Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:33:27.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  01 November 2006 ; 30 November 2004 ; 23 January 2004 ; 09 February 2004 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Investment — Professional services — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether legal services qualified as an investment — Whether a contribution to the economic development of the host State was required for there to be an investment

Expropriation — Measures tantamount to expropriation — Whether international law or national law was applied to determine whether an expropriation had occurred under the BIT — Whether measures resulting in the total loss of clients may constitute measures tantamount to expropriation

Remedies — Damages — Expropriation — Fair market value — Capitalised earnings approach — Whether the investor was entitled to compensation based on a projection into the future of income from the previous years — Whether the investor was entitled to compensation including projected income on accounts held outside the host State — Whether the capitalisation rate was appropriate to the economic and political circumstances of the host State — Whether the period of future compensation reflected the claimant’s inability to return to the host State

Counterclaim — Nuisance — Reputational damage — Whether the host State was entitled to reputational damages resulting from an investment treaty claim

Annulment — Stay of enforcement — ICSID Convention, Article 52(5) — Whether potential difficulties for the State in recouping the amount of the Award in case of annulment were likely — Whether other State budgetary priorities are a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant a stay — Whether the lack of urgency of recovery of the award by an investor was a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant a stay — Whether the seriousness of the grounds invoked in the annulment proceedings is a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant a stay

Annulment — Stay of enforcement — ICSID Convention, Article 52(5) — Whether the posting of a bank guarantee in the amount of the award was a condition for a stay of enforcement — Whether the principle that the State was obliged to comply with its international obligations is a sufficient basis for deciding whether to require the posting of a guarantee as a condition for a stay of enforcement — Whether the State needed to prove that the posting of a guarantee would be a significant burden to avoid being required to post a guarantee

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b) — Whether the tribunal exceeded its powers in accepting jurisdiction ratione materiae over professional services — Whether the tribunal exceeded its powers by failing to apply a provision of the BIT that was not specifically adduced in the arbitration proceeding

Annulment — Investment — Professional services — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Salini test — Whether the existence of a contribution to the economic development of the host State was an essential characteristic of an investment

Annulment — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(e) — Whether the tribunal failed to state reasons in accepting jurisdiction ratione materiae over professional services — Whether the tribunal failed to state reasons with respect to its failure to apply certain provisions of the BIT that were not adduced in the arbitration proceeding — Whether the tribunal failed to state reasons with respect to the calculation of the compensation due to the claimant

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2021

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.)