Arbitration — Bilateral investment treaty — Investment dispute — Alleged violations of bit by Respondent through its State enterprise — Misrepresentations in connection with purchase of local branch of Estonian social bank — Failure to adhere to write-off agreement to amortize losses arising from purchase — Alleged breach of settlement agreement to assign claims — Unjustified revocation of banking licence — Harassment of claimants — Damages

Jurisdiction — Objections by Respondent — No arbitrable investment dispute — Alleged violations of investment treaty denied — Damages — Counterclaim — Whether dispute concerning an investment

Counterclaim — Dismissal of claim and counterclaim — No breach of bit — No misrepresentations associated with purchase — No breach of settlement agreement — No breach of write-off agreement — Revocation of bank licence not contrary to bit or Estonian law — No proof of harassment of Claimants — Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed

Award — Request for supplementary decisions and rectification — Alleged failure by tribunal to discuss specific violations of bit contended by Claimants — Request denied — No omission on part of Tribunal — Costs of request awarded against Claimants

Interpretation — Article 25(1) of the icsid Convention — Characterization of a legal dispute — Conflict of rights vs. conflict of interests — Question of legal rights and obligations in connection with investment — Characterization of “investment” — Loans and promissory notes as investment — Purchase and assignment of promissory notes foreseen

Treaties — Bilateral investment treaty — Investment broadly defined under treaty — Standard approach of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties — Practice of State Party consistent in relation to its other bilateral and multilateral investment treaties — State Party has not exercised right under Article 25(1) of the icsid Convention to exclude any class of investment

Municipal law — Promissory notes issued in compliance with Commercial Code and Law on Public Credit — Payments authorized at highest level of government — Budgetary appropriation by Congress to finance payments

Jurisdiction — icsid jurisdiction specifically provided for in bilateral investment treaty — Sources of applicable law including internal law, the Investment Agreement, general principles of international law

Foreign investment — Definition of investment — Whether proprietary and contractual rights need to exist — Whether valid claim may exist under BIT in absence of actionable contract — Umbrella clause — Whether pre-contractual agreement binding and constituting an investment in host State — Pre-contractual liability — Insufficient inducement by host State — Whether pre-contractual expenses constitute investment — Distinction between investment and risk

Foreign investment — Contract claims as opposed to treaty claims — Umbrella clause — Whether violation of contract is violation of international law — Whether host State or another entity party to contract — Conditions for existence of contract — Binding force of contract to negotiate — Obligation to negotiate in good faith

State responsibility — Attribution — Whether State responsible for actions of State-owned companies — Whether particular standards of attributability apply in BIT claims — Whether governmental conduct in BIT matters should be different from that required by general international law

Function of ICSID tribunal — Assessment of claims — Sources of law — Whether tribunal may rely on domestic law and foreign case law — Corruption — How tribunal should approach claims of corruption

Costs — Apportionment of costs — Respectable claims on the merits to be considered in apportionment of costs

Applicable law — Whether Agreement between Government of Hungary and Government of Cyprus on Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investment (“BIT”) applicable in arbitration by ICSID — Article 7 of BIT and Article 42(1) of ICSID Convention — Relevance of case law in arbitration — Whether arbitral awards constituting binding precedents

Jurisdiction — Whether dispute arising out of an investment — Whether Claimants making investments in Hungary — Meaning of “investment” — Whether dispute arising “directly” out of an investment — Whether dispute with “a national of another Contracting State” — Whether “national” including juridical persons — Article 25 of ICSID Convention — Article 1 of BIT

Expropriation — Whether Amending Act and Decree amounting to expropriation — Whether contravening Article 4 of BIT

Foreign investment — Investment protection standards — Fair and equitable treatment — Unreasonable or discriminatory measures — Full security and protection — Determination — Whether Respondent’s actions violating standards — Article 3 of BIT

Damages — Applicable standards in assessment of damages for unlawful expropriation — Whether standard of BIT or customary international law applicable — Assessment of damages — Whether date of valuation date of Award or date of expropriation

Interest — Rate of interest — Whether compound interest can be awarded in investor-State arbitration

Costs — Discretion of Tribunal to order for payment of costs — Article 61(2) of ICSID Convention — Rule 28 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules

Jurisdiction — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Scope of “legal dispute” — Relationship between ICSID and ICC arbitration — Admissibility of a claim concerning ICC award — Claim not abuse of process — ICSID Tribunal not a controlling body of ICC arbitration — Whether immunity in favour of domestic judiciary

