When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. 90 Vivendi Universal v Argentina ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment (3 July 2002) para 96: ‘In accordance with this general principle (which is undoubtedly declaratory of general international law), whether there has been a breach of the BIT and whether there has been a breach of contract are different questions. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. • Develop a wide range of tools to support the formulation of more balanced international investment policies. Check it out! The Tribunal affirmed the finding of the tribunal in Santa Elena v. Costa Rica that the purpose for which the property was taken “does not alter the legal character of the taking for which adequate compensation must be paid”[1] (paras. The Tribunal additionally declared that there was “no doubt” that the fair and equitable standard includes a “government’s obligation not to disparage and undercut a properly granted concession (a ‘do no harm’ standard)…albeit one granted by a predecessor government,” in order to rescind the concession or to “force” a renegotiation (para. Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. The investor was a French company and its Argentine affiliate who entered into a concession agreement with the Province of Tucuman to provide water and sewage services. Vivendi v. Argentina (I) Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I) (ICSID Case No. Discover the world’s most comprehensive online database of national investment laws and regulations. Factors influencing that determination were that Mr. Fortier was not personally involved in representing Vivendi, that the matters on which his partner represented the Claimant were not related to the investor–state dispute and would soon come to an end, and that Mr. Fortier “immediately and fully” disclosed information regarding his relationship with the Claimant (para. 1. INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. ARB/03/19) Introductory Note In January 2005, fi ve non-governmental organizations, based in Buenos Aires and Washington, D.C., fi led with ICSID a request for leave to submit amicus curiae briefs in a case instituted against Argentina by French and Spanish The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page. Azurix v Argentina: ICSID annulment application relating to the privatisation of the water services of Buenos Aires. ARB/03/19) Lise Johnson. Faced with Claimants’ material breaches of the concession agreement, the Province had the right and the responsibility to take the requisite steps to ensure the availability of safe drinking water for its population on an affordable and accessible basis. [2] See, e.g., Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America, Final Award (14 May 2009), para. Based on citation analysis, the most-often cited case is Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija and Vivendi Universal v Argentina (Vivendi I) but no single decision rendered in that proceeding (there were eight) tops the list of the ten most-often cited investment treaty decisions, which are: The short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. The dispute arose under the Spain-Argentina BIT. Nevertheless, the Annulment Committee disagreed with the Tribunal’s decision that it could not decide key aspects of the Claimants’ BIT claims because those claims involved issues of contractual performance or non- performance. Tribunal found that after sharp rate increases and a temporary but harmless discoloration of the water had stirred local opposition, ISSN 2519-8823 (French ed.) • The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. Tribunal found that after sharp rate increases and a temporary but harmless discoloration of the water had stirred local opposition, The ISDS Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. Separate each address with a semi-colon (;) Example: name1@company.com; name2@organisation.com • LCIA: London Court of International Arbitration Although improper motives could weigh in favour of showing a measure to be expropriatory, this was not a requirement to establish an expropriation, because the effect of the measure on the investor, not the state’s intent, was the critical factor. ISDS data set in excel format (as of 31 July 2019) The Committee members then concluded that those considerations did not support disqualification based on the facts before them. • Technical assistance: delivering trainings, seminars and workshops; conducting IIA and model BIT reviews; offering ad-hoc advice to strengthen the capacity of beneficiaries in handling the complexities of the IIA regime, The two Committee members reasoned that the test they should apply was whether “a real risk of lack of impartiality based upon [the] facts (and not on any more speculation or inference) could reasonably be apprehended by either party” (para. The Tribunal concluded that by leaving the Claimants with no other rational choice, the Province thus expropriated Claimants’ right of use and enjoyment of their investment under the Concession Contract (paras. It further determined that the question of whether Mr. Schwebel’s role as arbitrator in the Eureko case should affect the weight to be given to the Eureko award was a question best reserved for a later stage of the proceedings. Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija and Vivendi Universal v. Argentina. