Jurisdiction — Exhaustion of remedies — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether one investor’s compliance with the domestic litigation requirement extended to other investors — Whether the purpose of the domestic litigation requirement was met

Jurisdiction — Exclusions and reservations — Public health — Interpretation — Whether the State’s right not to allow economic activities for reasons of public health excluded the impugned measures from the scope of the BIT — Whether the exclusion applied only to the admission of investments rather than the protection of investments already admitted

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Salini test — Whether the four elements of the Salini test were mandatory legal requirements — Whether the BIT contained further limits on the scope of protected investments

Procedure — Admissibility — Incidental or additional claim — ICSID Convention, Article 46 — ICSID Arbitration Rule 40 — Whether the claim was presented not later than in the reply — Whether the claim arose directly out of the subject matter of the dispute — Whether the claim was in the scope of the consent of the parties and the tribunal’s jurisdiction — Whether the claim was subject to any further requirement of domestic litigation

Procedure — Amicus curiae — ICSID Arbitration Rule 37(2) — Public interest — Whether a non-disputing party possessed perspective, particular knowledge or insight on the issues in dispute which was different from that of the disputing parties — Whether the proposed submission was within the scope of the dispute — Whether the non-disputing parties had an interest in the proceeding — Whether granting the request would support transparency and the public interest — Whether the submission would disrupt the proceeding or unfairly burden either party — Whether the applicants had sufficient independence from the disputing parties — Whether the application was timely

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Intellectual property — Trademark — Right to use — Regulation — Harmful products — Whether intellectual property rights were protected against any regulation restricting the right to use — Whether the investor should have expected the regulation of harmful products

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Substantial deprivation — Whether the extent of deprivation should be assessed by the overall business value or the value of each business asset — Whether the business remained profitable after the deprivation of value

Defence — Police powers — Customary international law — Public welfare — Public health — Tobacco control measures — Good faith — Whether the doctrine of police powers was recognised by the BIT or customary international law — Whether the customary defence was excluded by the public purpose condition for lawful expropriation — Whether the measures were adopted in accordance with municipal and international legal obligations — Whether the measures were implemented in good faith for the protection of public welfare — Whether the measures were discriminatory or disproportionate — Whether the measures were directed to and capable of achieving the stated goal

Fair and equitable treatment — Arbitrariness — Public health — Tobacco control measures — Scientific evidence — Margin of appreciation — Proportionality — Good faith — Whether a margin of appreciation may be applied to policy decisions on public health — Whether the reasonableness of a tobacco control measure was determined by scientific evidence of actual effects or the good faith of the State in addressing public health

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Harmful products — Public concern — International practice — Whether the State made any commitment not to modify the legal framework — Whether investors should expect harmful products to be regulated — Whether investors should expect progressively more onerous regulation of harmful products due to public concern — Whether the State was precluded from adopting novel measures in advance of international practice

Umbrella clause — Intellectual property — Trademark — Whether granting a trademark under the general law on intellectual property was a unique commitment to encourage or permit a specific investment

Fair and equitable treatment — Denial of justice — Whether contradictory decisions of different courts on the same issue led to denial of justice — Whether the rejection of an investor’s administrative challenge due to a competitor’s earlier and unsuccessful challenge on similar but not identical evidence led to denial of justice — Whether procedural irregularities were sufficiently grave to result in denial of justice — Whether the claims were decided in substance