Procedure — Provisional measures — ICSID Convention, Article 47 — ICSID Arbitration Rule 39 — Whether criminal proceedings and corporate audits affected the claimants’ right to the preservation of the status quo and to non-aggravation of the dispute — Whether the criminal proceedings impaired the claimants’ right to present their case — Whether the claimants satisfied the criteria of urgency, necessity and proportionality — Whether a stay of criminal proceedings would affect sovereignty or be contrary to municipal law

Procedure — Exclusivity — ICSID Convention, Article 26 — Whether the exclusivity of the arbitral proceedings was threatened by the continuation of local criminal proceedings

Admissibility — ICSID Arbitration Rule 34(1) — Whether evidence from criminal proceedings was admissible

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether investors had acquired shares in a local company — Whether the shareholders engaged in fraud or fabricated evidence to gain access to arbitration — Whether a local company may be treated as the national of another State due to foreign control

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether each investor satisfied the objective elements of an investment

Jurisdiction — Legality — Estoppel — Whether the State was estopped from contesting the legality of the investments — Whether there was any fraud or non-trivial violation of the host State’s legal order or foreign investment regime at the time when the investment was established

Admissibility — Foreign investor — Good faith — Whether a shareholder must advise the host State of its foreign nationality

Defence — Legality — Municipal law — Whether the defence was admissible — Whether the investment was obtained through an irregular process that benefited former public officials — Whether the investment was null and void ab initio under municipal law

Defence — Exhaustion of remedies — Fork-in-the road clause — Whether the claims were premature

Defence — Police powers — Customary international law — Whether an executive decree constituted a legitimate revocation of concessions based on actual violations of municipal law — Whether the revocation was carried out in accordance with due process

Expropriation — Direct expropriation — Lawfulness — Discrimination — Whether the revocation of concessions directly expropriated the investment of the foreign-controlled local company — Whether the expropriation complied with conditions for lawful expropriation

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Substantial deprivation — Whether direct expropriation of the foreign-controlled local company substantially deprived its shareholders of value

Fair and equitable treatment — Minimum standard of treatment — Impairment — Whether revocation of the concessions violated the minimum standard of treatment — Whether subsequent annulment of the concessions was a bona fide exercise of police powers or an ex post attempt to improve an arbitral defence

Remedies — Damages — Customary international law — Whether assessment of full reparation allowed for use of ex post data up to the date of the award

Remedies — Interest — Applicable law — Whether international law or municipal law applied to whether interest should be compounded

Remedies — Satisfaction — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 37 — Customary international law — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to make a declaration — Whether the State’s conduct during the arbitral proceeding, including alleged harassment through criminal proceedings and failure to comply with provisional measures, warranted declaratory relief

Remedies — Moral damages — Whether any specific moral injury satisfied the threshold of exceptional circumstances

Costs — Whether it was fair in the circumstances for the State to bear the costs of arbitration

Annulment — Jurisdiction — Provisional measures — ICSID Convention, Article 52 — Whether the committee had jurisdiction to annul provisional measures

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Whether the tribunal’s findings on municipal law were in manifest excess of powers — Whether the tribunal acted in manifest excess of powers in determining the existence of protected investments — Whether the tribunal acted in manifest excess of powers by failing to apply the applicable law for quantum

Annulment — Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Whether the State was denied the right to be heard on the valuation methodology

Annulment — Failure to state reasons — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Quantum — Whether the tribunal failed to state the reasons for its decision on quantum

Procedure — Evidence — Document production — Whether negative inferences must be drawn from a party’s failure to produce documents as ordered by the tribunal

Applicable law — Contract — Whether remedies in case of default stipulated in a contract precluded the application of other remedies under the applicable law — Whether obligations under the contract were reciprocal

Contract — Breach of contract — Whether Article 107 of the Swiss Code of Obligations was applicable — Whether the claimant’s notice of default was valid — Whether the State validly exercised a drawdown against the advance payment guarantee — Whether the claimant was required to grant an extension of the advance payment guarantee

Defence — Contract — Non-performance — Whether the claimant’s delay entitled the State to withhold payment

Defence — Force majeure — Armed conflict — Whether one party’s force majeure notice relieved the other party of its contractual obligations — Whether civil war or foreign military intervention in the host State amounted to a force majeure event — Whether the defence was precluded by prior default — Whether the failure to give notice of a force majeure impediment precluded the State from relying upon force majeure events to excuse its non-performance — Whether non-compliance with the obligation to consult on the continuation of the contract after six months of force majeure impediments was of any legal consequence

