Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:05:45.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Antaris Solar Gmbh and Göde v. Czech Republic

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  02 May 2018 ; 02 May 2018 ; 02 May 2018 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Defence — Exclusions and reservations — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 21 — Taxation measures — Interpretation — Municipal law — Whether the carve-out depended on municipal tax law — Whether the solar levy was paid for a specific purpose of reducing the incentive regime or for general State revenue — Whether the solar levy was a tax in nature and substance — Whether the solar levy had been characterised as a tax by the municipal courts — Whether the measure was rendered as a tax to avoid international arbitration proceedings

Fair and equitable treatment — Full protection and security — Arbitrary or unreasonable measures — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Whether the standards of protection were overlapping — Whether guarantees of stability in general legislation may ground a legitimate expectation that the regulatory framework would not be modified

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Defence — Margin of appreciation — Due diligence — Whether investor awareness of possible changes to the legal framework may amount to a defence — Whether the claimants should have been aware of political and economic unrest and therefore impending reform — Whether the State should be accorded a margin of appreciation to make changes to the legal framework

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Municipal law — Retroactivity — Whether expectations of stability may arise in the absence of an express stabilisation commitment — Whether there was a free-standing obligation to provide a stable and predictable investment framework — Whether State officials had made a promise of stability — Whether the State was entitled to amend legislation to correct price distortion — Whether a five-year tax exemption was a guarantee that the legal framework would not be amended during that period — Whether the measures were retroactive or in breach of legitimate expectations according to the municipal courts

Arbitrary or discriminatory measures — Windfall profits — Consumer welfare — Whether the solar levy was advanced as part of a rational package of measures to limit consumer prices and to raise revenue — Whether it was reasonable to regulate windfall profits

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.)