Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:31:11.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jürgen Wirtgen & others v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No.2014-03

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2019

Carla Lewis
Carla Lewis*
Affiliation:
Senior Associate at Clifford Chance LLP, London, United Kingdom, but written in their personal capacity
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 11 October 2017, an ad hoc tribunal seated in Geneva and chaired by Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, with co-arbitrators Gary Born (Claimants' appointee, dissenting) and Judge Peter Tomka (Respondent's appointee), issued its award in Jürgen Wirtgen & others v. The Czech Republic (the Award). The Tribunal dismissed the Claimants' claims in full and ordered the Parties to bear their own legal costs and expenses.

Type
Case Summaries
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 527 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

Case Summary: International Investment Law

The following summary provides a brief factual background and describes the key findings of a recent case settling a dispute about international investment.

References

1 Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, 30 November 2012.

2 Award, para.175.

3 Award, para.178.

4 Award, para.187.

5 Award, para. 209.

6 Award, para. 229.

7 Award, para. 239.

8 Award, para. 241.

9 Award, para. 253.

10 Award, para. 274.

11 Award, paras. 276–278.

12 Award, paras. 323–326.

13 Award, para. 309.

14 Award, para. 339.

15 Award, para. 350.

16 Dissent, para. 17.

17 Award, para. 367.

18 Award, para. 406.

19 In a footnote to his dissenting opinion (Dissent, footnote 32), Mr Born notes that the majority's assertion that the Republic had guaranteed investors an annual profit of at least 7% had ‘no basis in the text of the Act or its statutory guarantees’, but derived exclusively from the administrative rulings of the Czech Energy Regulatory Office.

20 Dissent, para. 31.

21 Dissent, para. 3.

22 Award, paras. 427–428.

23 Award, para. 433.

24 Award, para. 437.

25 Award, paras. 275–438.

26 Award, para. 440.

27 Award, para. 441.