Magnifier Search

Ömer Dede et al. v. Romania

Type of decisionAward
Date of decision5 September 2013
Tribunal
William W. Park (President)
Brigitte Stern
Nicolas Herzog
Legal instrumentBIT between Romania and Turkey (1996)
Further informationFull text of the decision

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
A so-called "creeping" or "indirect" expropriation may be found in a series of questionable acts which results in an outright confiscation
In the light of the so-called Urbaser test an investor is required, in order to comply with the exhaustion of local remedies clause, to bring such claims before local courts, which allow for the resolution of the dispute to the same extent as if the claim had been brought to arbitration under the investment treaty; by doing so the investor is not required to assert breach of the investment treaty in the local courts
In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety and in accordance with Article 48(3) ICSID Convention a tribunal should only comment on arguments which have an impact on the award
In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety and in accordance with Article 48(3) ICSID Convention a tribunal should only comment on arguments which have an impact on the award
With respect to the tribunal's obligation to assess expenses, Article 61 (2) ICSID Convention does not make any distinction between awards that do or do not find jurisdiction
Cost allocation might be clearly indicated by the submission of unreasonable arguments, exaggerated claims, obstructionist tactics, abuse of the proceedings or bad faith

Feedback

Above you will find 5 statement(s) from this decision. Please note that when viewing the statements in their context, the same statement may appear multiple times if it is relevant for more than one topic. Did we miss something? Feel free to send us your suggestions!