Jurisdiction — Locus standi — United States–Moldova Bilateral Investment Protection Treaty, 1993 — Article VI(8) — Consent to arbitration — Articles I(2) and VI(3) of the BIT — Six-month waiting period — Constitution of tribunal — UNCITRAL Rules — Article 5

Expropriation — Customs and tax regime stability — Whether change in customs and tax regime tantamount to expropriation — United States–Moldova BIT

Compensation — Whether Respondent liable to pay Claimant compensation — Whether Respondent in breach of BIT — Damages — Whether Respondent liable for damages including loss of profits — Costs — Article 40 of UNCITRAL Rules

Jurisdiction — Investment — Asset — Contractual obligation — Whether contract invalid — Whether claim having financial value — Whether well founded or legitimate expectation of performance

Jurisdiction — Treaty — Settlement of claims — Settlement of claims against party to contract — Whether settlement of treaty claim

Costs — Expenses — Arbitration costs — Where Respondent raised unsuccessful objections — Whether Claimant responsible for costs attributable to unsuccessful objections

Arbitration — Challenge to validity of arbitral award — Application by plaintiff to Swedish court to set aside arbitral award — Section 36 of Arbitration Act 1999 — Whether arbitral tribunal ruling on all issues submitted to it — Whether arbitral tribunal ruling on substance — Whether Section 36 of Arbitration Act 1999 applicable

Costs — Arbitral tribunal’s decision on costs — Application by plaintiff to Swedish court to vary decision on costs — Czech Republic’s litigation costs — Whether plaintiff liable

Jurisdiction — Whether a void contract would bar the exercise of ICSID jurisdiction — Matter to be dealt with in the merits — Prima facie existence of the contract — Contract characterizing an investment — Certificate constituting an investment

Jurisdiction — Consent to arbitrate — Entering into a BIT by State as consent to arbitrate — No need for additional consent by State — ICSID Convention, Article 36(2)

Jurisdiction — IBM’s acquisition of shares in IBM Ecuador — Whether constituting investment by IBM in Ecuador — Default in contract indirectly affecting IBM — Whether investment protected by United States–Ecuador BIT, Article I(1) — ICSID Convention, Article 25

Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction clause under investment contract — Interpretation of terms of BIT — Fork-in-the-road provision — BIT as the fundamental basis of the claim — Domestic courts retaining jurisdiction over investment-unrelated matters

Municipal law — Illegality of the contract under municipal law — Not posing a bar to ICSID jurisdiction — Arbitrability — Primacy of international law

Municipal law — Prescription of rights under domestic law — Matter to be dealt with in the merits — Claims founded on the BIT rather than on contract

Jurisdiction — Consent to arbitrate — Exhaustion of local administrative and judicial remedies — Interpretation of terms of the BIT — BIT, Article VI — ICSID Convention, Article 26

Arbitration — Contract between UK company and Egyptian State enterprise — Dispute between parties — Claimant company requesting ICSID arbitration against Egypt — ICSID arbitration provisions in UK–Egypt Bilateral Investment Treaty — Essence of dispute — Whether Claimant’s claim falling within BIT and ICSID Convention

Jurisdiction — Whether ICSID Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute — Effect of forum selection clause in contract between parties — Whether Egypt violating Bilateral Investment Treaty — Whether conditions in Articles 25 and 26 of ICSID Convention and in BIT fulfilled — Whether there was an investment

Foreign investment — Definition — Whether bank guarantees an investment under BIT — Whether Claimant’s activities amounting to an investment under ICSID Convention — ICSID Convention, Article 25

Treaties — Bilateral Investment Treaty — Whether prima facie violation of BIT by Respondent — Non-release of bank guarantees — Whether amounting to nationalization or measures equivalent to expropriation of investment — Whether fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security afforded — Forum selection clause in contract between parties

Arbitration — Consent to UNCITRAL arbitration — Forum selection clause in contract between parties — Formal declaration by counsel of Respondent — Whether binding

Jurisdiction — Standing — Derivative claim — Minority shareholding — Controlling shareholder seeking redress before domestic courts — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Claimant’s claims

Fair and equitable treatment — Article 1105 NAFTA — Whether Mexico violating minimum standard of treatment — Effect of Mexico’s maladministration of sugar programme — Whether outright and unjustified repudiation of regulations — Mexico’s failure to implement key parts of sugar programme — Attribution — Causation — Whether Mexico violating Article 1105 NAFTA

National treatment — Discrimination — Article 1102(2) NAFTA — Whether Mexico’s measures having legitimate policy goal — Whether disguised barrier to equal opportunity

Expropriation — Article 1110 NAFTA — De facto expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Taking — Value of the investment — Value of available domestic remedies — Whether Claimant’s investment expropriated contrary to Article 1110 NAFTA

Applicable law — 1993 Consolidation Agreement between Czech and Slovak Republics — Law applicable to Consolidation Agreement — Consolidation Agreement containing legally binding obligations — Whether Consolidation Agreement governed by public international law — Whether Consolidation Agreement governed by Czech public law — Article 7(4) of Consolidation Agreement — Laws of Czech Republic — 1992 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Czech and Slovak Republics