Counterclaim — Contract — Abuse of rights — Bad faith — Whether the claimant acted in bad faith or abused its rights during its contractual relationship with the State — Whether the State may recover for alleged waste of time, labour and resources

Remedies — Damages — Whether the claimant would have retained the drawn amount but for the State’s breach of contract

Costs — ICC Rules, Article 37 — Whether costs should reflect the relative success and failure in the arbitration

Jurisdiction — Exhaustion of remedies — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether one investor’s compliance with the domestic litigation requirement extended to other investors — Whether the purpose of the domestic litigation requirement was met

Jurisdiction — Exclusions and reservations — Public health — Interpretation — Whether the State’s right not to allow economic activities for reasons of public health excluded the impugned measures from the scope of the BIT — Whether the exclusion applied only to the admission of investments rather than the protection of investments already admitted

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Salini test — Whether the four elements of the Salini test were mandatory legal requirements — Whether the BIT contained further limits on the scope of protected investments

Procedure — Admissibility — Incidental or additional claim — ICSID Convention, Article 46 — ICSID Arbitration Rule 40 — Whether the claim was presented not later than in the reply — Whether the claim arose directly out of the subject matter of the dispute — Whether the claim was in the scope of the consent of the parties and the tribunal’s jurisdiction — Whether the claim was subject to any further requirement of domestic litigation

Procedure — Amicus curiae — ICSID Arbitration Rule 37(2) — Public interest — Whether a non-disputing party possessed perspective, particular knowledge or insight on the issues in dispute which was different from that of the disputing parties — Whether the proposed submission was within the scope of the dispute — Whether the non-disputing parties had an interest in the proceeding — Whether granting the request would support transparency and the public interest — Whether the submission would disrupt the proceeding or unfairly burden either party — Whether the applicants had sufficient independence from the disputing parties — Whether the application was timely

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Intellectual property — Trademark — Right to use — Regulation — Harmful products — Whether intellectual property rights were protected against any regulation restricting the right to use — Whether the investor should have expected the regulation of harmful products

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Substantial deprivation — Whether the extent of deprivation should be assessed by the overall business value or the value of each business asset — Whether the business remained profitable after the deprivation of value

Defence — Police powers — Customary international law — Public welfare — Public health — Tobacco control measures — Good faith — Whether the doctrine of police powers was recognised by the BIT or customary international law — Whether the customary defence was excluded by the public purpose condition for lawful expropriation — Whether the measures were adopted in accordance with municipal and international legal obligations — Whether the measures were implemented in good faith for the protection of public welfare — Whether the measures were discriminatory or disproportionate — Whether the measures were directed to and capable of achieving the stated goal

Fair and equitable treatment — Arbitrariness — Public health — Tobacco control measures — Scientific evidence — Margin of appreciation — Proportionality — Good faith — Whether a margin of appreciation may be applied to policy decisions on public health — Whether the reasonableness of a tobacco control measure was determined by scientific evidence of actual effects or the good faith of the State in addressing public health

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Harmful products — Public concern — International practice — Whether the State made any commitment not to modify the legal framework — Whether investors should expect harmful products to be regulated — Whether investors should expect progressively more onerous regulation of harmful products due to public concern — Whether the State was precluded from adopting novel measures in advance of international practice

Umbrella clause — Intellectual property — Trademark — Whether granting a trademark under the general law on intellectual property was a unique commitment to encourage or permit a specific investment

Fair and equitable treatment — Denial of justice — Whether contradictory decisions of different courts on the same issue led to denial of justice — Whether the rejection of an investor’s administrative challenge due to a competitor’s earlier and unsuccessful challenge on similar but not identical evidence led to denial of justice — Whether procedural irregularities were sufficiently grave to result in denial of justice — Whether the claims were decided in substance

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

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Meaning of “shall assent” — Whether the State consented in writing to ICSID arbitration — Whether the BITs contained standing offers to arbitrate — Whether the State subsequently consented to arbitrate in approving the local investment vehicle — Whether the subsequent act of consent extended to foreign shareholders

Jurisdiction — Investment — Legality — Whether an admission requirement was restricted to the time when the investment was made or extended to subsequent performance — Whether local consent satisfied the admission requirement — Whether a government body was authorised to grant consent

