CABB v. Argentina	Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Biskaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26)	Argentina - Spain BIT (1991)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Direct and indirect minority shareholding in an Argentinean vehicle company that held a concession for the provision of a drinking water supply and sewerage services in Buenos Aires. Summary: Claims arising out of Argentina's alleged interference with the tariff regime applicable to claimant's investment and other alleged breaches of obligations under the relevant concession agreement through the enactment of emergency measures during its 2001-2002 economic crisis.	Direct and indirect minority shareholding in an Argentinean vehicle company that held a concession for the provision of a drinking water supply and sewerage services in Buenos Aires.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Argentina	Spain	Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities	36 - Water collection, treatment and supply 37 - Sewerage	Bucher, A. - President Martínez-Fraga, P. J. - Claimant McLachlan, C. A. - Respondent Brownlie, I. - Respondent (replaced)	211.20 mln USD	0.00 mln USD	Indirect expropriation 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	Decision on Jurisdiction dated 19 December 2012 Award dated 8 December 2016	None	None	None	None	None	None
20	2006	Nordzucker v. Poland	Nordzucker AG v. The Republic of Poland	Germany - Poland BIT (1989)	UNCITRAL	None	Investment: Intended acquisition of two sugar production plants in Poland, including the payment of a guarantee deposited with certain sugar holding companies in its capacity of bidder for the companies' shares. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's implementation of a privatization programme for its sugar industry and its alleged retraction from selling Nordzucker two state-owned sugar producers (including a total of five production plants), which would have increased the claimant's total market-share to 20 per cent of Poland's sugar industry.	Intended acquisition of two sugar production plants in Poland, including the payment of a guarantee deposited with certain sugar holding companies in its capacity of bidder for the companies' shares.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Poland	Germany	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	10 - Manufacture of food products	Bucher, A. - Claimant Tomaszewski, M. - Respondent Van Houtte, V. - President	153.70 mln EUR (228.30 mln USD)	0.00 mln USD	Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Other	Other	Partial Award (Jurisdiction) dated 10 December 2008 Second Partial Award (Merits) dated 28 January 2009 Third Partial and Final Award (Damages and Costs) dated 23 November 2009	None	None	None	None	None	None
21	2006	Rompetrol v. Romania	The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3)	Netherlands - Romania BIT (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Controlling shareholding in Rompetrol Rafinare S.A., a privatised Romanian company which owned and operated an oil refinery and petrochemical complex. Summary: Claims arising out of investigations undertaken by Romanian anti-corruption and criminal prosecution authorities relating to the privatisation of an oil refinery company, shortly after the sale of the controlling shares to the claimant, allegedly including the arrest, detention, travel-ban and wire-tapping of key company's executives.	Controlling shareholding in Rompetrol Rafinare S.A., a privatised Romanian company which owned and operated an oil refinery and petrochemical complex.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Romania	Netherlands	Secondary: C - Manufacturing	19 - Manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products	Berman, F. - President Donovan, D. - Claimant Lalonde, M. - Respondent	100.00 mln USD	0.00 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 Other	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 Other	Decision on Respondent’s Preliminary Objections on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 18 April 2008 Award dated 6 May 2013	None	None	None	None	None	None
22	2005	Biwater v. Tanzania	Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22)	United Republic of Tanzania - United Kingdom BIT (1994)	ICSID	ICSID	Investment: Controlling interest in local investment vehicle company that had concluded certain agreements with a Tanzanian public corporation, the Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority, to implement a water and sewerage infrastructure project. Summary: Claims arising out of contractual disputes between claimant's locally-incorporated company and Tanzania's Water and Sewerage Authority, followed by a series of events that allegedly led to the deportation of the investor's senior management, as well as the seizure of its assets and takeover of its business.	Controlling interest in local investment vehicle company that had concluded certain agreements with a Tanzanian public corporation, the Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority, to implement a water and sewerage infrastructure project.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Tanzania, United Republic of	United Kingdom	Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities	36 - Water collection, treatment and supply 37 - Sewerage	Hanotiau, B. - President Born, G. B. - Claimant Landau, T. - Respondent	20.00 mln USD	0.00 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 Transfer of funds Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	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	Award dated 24 July 2008	Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Gary Born	None	None	None	None	None
23	2001	Crespo and others v. Poland	Julian Crespo Santamargarita, Juan Ricardo Crespo Santamargarita, Valencja Sp. z.o.o. v. Republic of Poland	Poland - Spain BIT (1992)	ICC	ICC	Investment: Investments in an agri-food business. Summary: Claims arising out of the Polish tax authority’s blocking of funds on the claimants’ bank accounts, related to the collection of corporate taxes allegedly due to the state.	Investments in an agri-food business.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Poland	Spain	Tertiary: G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles	46 - Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles	Name not available - President Name not available - Claimant Name not available - Respondent	6.70 mln USD	Data not available	Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims National treatment Full protection and security, or similar Indirect expropriation Transfer of funds	Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Interim Award dated 21 November 2004 Final Award dated 22 September 2005	Dissenting Opinion of Jerzy Rajski	None	None	None	None	None
24	1999	Lauder v. Czech Republic	Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic	Czech Republic - United States of America BIT (1991)	UNCITRAL	None	Investment: Shareholding in local broadcasting enterprise. Summary: Claims arising out of the conduct of the Czech Media Council towards the broadcasting enterprise partly owned by the foreign investor.	Shareholding in local broadcasting enterprise.	Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)	Czechia	United States of America	Tertiary: J - Information and communication	60 - Programming and broadcasting activities	Briner, R. - President Cutler, L. N. - Claimant Klein, B. - Respondent	Data not available	0.00 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	Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures	Award dated 3 September 2001	None	None	None	None	None	None

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