Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:29:01.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bogdanov, Agurdino–Invest Ltd and Agurdino–Chimia JSC v. Republic of Moldova

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  22 September 2005 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2020

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Claims for compensation — Procedural default of Respondent State — Relevance — Independent evaluation of facts and legal arguments of Claimant — Claim under Moldovan law — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction under Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione temporis — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over claims of foreign investor — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over claims of companies incorporated in Moldova — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over Respondent State — Whether Tribunal having authority to correct relief sought — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating principle of non–retroactivity under Moldovan law — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating obligations under BIT

State responsibility — Moldova — Department of Privatization — Whether conduct of Department attributable to State — Article 4 of ILC Articles on State Responsibility

Applicable law — Article 24 of SCC Arbitration Rules — Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Moldovan law — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating Moldovan law — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating its international treaty obligations under BIT

Municipal law — Moldovan law — Claim made under Moldovan law — Article 43 of Foreign Investment Act — Principle of non–retroactivity of legislation — Moldovan authority’s discretion — Whether Claimant accepting risk that compensation by Moldova unsatisfactory — Whether Respondent State’s actions violating Moldovan law

Treaties — Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Full protection standard — Whether Respondent State’s conduct violating Moldovan law — Whether full protection clause correction of host State’s legislation — Whether Respondent State’s conduct violating full protection standard — Article 2 of BIT

Treaties — Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Fair and equitable treatment — Whether Respondent State’s conduct violating fair and equitable treatment guarantee — Whether discriminatory — Relevance — Purpose of BIT — Legitimate expectation of foreign investor — Article 3 of BIT

Treaties — Moldova–Russian Federation Bilateral Investment Treaty — Indirect expropriation — Whether applying only to measures affecting totality or substantial part of investment — Whether Respondent’s conduct violating prohibition of indirect compensation without adequate compensation — Article 6 of BIT

Damages — Assessment — Liability for loss — Whether foreign investor partially responsible for signing contract with unlimited Moldovan authority discretion — Whether moral damages appropriate — Interest — Currency

Costs — Costs of the arbitration — Lack of cooperation by Respondent State — Relevance — Parties’ costs

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)