Applicable law — Fraud — ICSID Convention, Article 42(1) — Whether international or municipal law governed allegations of forgery and deception

Evidence — Fraud — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Whether the State bore the burden of proof under international law — Whether the standard was balance of probabilities — Whether the State was required to prove motive or intent

Evidence — Adverse inferences — Whether the tribunal was required to draw adverse inferences from a failure to produce documents

Evidence — Fraud — Whether signatures on official documents were authentic and authorised — Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of corruption — Whether there was sufficient evidence to find that the investors were authors of fraud

Procedure — Fraud — Whether an allegation of forgery should be addressed as a matter of jurisdiction, admissibility or merits

Admissibility — Fraud — Good faith — Abuse of rights — Third-party misconduct — Wilful blindness — International public policy — Whether an investor may bring a claim based on rights arising from fraud or forgery which the investor deliberately or unreasonably ignored — Whether the fraud was serious — Whether the investor exercised a reasonable level of due diligence — Whether the underlying fraud affected the validity of later instruments

Annulment — Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Right to be heard — Whether the tribunal’s refusal to allow further evidence constituted a breach of the right to be heard — Whether the tribunal had considered evidence that had been excluded — Whether there was unequal treatment in the tribunal’s decision to allow the State not to produce police files — Whether the tribunal failed to draw adverse inferences from the non-production of police files — Whether the investors were denied the right to be heard on the validity of licences under municipal law and denial of justice in local courts — Whether the tribunal denied the right to present arguments on the law of State responsibility

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Whether the tribunal had failed to apply the applicable law in determining the issue of admissibility

Annulment — Failure to state reasons — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Whether the tribunal failed to state the reasons on which the award was based

Jurisdiction — Exhaustion of remedies — Whether the requirement for domestic litigation prior to arbitration was one of jurisdiction — Whether the State was deprived of a fair opportunity to address the dispute within its own legal system — Whether the requirement also imposed obligations on the State to ensure its courts were capable of adjudicating the substance of the dispute within 18 months — Whether the State was precluded from relying on the investors’ failure to comply with the domestic litigation requirement

Jurisdiction — Investment — Whether the investors’ shareholding in a local company extended to protection of concession rights under the BIT — Whether the investors had transferred their shareholding interests in breach of a concession contract

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Consent of host State — ICSID Convention, Article 25(3) — Whether the public nature of an investor meant that the consent of the other ICSID contracting party was required

Contract — Breach of contract — Whether alleged breaches were of a purely contractual nature or amounted to breaches of the BIT — Whether the failure of the concession was due to the local subsidiary’s performance — Whether delays by the provincial government or the financial crisis justified the local subsidiary’s failure to meet targets — Whether renegotiation of a concession would have occurred even without the financial crisis and emergency measures

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Contract — Applicable law — Human rights — Whether contractual performance constituted a legitimate expectation protected by the standard — Whether the standard was the customary minimum standard of treatment or should be extended by principles and rules of international law — Whether the investors’ expectations were legitimate in the light of the legal framework, social and economic environment, constitutional law and core interests of the host State such as the human right to water — Whether the investors had waived or lost their expectations due to negligence

Fair and equitable treatment — Transparency — Policy change — Whether the State breached the standard of treatment by not disclosing an abrupt policy change during renegotiations

Remedies — Damages — Contributory fault — Whether damages should not be awarded because the concession had no future due to failures of the investors

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Emergency measures — Whether emergency measures or concession renegotiation deprived the local subsidiary of its rights

Expropriation — Direct expropriation — Contract termination — Whether the termination of a concession contract for just cause constituted an expropriation

Arbitrary or discriminatory measures — Like circumstances — Applicable law — Whether the standard had an autonomous meaning from fair and equitable treatment — Whether any State measures were clearly less favourable to the foreign investors — Whether unfavourable treatment was intended to harm the foreign investor and was not justified by sufficient reasons — Whether discrimination obstructed investments and their management, maintenance, use and enjoyment — Whether the investors had identified comparator businesses in identical or similar circumstances

Arbitrary or discriminatory measures — Emergency measures — Whether the investors were subjected to measures that had no justification — Whether justification was linked to investor expectations — Whether the State could have adopted less harmful emergency measures during the financial crisis — Whether the claims related to purely contractual disputes

