Magnifier Search

Toto v. Lebanon

Type of decisionAward
Date of decision7 June 2012
Hans van Houtte (President)
Fadi Moghaizel
Stephen M. Schwebel
Legal instrumentBIT between Italy and Lebanon (1997)
Related decision(s)Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009
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.
If an IIT does not apply to disputes that have arisen before its entry into force, it may nevertheless apply to breaches before that time
Public international law and comparative domestic public law constitute the benchmark for the legitimacy of an investor's expectations
An investor has to be aware that modifications of taxation levels represent a risk for his or her investment; without a stabilization agreement, he or she cannot establish a legitimate expectation that a state will refrain from increasing taxes
The full protection and security standard does not address all kinds of impairment, but only those which affect the physical integrity of the investment against the use of force
Even if the investor has unambiguously waived his or her claims under a contract, this does not affect the right to invoke an IIT breach; the contractual waiver may, however, be relevant for the assessment of damages
If international law is sufficient to decide the case, a tribunal does not have to decide on the relationship between international and national law within Article 42(1) ICSID Convention


Above you will find 6 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!