Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:51:18.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  15 April 2009 ; 15 April 2007 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

Get access

Abstract

Procedure — Provisional measures — ICSID Convention, Article 47 — ICSID Arbitration Rule 39 — Whether the tribunal had authority to rule on provisional measures even though its jurisdiction was being challenged — Whether it was necessary and urgent to prevent the transfer of certain land and factories — Whether it was necessary and urgent to unfreeze funds in a bank account — Whether it was necessary and urgent to examine classified governmental archives

Jurisdiction — Ratione temporis — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over claims arising before the investment was acquired — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over claims arising after the investment had been sold

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — General principles of law — Good faith — Whether the Salini test should be supplemented — Whether a requirement of contribution to the State’s economy was a better requirement than contribution to the State’s development — Whether a mere intention to contribute was sufficient — Whether the contribution in money or other assets had to be significant — Whether there was a contribution of sufficient duration — Whether there was an element of risk in a modest investment — Whether there was an operation made to develop an economic activity in the host State — Whether assets were invested in accordance with municipal law — Whether the investment was made in good faith — Whether the timing of the dispute indicated the investment was made in good faith — Whether the substance of the investment indicated it was made in good faith

Applicable law — General principles of law — Good faith — Whether a general principle of law required that an investment be made in good faith

Interpretation — Jurisdiction — Investment — Legality — Whether the BIT can expand upon the concept of investment under the ICSID Convention — Whether conformity with municipal law in making an investment was an implicit requirement under the ICSID Convention or the BIT

Costs — Abuse of process — Costs follow the event — Whether costs were to follow the event — Whether abuse of the system of investment protection was relevant to costs

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2021

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.)