Jurisdiction — Counterclaim — ICSID Convention, Article 46 — Whether the tribunal had prima facie jurisdiction to hear a counterclaim brought by the host State

Applicable law — Counterclaim — VCLT, Article 31(3)(c) — Whether applicable law included international human rights law

Counterclaim — Human rights — Constitutional law — Human right to water — Whether the State had identified any obligation of the investors under the concession contract to actively participate in complying with the human right to water — Whether there existed any ground for damages for breach of human rights

Costs — Whether it was appropriate for the State to pay a substantial portion of the costs and legal fees during the jurisdictional phase

Procedure — ICSID Arbitration Rule 27 — Whether the parties needed to agree on a procedural language

Evidence — Parallel proceedings — Confidential information — Whether materials from confidential parallel proceedings should be allowed into the arbitral record

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Corporate nationality — Meaning of siège social — Whether the nationality criteria in the BIT were reasonable and of objective significance — Whether pursuant to international law an ambiguous term in a definition of nationality should be interpreted by reference to criteria under the applicable national law or an autonomous notion of nationality — Whether siège social meant the registered office of the investor

Jurisdiction — Investment — Minority or indirect shareholding — Whether the investor made a contribution or allocation of resources for a duration with an expectation of commercial return — Whether the investment was located in the host State

Interpretation — VCLT, Article 31 — VCLT, Article 32 — Customary international law — Whether the rules of treaty interpretation supported a particular meaning of siège social — Whether supplementary means of interpretation confirmed the meaning of siège social — Whether the customary rules on diplomatic protection were relevant to treaty interpretation — Whether the contracting States intended to give the term “investment” an ordinary meaning or special meaning

Admissibility — Settlement — Claim preclusion — Whether the claims of a parent company were precluded by the settlement of an earlier claim on the same facts by a subsidiary company against the State under a different BIT — Whether the claim requested any distinct relief from the settled dispute — Whether the related settlement agreement had terminated the underlying dispute

Admissibility — Standing — Divestment — Whether the sale of shares in the company holding the investment prior to the notice of arbitration impacted on admissibility

Admissibility — Abuse of rights — Whether successive claims brought by entities within the same vertically integrated chain of companies under different BITs amounted to an abuse of process — Whether the principles of abuse of rights had evolved since earlier investment treaty jurisprudence

Costs — ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) — Whether the success on jurisdiction and failure on admissibility affected the allocation of costs

Defence — Corruption — Evidence — Standard of proof — Burden of proof — Whether an allegation of corruption must be supported by clear and convincing evidence or on the ordinary balance of probabilities — Whether the burden shifted once the allegation was supported by prima facie evidence — Whether circumstantial evidence could be explained or instead shifted the burden of proof

Jurisdiction — Legality — Municipal law — Judicial act — Arbitrariness — Whether the investment was made in conformity with municipal law — Whether issues of municipal law decided in the judgment of a superior court were binding upon an international tribunal — Whether violations of municipal law by officials precluded the State relying on the judgment — Whether the judgment was arbitrary under international law — Whether the State could in an international tribunal rely on judicial findings which it was seeking to overturn

State responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — Contract — Whether the contractual conclusion and performance of a State-owned energy company was attributable to the State — Whether contractual disclaimers were relevant to attribution

Jurisdiction — Investment — Legality — Fraud — Contract — Municipal law — Whether the investor procured the investment through contractual promises it knew it could not perform — Whether changes made to the contract contrary to municipal law precluded jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Investment — Contract — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Salini test — Whether the contract was akin to a sale of goods or qualified as an investment — Whether the investor contributed significant capital with substantial duration, took a reasonable risk on the transaction, and contributed to the economic development of the State

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Judicial act — Substantial deprivation — Whether contractual rights were capable of expropriation — Whether the municipal judgment of a superior court deprived the investor of the use and enjoyment of its contractual rights

Free transfer — Physical assets — Whether the guarantee of free transfer extended from funds to include physical assets — Whether the detention of vessels fell within the scope of the State’s obligation — Whether the detention prevented the investor from selling and transferring proceeds

