Magnifier Search

Alpha Projektholding v. Ukraine

Type of decisionAward
Date of decision8 November 2010
Tribunal
Davis R. Robinson (President)
Stanimir Alexandrov
Yoram Turbowicz
Legal instrumentBIT between Austria and Ukraine (1996)
Related decision(s)Decision on Respondent's Proposal to Disqualify Arbitrator Dr. Yoram Turbowicz, 19 March 2010
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
It is generally accepted under international law that a state interference can amount to an expropriation even if the property title remains with the original owner
Where domestic law defines the parties' rights and obligations under contracts, a tribunal will decide these questions as questions of facts
IITs must be interpreted using the rules of interpretation laid down in the VCLT
An interpretation must give terms a practical effect
An action by a state organ is attributable to the state under Article 4 ILC Articles; for attribution, it is irrelevant whether the action may be classified as "commercial" or "acta iure gestionis"
Advice and expertise alone do not constitute an investment, even if the IIT explicitly mentions "know-how" among the protected investments
If an IIT requires an investment to be "in connection with the economic activity" in the host state, the location of the project is decisive, not the source of its funding
If the respondent asserts that the registration of an investment according to domestic law was improper, the burden of proof is on the respondent
To exclude an investment on the basis of minor errors, like a failure to observe bureaucratic formalities of domestic law, would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of an IIT
An expropriation requires a certain degree of interference with the investment; a substantial deprivation of the investor is necessary
Usually, expropriation requires a lasting interference with property rights
It is generally accepted under international law that a state interference can amount to an expropriation even if the property title remains with the original owner
For determining whether an indirect expropriation occurred, it is not relevant whether the claimant could have enforced his or her rights in local courts
If an IIT requires the host state "to promote investments and accord fair and equitable treatment", this does not restrict the application of the fair and equitable treatment-standard to a pre-investment period
The protection by the fair and equitable-treatment standard is not limited to protection from discriminatory measures
The legitimate expectations of the investor can be a relevant factor within the standard of fair and equitable treatment
A claimant may posses a legitimate expectation that the host state will not interfere with his or her contractual relationships
In assessing whether a measure is contrary to the standard of national treatment, intent is relevant; bad intent alone, however, does not constitute a breach, as long as no adverse effect on the non-national takes place
The state must conclude the contract; the state has to be the named party
If an IIT requires the dispute to be "in relation to an investment", a tribunal may focus its analysis on the narrower terms of Article 25 ICSID Convention, which require the dispute to arise directly out of an investment
Where domestic law defines the parties' rights and obligations under contracts, a tribunal will decide these questions as questions of facts
The burden of proof rests upon the party alleging the fact. Where there is a prima facie evidence the burden of proof shifts to the other side. A prima facie evidence may be sufficient in cases where it is extremely difficult to prove certain facts.
A tribunal has to distinguish between the burden of proof and the standard of proof; a tribunal has to determine the probative force of the evidence
IITs must be interpreted using the rules of interpretation laid down in the VCLT
An interpretation must give terms a practical effect
When considering whether several contracts constitute an investment, a tribunal has to evaluate the complete project, not the individual agreements in isolation
Loans may qualify as an investment
The requirement of a contribution to economic development is of little value, as it mostly reflects the consequences of the other criteria, i.e. resources, duration and risk
The Salani test might be useful to exclude overreaching definitions of "investment" in an IIT; in most cases, however, the definition in an IIT should be decisive under Article 25 ICSID Convention
Article 42 ICSID Convention is applicable to the merits only
A tribunal has to distinguish between the burden of proof and the standard of proof; a tribunal has to determine the probative force of the evidence

Feedback

Above you will find 26 statement(s) from this decision. Please note that when viewing the statements in their context, the same statement may appear multiple times if it is relevant for more than one topic. Did we miss something? Feel free to send us your suggestions!