Arbitration — Arbitration proceedings by Claimant against Slovak Republic for breach of obligations under 1993 Consolidation Agreement — Article 3 of Consolidation Agreement — Meaning and scope — Whether receivables properly assigned for purposes of Article 3 — “On-balance sheet” and “off-balance sheet” receivables — Claimant claiming damages

Damages — Slovak Republic’s alleged breach of its obligation to cover losses pursuant to Article 3 of Consolidation Agreement — Coverage losses — Locus standi — Calculation of damages — Principal amount of loan — Interest — Capitalization — Lost profit — Costs

Jurisdiction — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994, Article 26 — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether ICSID Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide on merits of Claimant’s claims for alleged breaches of Part III of Energy Charter Treaty — Consent to arbitration — Relevance of Article 17(1) of Energy Charter Treaty — Burden of proof — Whether allegation of treaty violation sufficient to establish jurisdiction — Whether jurisdictional requirements of Articles 1 and 26 of Energy Charter Treaty satisfied

Jurisdiction — Bulgaria-Cyprus Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1987 — Consent to arbitration — Most-favoured-nation provision — Interpretation — Scope — Reading of MFN provision with other BITs to which Bulgaria Contracting Party — Whether providing Respondent’s consent to ICSID arbitration — Whether entitling Claimant to rely on dispute settlement provisions in these other BITs

Treaties — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 — Article 17(1) — Whether State’s exercise of right of denial under Article 17(1) having retrospective effect — Whether Claimant company having substantial business activity in Cyprus — Ownership or control of Claimant

Provisional measures — ICSID Convention, Article 47 — ICSID Arbitration Rule 39(1) — Preservation of rights relating to dispute — Urgent need for relief — Irreparable harm

Jurisdiction — Competence of Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction — Prior decision of Kyrgyz courts on issue of jurisdiction — Swedish Arbitration Act, Section 2 — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 21

Jurisdiction — Whether Tribunal bound by ruling of Kyrgyz courts — Jurisdiction of Tribunal limited to “investment disputes” under the Foreign Investment Law

Arbitration — Application to annul Arbitral Award I — Whether Arbitral Award I to be altered wholly or in part — Whether arbitral tribunal deciding issue of jurisdiction correctly — Whether prerequisites for arbitration met — Whether Petrobart had made an investment within the meaning of Kyrgyz Foreign Investment Law (“FIL”) — Doctrine of assertion — Concept of investment in FIL — International law principles — Res judicata — Whether Swedish court to annul Arbitral Award I

Costs — Petrobart’s claim for alteration of distribution of costs in arbitral proceedings — Dismissal of claim — Costs in the Court of Appeal

Jurisdiction — Procedure — Agreement between the parties not to raise further objections — Objection subsequently made — Whether merits of objection requiring consideration by Tribunal

Jurisdiction — Provisional application — Treaty provisionally applied by State including to a specified external territory — Subsequent instrument of ratification not extending to the external territory — Provisional application not expressly terminated for the territory — Whether treaty continuing to apply provisionally

Jurisdiction — Domestic proceedings dealing with domestic law claim — Whether principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel applicable to related but distinct treaty claim

Jurisdiction — “Investor” — “Investment” — Whether right conferred by contract to undertake economic activity an investment

Fair and equitable treatment — Transfer of assets of State organ to detriment of investor — Government intervention in enforcement proceedings to stay execution — Whether fair and equitable treatment — Whether violation of obligation to provide effective enforcement of rights

Expropriation — De facto expropriation — Measures not directed at transfer of value of investment

Remedies — Compensation — Contract no longer being performed — Whether specific performance practical — Damages for payment for delivered goods — Lost profits — Outlays and expenses — Costs — Interest

Arbitration — Challenge to validity of arbitral award — Whether valid arbitration agreement between parties — Section 34 of Swedish Arbitration Act — Whether sale and purchase agreement for condensed gas constituting investment under Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 — Whether administrative errors affecting outcome of case — Whether Swedish court to set aside Arbitral Award II

Treaties — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994 (“ECT”) — Interpretation — ECT provisionally applicable to Gibraltar — Gibraltar not mentioned in ratification instrument — Whether ECT applicable to Gibraltar

Foreign investment — Definition of investment — Energy Charter Treaty, 1994, Article 1(5) and (6) — Whether condensed gas agreement constituting an investment under the ECT

Costs — Litigation costs — Whether requested amount reasonable — Interest

Annulment — Stay of enforcement — Provisional stay — Application for continued stay — Whether Award enforceable with same effect as final judgment in domestic courts — ICSID Convention, Article 52(5) — Arbitration Rule 54(1)

Annulment — Departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Failure to hear parties — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(d)

Annulment — Fair and equitable treatment — Manifest excess of powers — Whether Tribunal exceeded powers in assessment of fair and equitable treatment standard — Whether Tribunal decided ex aequo et bono — Whether reasons sufficient — Whether adequate explanation in reasons