Remedies — Damages — Standard of compensation — Expropriation — Standard of proof — Valuation date — Valuation of contractual rights — Repairs costs — Replacement costs — Lost profits — Increased costs — Wasted costs — Whether the investor was entitled not only to losses suffered but also lost profits — Whether damages had to be proven with certainty or merely with a sufficient degree of probability — Whether ex ante or ex post valuation was the appropriate starting point — Whether the investor was entitled to recover the lost earning capacity of detained vessels — Whether the investor was entitled to recover the cost of delays to its operations in other States

Remedies — Interest — Contract — Whether interest should be charged at the contractual rate on delayed payments or borrowing costs

Jurisdiction — Counterclaim — Consent — Whether the investor consented ipso facto to counterclaims in exercising its right to arbitrate — Whether the BIT contemplated the possibility of counterclaims

Costs — ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) — Costs follow the event — Party conduct — Reasonableness of costs claimed — Whether party conduct or the reasonableness of the costs claimed weighed on the principle that costs follow the event — Whether the State failed to cooperate in good faith in the proceedings — Whether the legal expenses claimed by the investor were reasonable

Applicable law — ICSID Convention, Article 42(1) — Whether the BIT contained an implicit agreement as to applicable law

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b) — Whether the claimant had standing to bring a claim as a protected investor

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 36(2) — ICSID Convention Institution Rule 2(1)(f) and 2(2) — Whether there was a lack of internal authorisation to initiate arbitration in the claimant’s board minutes — Whether a lack of internal authorisation could taint the consent requirement

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether the claimant’s shares and statutory capital in the local subsidiary were a covered investment

Admissibility — Dispute — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Estoppel — Acquiescence — Prescriptive extinction — Bad faith — Whether the doctrine of estoppel precluded the existence of a dispute — Whether the claimant had acquiesced to the extinguishment of the dispute — Whether the doctrine of prescriptive extinction applied in the absence of express time limits — Whether the arbitration was initiated in bad faith to put pressure on the claimant’s home State

Procedure — Stay of proceeding — Termination of proceeding — Municipal law — Parallel proceeding — Whether the arbitration should be stayed pending the outcome of municipal proceedings — Whether the arbitration should be terminated due to ongoing municipal proceedings

State responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — Customary international law — Whether municipal and regulatory authorities were State organs acting in an official capacity — Whether the conduct of the regulatory authority and companies owned by the municipal authority could be attributed to the State for having exercised elements of governmental authority — Whether the State-owned companies were being directed and controlled by the State

State responsibility — Attribution — Most-favoured-nation treatment — State-owned entity — Whether the impugned conduct of companies owned by the municipal authority was attributable based on rules in another BIT

Fair and equitable treatment — Arbitrary and discriminatory measures — Legitimate expectation — Due process — Bad faith — Due diligence — Whether fair and equitable treatment and the protection against arbitrary and discriminatory measures constituted the same standard of treatment — Whether delayed implementation of statutory and contractual duties by the State was in breach — Whether a revocation of licences in the public interest was in breach — Whether reversal of a previous decision taken on incorrect information was in breach — Whether consequential actions following impugned measures were likewise in breach — Whether declaring an energy crisis whilst taking steps to stop the claimant from providing services and forming a replacement provider was in bad faith — Whether the existence of only one legitimate reason supporting an impugned measure justified the decision — Whether the State made any specific assurance in relation to risks inherent to the claimant’s business — Whether the claimant failed to exercise due diligence

Fair and equitable treatment — Due process — Municipal law — Whether the State’s failure to hear the claimant before taking the impugned measures was in breach despite the claimant’s unsuccessful appeals in municipal courts — Whether measures found to be lawful in municipal courts should be examined by the tribunal

Full protection and security — Law enforcement — Whether use of the police to enforce a lawful order against the claimant’s business assets was in breach of full protection and security

Defence — Police powers — Whether the lawful revocation of licences by the State in good faith and to protect the public interest was an expropriation — Whether subsequent enforcement of the revocation was within the State’s regulatory police powers

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Whether the cumulative acts of the State amounted to expropriation

Most-favoured-nation treatment — Whether the duty to grant the necessary permits under municipal law could be imported from another BIT — Whether the most-favoured-nation clause could import treaty standards or related only to de facto treatment

Remedies — Damages — Customary international law — Causation — Contributory fault — Whether damages for breach of fair and equitable treatment were the same as for expropriation — Whether the claimant contributed to its own loss — Whether to reduce the award of damages

Remedies — Settlement — State-owned entity — Whether an agreement between the claimant and a State-owned company settled treaty-based claims in the absence of express language

