Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:08:46.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gavrilović and Gavrilović d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  26 July 2018 ; 21 January 2015 ; 19 March 2015 ; 30 April 2015 ; 04 April 2018 ; 30 April 2018 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

Get access

Abstract

Procedure – Bifurcation – Jurisdiction – Whether the State’s objections to jurisdiction could be assessed in an initial phase before the merits

Procedure – Provisional measures – Urgent application – ICSID Convention, Article 47 – ICSID Arbitration Rule 39 – Whether the State should be ordered to refrain from interrogating an investor pending the tribunal’s determination of an application for provisional measures

Procedure – Provisional measures – Criminal investigation – ICSID Convention, Article 47 – ICSID Arbitration Rule 39 – Evidence – Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to grant provisional measures ordering the suspension of a criminal investigation – Whether there was evidence to support the assertion that a criminal investigation would infringe the investors’ rights

Procedure – Preliminary objections – ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(1) – Whether an additional objection to jurisdiction and admissibility was made as early as possible

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Investment – ICSID Convention, Article 25 – Whether the claimants were investors making an investment under the BIT and the ICSID Convention

Jurisdiction – Legality – Corruption – Burden of proof – Whether the State met its burden of proving illegality on the part of the investors

Admissibility – Contract – Umbrella clause – Whether the tribunal could hear claims related to contractual breach under the BIT’s umbrella clause

Applicable law – Property – Municipal law – Whether issues related to property rights would be decided solely under municipal law or under both municipal and international law

Jurisdiction – Investment – Property – Municipal law – Contract – Whether properties had been transferred by universal succession by contract under municipal law

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility – Internationally wrongful act – Whether the principles of attribution could be applied to conduct that was not an allegedly wrongful act

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – State organ – Corruption – Whether the allegedly corrupt acts of officials transformed the attributable conduct of a State organ into purely private acts

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – Whether a privatisation fund was an entity empowered by municipal law to exercise elements of governmental authority

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Effective control – Evidence – Whether there was sufficient evidence to show that a holding company was under the effective control of the State

Contract – Privity – Whether the State was bound by a contract entered into by a State-appointed liquidator

Admissibility – Exhaustion of domestic remedies – Whether there was an obligation to exhaust domestic remedies in the absence of an alleged denial of justice

Expropriation – Direct expropriation – Whether registering State ownership of land without providing compensation constituted a direct expropriation

Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Real estate – Whether failure to facilitate registration of land led to an indirect expropriation

Expropriation – Indirect expropriation – Contract – Whether contractual rights specific to certain properties were indirectly expropriated

Fair and equitable treatment – Legitimate expectation – Whether there could be a legitimate expectation with respect to properties in which the investors had no property or contractual right – Whether there was a legitimate expectation that the investor would be able to register certain properties – Whether the investors established that the State interfered with their attempt to register ownership contrary to a legitimate expectation

Umbrella clause – Contract – Privity – Whether an umbrella clause can be invoked in respect of contracts entered into with entities that were separate and distinct from the State

Remedies – Compensation – Quantum – Lost rental income – Indirect loss – Causation – Whether the award of compensation should include lost rental income – Whether there was a causal link between the expropriation and indirect loss suffered by the investors

Costs – Loser pays – ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) – Discretion – Whether the State’s share of costs should be reduced when the investors only recovered 2% of the compensation claimed

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.)