Magnifier Search

Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania

Type of decisionAward
Date of decision7 December 2011
Tribunal
Bernard Hanotiau (President)
Andrea Giardina
Michael Reisman (dissenting)
Legal instrumentBIT between Greece and Romania (1997)
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
A preservation of rights clause might be applicable to multilateral instruments such as the ECHR; it is not necessary, however, to examine the ECHR in this regard, as the level of protection by an IIT is higher and more specific than the ECHR
It is not relevant whether a measure is directed against the investor or the investment, as long as there is a violation of an IIT obligation harming the investment
Omissions can constitute an expropriation
Expropriation can result from a series of acts or omissions that in sum result in a deprivation (so-called creeping expropriation)
The state's intention and the purpose of the measure are relevant, but not decisive when determining whether an expropriation occurred
Expropriations can be direct or indirect
The state's intention and the purpose of the measure are relevant, but not decisive when determining whether an expropriation occurred
Determining the effect of a measure is the key question on assessing whether an indirect expropriation occurred
Expropriations can be direct or indirect
General remarks on fair and equitable treatment
There is no abstract definition of what is fair and equitable; whether treatment was fair and equitable depends on the facts of the particular case
Undue delay to rule on a dispute may amount to a denial of justice
An erroneous judgement alone does not constitute a violation of the FET standard
The legitimate expectations of the investor can be a relevant factor within the standard of fair and equitable treatment
If there is no obligation to negotiate an amicable settlement, the host state's refusal to enter into such negotiations does not constitute a violation of the FET standard
A violation of the non-impairment standard requires that the measure has no reasonable relationship to rational policy or there is no rational justification of differential treatment
The obligation of full protection and security may constitute an obligation of legal protection of the investment
The full protection and security standard is not a strict liability standard
The absence of a consent regarding jurisdiction over counterclaims cannot be overcome by an umbrella clause
A preservation of rights clause might be applicable to multilateral instruments such as the ECHR; it is not necessary, however, to examine the ECHR in this regard, as the level of protection by an IIT is higher and more specific than the ECHR
Even if an IIT contains an explicit choice of law clause deeming the IIT and international law applicable, the investor and the host state can agree that domestic law should govern the substantive merits with the IIT being treated as part of domestic law
A state's consent to arbitration is expressed in the IIT
There is no principle of extensive or restrictive interpretation of jurisdictional provisions in treaties
If consent to arbitration is based on an IIT and the IIT only refers to disputes concerning the host state's obligations in its dispute settlement clause, there is no consent to arbitrate counterclaims
In accordance with Article 46 ICSID Convention and Rule 40 ICSID Arbitration Rules, a tribunal's jurisdiction over counterclaims depends on whether the parties consented to such jurisdiction
The respondent has the burden of establishing a tribunal's jurisdiction concerning a counterclaim
The absence of a consent regarding jurisdiction over counterclaims cannot be overcome by an umbrella clause
If both parties agree that an investment existed, a tribunal may decide on the basis of this consent
Although a tribunal does not have jurisdiction over measures of general state policy, it has jurisdiction to examine specific measures of that policy if they have a direct bearing on the investment
It is not relevant whether a measure is directed against the investor or the investment, as long as there is a violation of an IIT obligation harming the investment
If consent to arbitration is based on an IIT and the IIT only refers to disputes concerning the host state's obligations in its dispute settlement clause, there is no consent to arbitrate counterclaims
In accordance with Article 46 ICSID Convention and Rule 40 ICSID Arbitration Rules, a tribunal's jurisdiction over counterclaims depends on whether the parties consented to such jurisdiction
The absence of a consent regarding jurisdiction over counterclaims cannot be overcome by an umbrella clause
If consent to arbitration is based on an IIT and the IIT only refers to disputes concerning the host state's obligations in its dispute settlement clause, there is no consent to arbitrate counterclaims
In accordance with Article 46 ICSID Convention and Rule 40 ICSID Arbitration Rules, a tribunal's jurisdiction over counterclaims depends on whether the parties consented to such jurisdiction
The absence of a consent regarding jurisdiction over counterclaims cannot be overcome by an umbrella clause

Feedback

Above you will find 25 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!