Costs — Conditional legal costs — Whether the parties should split the costs — Whether the claimant was entitled to recover a success fee payable to counsel

Jurisdiction — Time bar — NAFTA, Article 1116(2) — NAFTA, Article 1117(2) — Actual or constructive knowledge — Whether the claimant acquired or should reasonably have acquired sufficient knowledge of any alleged breach of NAFTA at the time three years prior to its request for arbitration

Defence — Exclusions and reservations — Procurement — NAFTA, Article 1108(7)(a) — Whether regulatory determinations related to commercial activity were procurement functions excluded from most-favoured-nation and national treatment

Most-favoured-nation treatment — National treatment — NAFTA, Article 1102 — NAFTA, Article 1103 — Like circumstances — De facto discrimination — Whether application of the same regulatory principles or methodology to different investors and investments constituted discrimination where the treatment resulted in disparate effects

Fair and equitable treatment — Minimum standard of treatment — NAFTA, Article 1105 — Discrimination — Due process — Transparency — Whether discriminatory treatment under the minimum standard of treatment provided protections beyond that afforded by the standards of most-favoured-nation and national treatment — Whether the State had shown wilful disregard of due process — Whether transparency in regulatory decision-making was required under the customary minimum standard

Interpretation — Effet utile — Whether it would be inconsistent with the effectiveness of the procurement exception to find that the standard of fair and equitable treatment permitted a discrimination claim beyond the standards of most-favoured-nation and national treatment

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

Contract — Breach of contract — Whether the State failed to honour its debts in accordance with a settlement agreement

Defence — Contract — French law — Théorie de l’imprévision — Unforeseeability — Good faith — Settlement — Whether the doctrine of unforeseeability under French administrative law applied to foreign public entities — Whether the doctrine of unforeseeability under French civil law applied where a State faced cash flow difficulties — Whether the contractual duty to cooperate in good faith required the application of the doctrine of unforeseeability — Whether the conditions for the application of the doctrine were satisfied in the context of a settlement agreement

Defence — Contract — French law — Délai de grâce — Grace period — Good faith — Impecuniosity — Whether the doctrine of grace period under French civil law applied where a State faced cash flow difficulties — Whether the State had demonstrated circumstances under French law warranting a grace period in the payment of the award — Whether the State was an unfortunate debtor in good faith

Contract — Interpretation — Indemnity — Taxation — Whether the State was obliged to indemnify for taxes claimed by municipal authorities — Whether the obligation extended to future hypothetical taxes — Whether the obligation extended to social security obligations

Evidence — Corruption — Bad faith — Bribery — Whether the State may prove allegations of bad faith or corruption without putting the allegations to witnesses — Whether the review of mining licences was a response to the refusal to pay a bribe

Jurisdiction — Dispute — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether there was no dispute because the State had merely suspended rather than revoked the mining licence

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Cooling-off period — Whether each party had consented to arbitration — Whether the investors had satisfied the three-month cooling-off period required under the BIT through negotiations and municipal legal proceedings

Jurisdiction — Investment — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Origin of capital — Salini test — Bad faith — Whether there was no protected investment because the investors were shell companies for investment from a third State — Whether the investment satisfied the criteria of risk, duration and contribution to the economic development of the host State — Whether jurisdiction should be declined due to allegations of bad faith

Jurisdiction — Investment — Legality — Municipal law — Intangible assets — Environmental impact assessment — Proportionality — Bad faith — Whether there was an implied requirement that investments be in accordance with the laws of the host State — Whether a prospecting licence and data generated thereunder qualified for protection if the licence did not legally permit the investor to generate revenue in the host State — Whether licences acquired contrary to the requirement of an environmental impact statement and other municipal protections were void ab initio under municipal law — Whether the tribunal should accept rulings of the municipal courts — Whether it was proportionate to decline jurisdiction in the light of the significance of the legal obligations, the seriousness of the investor’s conduct and whether those factors resulted in a sufficiently significant violation of the interests of the host State — Whether protection of a mining licence would have been denied on the merits for want of legality and good faith in the exercise of a State official’s discretion even if it was not void ab initio under municipal law

Costs — Costs follow the event — Reduction — Whether the claim for costs was manifestly excessive — Whether the conduct of the party seeking costs warranted a reduction due to unproven claims of corruption