State responsibility — Whether courts qualify as State organs — ILC Articles on State Responsibility — Attribution to be examined in merits phase

Foreign investment — Whether ICC award an investment — Whether residual contractual rights crystallized by ICC award an investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Scope of an investment — Conclusion of contract as an investment — “Salini” test — Duration of contract not an applicable criterion — Irrelevance of origin of funds, unless expressly limited — Use of local funds for investment — Advance payment and assessment of commercial risk

Expropriation — Expropriation through decisions of national courts or tribunals — Court decisions as “measures having similar effects” to direct expropriation — Immaterial rights capable of expropriation — Contractual rights to arbitrate — Measures depriving of the benefit of ICC award — Governmental nature of an expropriation act — “Sole effects” doctrine — Requirement of “illegality” — Assumption of jurisdiction by local courts over arbitration not illegal per se — Illegality of revocation of arbitrators — Abuse of rights by courts

Jurisdiction — Exhaustion of local remedies — ICSID Convention, Article 26 — Exhaustion of remedies a substantive requirement — No applicability in expropriation law — Obligation to exhaust effective remedies, not resort to “improbable” remedies

Provisional measures — ICSID Convention, Article 47 — Discretion of tribunal — Requirements of necessity and urgency — Consideration of the parties’ divergent interests — Measures to prevent the increase of harm suffered by party

Applicable law — Whether tribunal bound by previous decisions — Duty to adopt solutions decided in previous cases — Legitimate expectations of parties — Harmonious development of international investment law

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — Res judicata — Whether findings of Tribunal infringed res judicata character of unannulled findings of previously constituted Tribunal — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b)

Annulment — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Manifest disregard of applicable law — Where international law and national law applied together — ICSID Convention, Articles 42(1) and 52(1)(d)

Annulment — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Manifest disregard of applicable law — Where decision refers to “denial of justice” and “bad faith” — Whether amounts to an invocation of a new cause of action — Whether Tribunal acted ex aequo et bono — ICSID Convention, Articles 42(1) and 52(1)(d)

Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Whether gaps and ambiguities in reasoning amount to a failure to state reasons — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(e)

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — Where award rectified — Whether rectification of “clerical, arithmetical or similar error” — ICSID Convention, Articles 49(2) and 52(1)(b)

Annulment — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Where award rectified — Where order made without party’s submissions — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(d) — ICSID Rules, Rule 49(4)

Damages — Quantification — Currency conversion — Fixing dates — Whether manifest excess of powers

Expropriation — Taking of property — Repudiation by State of its contractual obligations — Confiscation of property without proper notice — Proper law of agreement — Law of Contracting State to be supplemented by international law

Non-appearance — Procedure in default of appearance by State — No lack of notification — Tribunal required to examine substantive merits of both parties’ assertions — Non-appearance of one party not entitling other to award as matter of right

Nationality — Of party to dispute — Company incorporated in Contracting State party wholly owned and controlled by nationals of another Contracting State — Whether company national of other Contracting State for purposes of icsid jurisdiction — Relevance of ownership and control — Relevance of evidence indicating company to be treated as national of other Contracting State

Jurisdiction — Of arbitration tribunal — Legal dispute ansmg from an investment — Meaning of “investment” — Whether amounts paid and undertakings carried out under concession agreement an investment — Nationality of parties — Whether company incorporated in one Contracting State a national of another Contracting State — Relevance of nationality of controlling stock holders

Compensation — For expropriation — Measure of damages — Damnum emergens and lucrum cessans — Amounts invested and lost due to confiscation — Loss of profits — Costs and expenses incurred

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

Jurisdiction — Dispute arising directly out of an investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Relationship between State’s “general” measures and investment — Whether host State’s “general” measures fall within Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention — Whether “general” measures affect investment directly if not specifically aimed at investment

Jurisdiction — Contract claims as opposed to treaty claims — Legal nature of dispute — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether ICSID tribunal has jurisdiction over breach of contractual obligations — Effect of umbrella clause

Jurisdiction — Taxation matters, limitation on jurisdiction — Whether claimant must demonstrate prima facie only that claims relate to taxation matters

Jurisdiction — Forum selection — Submission to local jurisdiction — “Fork-in-the-road” clause — Estoppel — Whether claimant estopped from bringing claim before ICSID tribunal if proceedings initiated in host State’s courts

Jurisdiction — Damages, demonstration of at jurisdictional phase — Whether dispute “merely hypothetical” if no damages shown

