Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:47:06.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AŞ v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  14 November 2005 ; 27 August 2009 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction – Investment – Interpretation – Whether the requirement of conformity with local laws under the BIT referred to the definition or the validity of the investment – Whether know‑how, equipment, personnel and financing constituted assets within the meaning of the BIT

Jurisdiction – Investment – ICSID Convention, Article 25 – Whether the elements of the Salini test were satisfied

Jurisdiction – Contract – Relationship between treaty claims and contract claims – Whether the essential basis of the investor’s claims was purely contractual such that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over such claims

Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Sufficiently substantiated claims – Whether the facts alleged by the investor, if proven true, would be capable of constituting a violation of the BIT such that the tribunal had jurisdiction over the claims

Procedure – Admissibility – Parallel arbitration proceedings – Whether exercising jurisdiction would raise a conflict between the New York Convention and the ICSID Convention

Procedure – Admissibility – Abuse of process – Whether the investor’s conduct in commencing ICSID proceedings when it had previously treated its claims as purely contractual constituted an abuse of process

Procedure – Admissibility – Prerequisites to arbitration – Notice requirements – Waiting period – Whether the investor was permitted to submit the dispute to arbitration in light of the prerequisites in the BIT

Procedure – Stay of proceedings – Whether the tribunal should stay the ICSID proceedings until resolution of the contractual dispute in separate arbitration proceedings

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – Whether a body corporate with separate legal status was an organ of the State

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – Contract – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Whether a body corporate was exercising governmental authority in its contractual conduct

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – Contract – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Whether actions exercised under a contract by a body corporate were on the instructions of or under the direction or control of the State

Evidence – Contract – Standard of review – Whether the tribunal needed to determine that there was a breach of the contract to decide claims under the BIT

Most-favoured-nation treatment – Interpretation – Fair and equitable treatment – Whether a standard of fair and equitable treatment could be imported through the BIT’s provision for most-favoured-nation treatment – Whether the preamble of the BIT supported that interpretation

Fair and equitable treatment – Legitimate expectation – Legal stability – Whether the investor’s legitimate expectations were frustrated as a result of political volatility

Fair and equitable treatment – Conspiracy – Evidence – Standard of proof – Whether a conspiracy would breach the standard of fair and equitable treatment – Whether the investor had adduced sufficient evidence to meet the high standard for establishing a conspiracy

Fair and equitable treatment – Coercion – Evidence – Whether the investor had adduced sufficient evidence that it had been subjected to coercion or threats by military personnel

Fair and equitable treatment – Due process – Procedural fairness – Transparency – Whether relevant procedural requirements applied to internal decision-making processes of a party to a contract

Fair and equitable treatment – Contract – Sovereign powers – Whether actions carried out by a contractual party were an exercise of sovereign powers in breach of fair and equitable treatment

National treatment – Discrimination – Intention – Whether intent to discriminate was required to find a breach of national treatment

National treatment – Contract – Comparators – Evidence – Whether the investments were in “similar situations” to other contractual arrangements

Most-favoured-nation treatment – Discrimination – Intention – Whether intent to discriminate was required to find a breach of most-favoured-nation treatment

Most-favoured-nation treatment – Contract – Comparators – Evidence – Whether the investments were in “similar situations” to other contractual arrangements

Most-favoured-nation treatment – Evidence – Burden of proof – Whether the investor’s burden could be shifted when its access to information and evidence was limited

Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Assets capable of being expropriated – Whether interference with contractual rights could lead to expropriation under the BIT

Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Substantial deprivation – Whether there could be substantial deprivation when the scope of the rights alleged to be expropriated was limited by the counterparty’s rights under the contract

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2022

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.)