Magnifier Search

Amto v. Ukraine

Type of decisionFinal Award
Date of decision26 March 2008
Tribunal
Bernardo M. Cremades (President)
Christer Söderlund
Per Runeland
Legal instrumentEnergy Charter Treaty
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
Neither the ECT nor international law contain any principles related to powers of attorney; the burden of proof regarding a lack of the attorney's authority is on the party alleging it
Even if an institution is not an organ of a state, its actions are attributable to the state if they are de jure imperii
In Article 1(6) ECT, as well as in most other IITs, the definition of investment consists of three parts; a wide definition illustrated by several rights as well as a clarification and a restriction concerning several types of economic activity
Within Article 1(6) ECT the activity of the investment must be energy related, without needing to satisfy the definition in Article 1(5) ECT; a mere contractual relationship with an entity engaged in an economic activity in the energy sector is not sufficient
A "substantial" business activity within the meaning of Article 17(1) ECT requires an activity 'of substance, and not merely of form'
Denial of justice constitutes a violation of the standard of fair and equitable treatment
On examining whether judicial decisions denied justice, a tribunal has to decide whether the decisions were clearly improper and discreditable
If there is more than one decision by domestic courts, a tribunal has to consider the decisions in their entirety on examining an alleged denial of justice
On examining an alleged denial of justice, a tribunal has to take the available domestic legal means into account by which errors or injustices could have been addressed
The protection from denial of justice does not turn tribunals into courts of appeal for decisions of local courts
Article 10(1) ECT does not apply to contracts concluded between two domestic legal entities
Article 22(1) ECT does not constitute an obligation of the state to assume liability for any state-owned legal entity; it only imposes a general obligation to make these entities capable of observing the obligations under Part III of the ECT
"Effective means" within the meaning of Article 10(12) ECT requires a constitutional and publicly available legislation for the recognition and enforcement of property and contractual rights; "effective" refers to a systematic, comparative, progressive, and practical standard
As the obligations within Article 10(1) ECT overlap, a claimant can plead that the same conduct breaches various obligations in circumstances where their content and relationship is not clear
A duty to attempt settlement serves the purpose to discuss the dispute by exchanging views over its causes and identifying possible solutions; a party does not need to identify any claims at this point
There is no general principle that an investor may ignore waiting clauses
If a state party takes the position that a waiting clause has not been complied with, it has to raise this objection immediately as a matter of procedural good faith
Consent to arbitrate should be unequivocal and must be unconditional
A claimant consents to an arbitration by commencing it
A state's consent to arbitration is expressed in the IIT
Article 17 ECT can be subject to arbitration
The objection of lis pendens requires an identity of the underlying facts, parties and causes of action
Remarks regarding the burden of proof within Article 17 ECT
A party bears the burden of proof in establishing the facts that he or she asserts
Neither the ECT nor international law contain any principles related to powers of attorney; the burden of proof regarding a lack of the attorney's authority is on the party alleging it
Neither the ECT nor international law contain any principles related to powers of attorney; the burden of proof regarding a lack of the attorney's authority is on the party alleging it
A counterclaim for non-material injury to the respondent's reputation requires a basis in the applicable law; in ECT proceedings, there is no basis for such a claim
The claim for costs does not require a counterclaim
The claim for costs does not require a counterclaim

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!