Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T06:19:06.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Flemingo DutyFree Shop Private Limited v. Republic of Poland

Permanent Court of Arbitration.  12 August 2016 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction – Investment – Indirect investment – Shares – Contract – Concession – Whether an indirect investment in shares constituted a protected investment – Whether lease agreements entered into by a local subsidiary qualified as protected contractual rights or concessions

Jurisdiction – Foreign investor – Indirect investment – Made in the territory – Remoteness – Whether the investor made an investment in the State’s territory by acquiring shares in an investment that had previously been made – Whether the investor was not protected because it was not the ultimate beneficiary of the investment – Whether the investor was too remote from the original investment

Admissibility – Forum shopping – Parallel proceeding – Municipal law – Whether the claims were inadmissible because the investor had engaged in forum shopping – Whether the claims were inadmissible because the impugned acts were still being litigated in the domestic courts

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – De facto State organ – Whether an airport operator was a State organ under customary international law

State responsibility – Attribution – State-owned entity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – Whether an airport operator exercised governmental authority regarding the impugned termination of lease agreements

Evidence – Adverse inferences – Document production – Attribution – Whether adverse inferences on the attribution of conduct should be drawn from the State’s refusal to comply with the tribunal’s document production orders

Fair and equitable treatment – Contract – Bad faith – Evidence – Municipal law – Whether lease agreements were terminated in bad faith – Whether judicial findings of abuse of right under municipal law were relevant to the standard of fair and equitable treatment

Expropriation – Contract – Whether the termination of lease agreements expropriated the investment without compensation

Remedies – Compensation – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 31(1) – Full reparation – Lost profits – One-time expenses – Valuation date – Discounted cash flow – Whether full reparation included loss of profits – Whether there was any material difference between operating costs and lost profits – Whether the investor was entitled to recover one-time expenses arising from termination of the lease agreements – Whether the investor had established a realistic scenario of lost profits but for the termination of the lease agreements – Whether discounted cash flow was the best method to determine the lost profits of an income-producing investment – Whether subsequent reduction of shareholding was relevant to the assessment of compensation

Costs – UNCITRAL Rules, Article 40(1) – Costs follow the event – Circumstances of the case – Whether the circumstances allowed the tribunal to depart from the principle that costs should follow the event

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)