Jurisdiction — Standing — Whether jus standi addressed at jurisdiction or merits phase

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Investments made before and after entry into force of BIT

Jurisdiction — Claimant’s identity and ownership, determination of — Whether evidence to determine identity and ownership sufficient

Expropriation — Taking of property — Contractual rights — Decision by municipal authorities to annul contract — Annulment upheld by successive decisions of administrative tribunals and appeal courts

Jurisdiction — Acceptance of jurisdiction of municipal courts not fatal to icsid jurisdiction — Claimant not entitled to seek international review of municipal court decisions — icsid tribunal has no plenary appellate jurisdiction — Not enough for Tribunal to disagree with determination of municipal courts — Government action validated by municipal courts — Municipal courts disavowed at international level — Whether denial of justice or a pretence of form to achieve internationally unlawful end — Whether fundamental departure from established principles under municipal law

Municipal law — Whether decisions of municipal courts in breach of international obligations — International arbitral tribunals not bound by decisions of national courts — Possibility of holding State internationally responsible for national court decisions — Claimant not entitled to seek international review of national court decisions — icsid tribunal has no plenary appellate jurisdiction — Requirement of denial of justice or a pretence of form to achieve internationally unlawful end — Whether fundamental departure from established principles under municipal law — Relevant standards for annulment under municipal law — Whether fundamental departure from established principles under municipal law

Parties — Permissibility of claims made by non-national of nafta party — Objections decided only after determination of liability on merits — Exclusion of recovery on account of non-qualified investments

Procedure — Procedure in municipal courts — Denial of justice — Pretence of form — Clear and malicious misapplication of law — Relevant standards for annulment under municipal law — Fundamental departure from established principles under municipal law

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction when party to dispute not party to ICSID Convention — Law applicable in determining tribunal's jurisdiction — Whether domestic law applicable in interpretation of treaties — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — BIT as principal source of law — Whether arbitration tribunal permitted to consider international investment case law

Jurisdiction — Whether pre-arbitration procedures complied with — Whether notice of arbitration must be submitted through diplomatic channels — Limitations on jurisdiction

Foreign investment — Definition of investment — Assets protected under the BIT — Contract as an investment — Whether shareholding in company constitutes investment — Whether investment through company incorporated in claimants’ home State qualifies as an investment — Whether legality of investment should be considered in the jurisdictional stage

Jurisdiction — Definition of investor — Whether shareholder in company is an investor for purposes of BIT — Protection of indirect investments — Scope of indirect investments covered by BIT — Legal distinction between company entitled to claim under BIT and its shareholders

Jurisdiction — Most-favoured-nation (MFN) clause — Incorporation by reference — Whether MFN applies to dispute settlement arrangements in other bilateral investment treaties — Intention of parties to extend MFN clause to other dispute settlement arrangements

Costs — Discretion of tribunal to apportion costs — Principle that losing party pays — Considerations in determining apportionment of costs

Investment — Interpretation — Ordinary meaning — VCLT, Article 31 — Whether the definition of investment was intended to cover a broad range of investments — Whether the definition of investment depended on the type of investment — Whether the definition of investment depended on the way in which an investment was made

Interpretation — Meaning of “directly” — VCLT, Article 31 — Ordinary meaning — Good faith — Context — Object and purpose — Whether an ordinary meaning of the term “directly” could be ascertained — Whether “directly” referred to an investment’s origin or its connection with an investor

Interpretation — Supplementary means of interpretation — Travaux préparatoires — Circumstances of conclusion — VCLT, Article 31 — VCLT, Article 32 — Explanatory notes — Agreed minutes of formal consultations — Whether recourse to supplementary means was required — Whether certain supplementary means of interpretation were admissible

Interpretation — Ambiguous or obscure meaning — Manifestly absurd or unreasonable result — VCLT, Article 31 — VCLT, Article 32 — Whether the method under Article 31 of the VCLT left the meaning of a term ambiguous or obscure — Whether the method under Article 31 of the VCLT led to a result which was manifestly absurd or unreasonable

Most-favoured-nation treatment — Jurisdiction — Investment — Whether a most-favoured nation clause was limited to substantive protections — Whether a most-favoured nation clause could expand the definitions of investor or investment

Admissibility — Shareholder claims — Whether a shareholder could seek damages caused to its subsidiary by the treatment of other companies in which that subsidiary held shares

Costs — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 40 — Whether costs of arbitration should be borne by the unsuccessful party — Whether apportionment of the costs of arbitration was reasonable taking into account the circumstances