Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:28:09.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

MNSS BV and Recupero Credito Acciaio NV v. Montenegro

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  04 May 2016 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Additional Facility — Contract — Waiver — Whether a waiver must be explicit and entered freely — Whether a waiver must be consistent with the public interest pursued by the parties to the BIT

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Additional Facility — Municipal law — Whether municipal law on foreign investment contained an offer of consent to arbitration

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Corporate nationality — Good faith — Whether the BIT excluded claims by shell companies — Whether assuming corporate nationality for the purposes of obtaining treaty protections breached good faith requirements — Whether the claimants obtained protection after the dispute

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Additional Facility — Interpretation — Whether the meaning of investment under the ICSID Convention applied in ICSID Additional Facility arbitration

Jurisdiction — Investment — Loans — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test – Whether loans qualified as protected investments

Jurisdiction — Investment — Legality — Municipal law — General principle of international law — Whether a legality requirement was implied by the BIT — Whether a legality requirement was a general principle of investment law

Jurisdiction — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether a requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted could be implied into the BIT — Whether a requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted existed as a matter of customary international law

Fair and equitable treatment — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Breach of contract — Whether the treaty standard of fair and equitable treatment required a lower threshold for breach than the customary minimum standard of treatment — Whether breach of contract may result in State responsibility for breach of fair and equitable treatment

Fair and equitable treatment — Financial institutions — Whether States were under a duty to warn investors of the condition of the financial system or of a specific bank — Whether the State acted reasonably in its regulatory supervision of financial institutions

State responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — Financial institutions — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Direct control — Whether the conduct of a private financial institution was attributable to the State — Whether the supervision of a private financial institution by a central bank rendered its conduct under the direct control of the State

Fair and equitable treatment — Contract — Whether refusal by a State to reduce the workforce was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether a refusal by the State to allow a company to scrap obsolete machinery was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the refusal by the State to approve refinancing proposals was a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether delays associated with governmental approval of transfers of funds amounted to a breach of contract or a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment

Fair and equitable treatment — Labour dispute — Whether the support by the State to a labour union amounted to a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the State was under an obligation to publicly support a restructuring plan to which it had agreed — Whether the refusal to approve financing proposals was a matter for the State in its capacity as shareholder or in a public capacity — Whether the State failed to maintain a stable legal and business environment

State responsibility — Attribution — Bankruptcy administrator — Whether the conduct of a bankruptcy administrator was attributable to the State

Full protection and security — Interpretation — Whether the standard of most constant protection and security was equivalent to the standard of full protection and security under international law — Whether the provision of no or inadequate police presence breached the standard — Whether claimants proved loss from breach

Most-favoured-nation treatment — Like circumstances — Whether the standard applied to investments only or also to investors — Whether investors in different industries were in like circumstances — Whether investors in like circumstances were treated more favourably

Free transfer — Whether refusal by the State to approve payments constituted a breach of the treaty standard

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Whether the conduct constituted a deprivation of the economic use and benefit of the investments

Expropriation — Direct expropriation — Judicial act — Whether transfer of title by a bankruptcy administrator constitutes a direct expropriation — Whether a court decision may constitute a judicial expropriation in the absence of a denial of justice

Costs — ICSID Additional Facility — Whether parties should bear their own costs when the State was successful in some jurisdictional objections and the claimants proved breach but no loss

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2021

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.)