Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T22:34:35.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd, Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited and Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited v. Republic of India

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  30 September 2013 ; 25 July 2016 ; 25 July 2016 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Procedure — Challenge to arbitrator — Impartiality — Issue conflict — Whether the challenge was brought within time — Whether previous statements about the law gave rise to issue conflict

Jurisdiction — Investment — Whether an investment had been made by the acquisition of shares, debentures and indirect interests over business assets — Whether it was relevant that the project required further regulatory approval

Defence — Exclusions and reservations — Essential security interests — Whether the security interests were essential — Whether the contract was annulled for non-security political factors — Whether essential security interests precluded the tribunal from exercising jurisdiction — Whether jurisdiction could be excluded only for part of an expropriation based on a reasonable allocation for essential security interests — Whether the State had to meet the standard of necessity under customary international law — Whether the State had undertaken an obligation not to invoke its essential security interests

State responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — Whether actions of a State-owned entity could be attributed to the State under customary international law — Whether the State-owned entity was a governmental entity under municipal law — Whether the concept of agency could establish State responsibility

Expropriation — Contract termination — Whether the State expropriated an investment by instructing a State-owned entity to annul its contract with a foreign investor — Whether the taking was for a public purpose — Whether the taking followed due process — Whether the State paid compensation — Whether the arbitral award of compensation for breach of contract to be paid by the State-owned entity to the investor’s local subsidiary was relevant to the expropriation standard — Whether the State discriminated against the foreign investor

Remedies — Expropriation — Compensation — Whether compensation for expropriation could be apportioned based on partial defence of essential security interests

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Good faith — Whether the investors had a legitimate expectation that the State would not invoke its essential security interests — Whether the State acted in good faith during the annulment of the contract — Whether unjust enrichment grounded a distinct claim — Whether the State harassed the investors

Arbitrary or discriminatory measures — Whether the State acted unreasonably in its policy decision or discriminated against foreign ownership

Most-favoured-nation treatment — Substantive provision — Whether the standard of full protection and security could be imported from another bilateral investment treaty

Full protection and security — Legal protection — Whether the State failed to afford full legal protection and security against third parties — Whether the State-owned entity was a third party

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)