Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T05:25:25.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands BV v. Republic of Turkey

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  10 March 2014 ; 07 March 2014 ; 30 December 2015 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction – Investment – ICSID Convention, Article 25 – Whether an investment can be composed of interrelated transactions

Admissibility – Representative claims – Whether claims may be asserted on behalf of a non-party to the proceeding

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – State organ – Whether a State-owned real estate developer was an organ of the State – Whether a majority shareholding by the State triggered a presumption that the entity was an emanation of the State

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – Contract – Whether a State-owned real estate developer was empowered by municipal law to exercise governmental authority – Whether an entity’s affiliation with a State organ and the enjoyment of preferential rights under municipal law implied an exercise of public authority – Whether the entity exercised puissance publique in its contractual negotiation, performance or termination

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Effective control – Contract – Whether shared management of a real estate developer by State organs and parastatal entities could be relevant for attribution – Whether the commercial soundness of a decision was relevant to attribution – Whether contractual termination was an expression of sovereign power

Jurisdiction – Contract – Whether claims arising out of a contractual termination may constitute treaty claims

Fair and equitable treatment – Interpretation – Legitimate expectation – Legal stability – Contract – Whether standard required proactive protection of legal stability and predictability – Whether any precontractual representations provided the basis for legitimate expectations regarding zoning – Whether the decisions of a State-owned real estate developer not to grant further extensions and ultimately to terminate a contract were a breach of fair and equitable treatment

Expropriation – Contract – Whether a recommendation by a State organ entity to terminate a contract meant that the termination was an improper exercise of sovereign power

Full protection and security – Interpretation – Contract – Police – Whether the standard of full protection and security imposed an obligation of strict liability – Whether the involvement of police forces in the termination of a contract implied a breach of full protection and security

Umbrella clause – Domestic legislation – Whether a claim under the domestic investment legislation of the host State could be elevated to a breach of international law

Investment promotion – Interpretation – Whether a failure to promote and protect investments constituted a discrete breach of the BIT

Costs – Costs follow the event – Whether the unsuccessful party should bear the arbitration costs

Annulment – Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure – ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(d) – Interpretation – Right to a fair trial – VCLT, Article 31(3)(c) – Human rights – Whether human rights instruments were relevant to the interpretation of the concept of a fundamental rule of procedure

Annulment – Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure – ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(d) – Attribution – Evidence – Whether a tribunal disregarded critical evidence relevant to attribution

Annulment – Manifest excess of powers – ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b) – Jurisdiction – Attribution – Whether a tribunal’s determination on the merits despite lack of jurisdiction for want of attribution was a manifest excess of powers

Annulment – Failure to state reasons – ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(e) – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Whether a tribunal failed to state reasons for concluding that a State-owned real estate developer was acting under the instruction or control of the State

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.)