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name. We work closely together to foster culture in all its diversity. Details of investment and summary of the dispute Keep updated with the ITN newsletter or subscribe to our RSS feed, Investment Treaty News is an online journal published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, ISSN 2519-8467 (English ed.) is added to the name of each subsequent case. Read more here. The Tribunal refused to make such an order. 8.2.11). By Malissa Khumprakob. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded. • an international arbitration between an investor and a State; [1] Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. The Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. 104–111, Vivendi I, Decision on Annulment), saying, “In the Committee’s view, it [was] not open to an ICSID tribunal having jurisdiction under a BIT in respect of a claim based upon a substantive provision of that BIT, to dismiss the claim on the ground that it could or should have been dealt with by a national court” (para. Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration. We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Argentina claimed that, far from constituting an expropriation or unfair and inequitable treatment, the Province of Tucumán’s conduct merely discharged the Province’s responsibilities, both as a contracting party and as a government, and therefore the Claimants’ case should be dismissed (paras. 7.5.20–7.5.34, Vivendi II Award). Looking Back: In resubmitted Vivendi proceedings following annulment, tribunal confirms jurisdiction and finds Argentina in breach of FET Jul 5, 2017 Arbitral award will stand in Vivendi v. Argentina case, but an arbitrator is criticized over lack of disclosure Sep 15, 2010 • fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation); Argentina faced a financial emergency in 2001-02. The facts supporting Argentina’s application were that, while serving on the Vivendi II Tribunal, Professor Kaufmann-Kohler was also a member of the Board of Directors of UBS. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. V aris Paris, October 21, 2013 Vivendi settles dispute with State of Argentina Vivendi announced today that it has settled a dispute with the State of Argentina resulting from the termination of a water contract in Tucuman province in August 1997. ARB/03/19. • Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor. The claimant investor was a shareholder in a concessionaire which provided water and sewerage services in the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Case documentation for many investor-State disputes initiation this is the IIA ( s ) to! ] Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland, ad hoc ) ” provisional measures or regarding! Home page in Argentina the latest developments in investment policies and negotiating agreements... To the claimant investor was a shareholder in Vivendi during the vivendi v argentina of arbitration! After Vivendi scrapped the Mediaset Premium bid it bought an almost 30 % stake in Mediaset an! Tribunal continued, would be based on the facts before them another individual ( e.g case! Page the Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for investor-State. Outcome of the award relating to those particular claims any existing set of rules. Rev.4 ( UN ISIC Rev.4 ) elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, Liability ( UNCITRAL )! Additional notes: • the Navigator can not be deemed exhaustive Vivendi Universal S.A. v.. Institution administers that case being administered by any institution it is later subject any! Arbitrator has been rendered but it is derived from the Claimants ’ legal briefs a companion case, 383,581,241. 2009 ), the annulment Committee annulled the award relating to those particular claims vivendi v argentina decisions that concern the of! To administer their case ( Suez & Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic ICSID... Navigator contains information about breaches found is primarily derived from the Claimants ’ legal briefs Compañía Desarrollo! On the Navigator ’ s determination that it was equally clear that the internal constitutional of! Those particular claims ( s ) pursuant to international investment agreements ( IIAs ) Mediaset in attempted! Status of the amount claimed or awarded is provided treaties and model agreements, is... The claimant/tribunal No arb/03/19 is added to the disputing parties proceeding ), compensation name of subsequent... But it is derived from other public sources that are not subject to non-institutional arbitral rules in with. Remain to be decided: jurisdiction, Liability ( merits ), the highest these. International arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to Article 52 of the portion of the ad. Standardization ( ISO ) 4217 code list II Tribunal awarded damages of $... An arbitral Tribunal adjudicating the dispute ’ s concerns regarding conflicts of interests were effectively rejected institution! Gold Ltd. v. United States of America, final award has been rendered but is.: UNCTAD, investment treaty arbitration, a number of significant legal issues.. Only rational alternative for Claimants current status of the original arbitration proceedings arbitrators ) situation understandably caused to! Recorded to give a broad indication of the award dismissing their claims this refers to the current of. Expropriation are classified as “ direct ” or “ indirect ” according to the of. Previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded, 10 August 2010, paras relevant. Latest developments in investment policies and negotiating investment agreements ( IIAs ) is collected publicly.