German Model BIT (2008) Article 10 Settlement of disputes between a Contracting State and an investor of the other Contracting State

Transkript

1 [...] German Model BIT (2008) Article 10 Settlement of disputes between a Contracting State and an investor of the other Contracting State (2) If the dispute cannot be settled within six months of the date on which it was raised by one of the parties to the dispute, it shall, at the request of the investor of the other Contracting State, be submitted to arbitration. The two Contracting States hereby declare that they unreservedly and bindingly consent to the dispute being submitted to one of the following dispute settlement mechanisms of the investor's choosing: 1. arbitration under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes pursuant to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States of 18 March 1965 (ICSID), provided both Contracting States are members of this Convention, or

2 [...] 3. an individual arbitrator or an ad-hoc arbitral tribunal which is established in accordance with the rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as in force at the commencement of the proceedings, or 4. an arbitral tribunal which is established pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) or the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, or 5. any other form of dispute settlement agreed by the parties to the dispute.

3 Beispielfrage: Ein amerikanischer Staatsangehöriger, Mr Lauder, hatte in den tschechischen Fernsehmarkt investiert. Den von ihm erworbenen Sendern wurde durch die zuständigen tschechischen Stellen die Lizenz entzogen. Er leitet zwei ICSID-Verfahren ein, einmal Lauder v. Czech Republic, in dem erst persönlich als Kläger auftrat, und zum anderen CME v. Czech Republic, in dem die ihm zu 100 % gehörende Firmenholdung als Klägerin fungierte. Ist dies zulässig?

4 MINE v. Guinea, Interim Order No. 1 on Guinea s Application for Stay of Enforcement of the Award, 12 August 1988, 4 ICSID Reports 111, para. 25: It should be clearly understood [...] that State immunity may well afford legal defense to forcible execution, but it provides neither argument nor excuse for failing to comply with an award. In fact, the issue of State immunity from forcible execution of an award will typically arise if the State party refuses to comply with ist treaty obligations. Non-compliance by a State constitutes a violation by that State of ist international obligations and will attracht its own sanctions.

5 Literaturhinweise zur Vorbereitung auf die nächste Vorlesung: Dolzer/Schreuer, S Schöbener/Herbst/Perkams, S Zur Vertiefung: Williams, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, in Muchlinski/Ortino/Schreuer, The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, S

6 AGIP v. Congo Sachverhalt: Die kongolesische Regierung enteignete den Kläger. Im ICSID- Verfahren erklärte sie, dass sie das Prinzip anerkenne, dass eine Enteignung den Staat zu einer Entschädigung verpflichte. Aus diesem Grund bestehe zwischen den Parteien keine Streitigkeit und damit kein Rechtsstreit im Sinne von Art. 25 (1) ICSID- Übereinkommen. Stimmen Sie dieser Auffassung zu?

7 AGIP v. Congo, Award, 30 November 1979, 1 ICSID Reports 306, para. 42: The declarations made by the Government are so lacking in precision that in the view of the Tribunal the existence and persistence of the dispute are not in doubt.

8 Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v. the Argentine Republic, Decision on Jursidiction, 16 May 2006, para. 37: In the present case, the Claimants clearly base their case on legal rights which they allege have been granted to them under the bilateral investment treaties that Argentina has concluded with France and Spain. In their written pleadings and oral arguments, the Claimants have consistently presented their case in legal terms. Bilateral investment treaties are not mere statements of good will or declarations of benevolent intent toward the investors and investments of the two countries concerned. They are international legal instruments by which sovereign states make firm commitments under international law concerning the treatment they will accord to investors and investments from the other state. [ ] In the present case, the Claimants have invoked both BITs as a basis for their claim and have based their claims on the specific legal rights enumerated in specific treaty provisions, which they allege have been granted to them by the treaties in question.

9 CSOB v. Slovakia Sachverhalt: CSOB hatte der Slovak Collection Company einen Kredit gewährt. Für diesen Kredit hatte das slowakische Finanzministerium eine Bürgschaft übernommen. Als die Slovak Collection Company ihren Zahlungsverpflichtungen nicht nachkam und sich das Finanzministerium ebenfalls weigerte, aus der Bürgschaft zu zahlen, leitete CSOB ein ICSID-Verfahren ein. Die Slowakei vertrat im Verfahren die Meinung, das Tribunal sei nicht gemäß Art. 25 (1) ICSID zuständig, da die Klage darauf beruhe, dass das Finanzministerium die Bürgschaftsverpflichtung nicht erfüllt habe, nicht jedoch auf dem Kredit. Da dieser die Investition darstelle, beruhe der Streit nicht unmittelbar auf der Investition. Sind Sie derselben Ansicht?

10 CSOB v. Slovakia, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, 5 ICSID Reports 335, para. 72 An investment is frequently a rather complex operation, composed of various interrelated transactions, each element of which, standing alone, might not in all cases qualify as an investment. Hence, a dispute that is brought before the Centre must be deemed to arise directly out of an investment even when it is based on a transaction which, standing alone, would not qualify as an investment under the Convention, provided that the particular transaction forms an integral part of an overall operation that qualifies as an investment.

11 CSOB v. Slovakia, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, 5 ICSID Reports 335, para. 68: A two-fold test must therefore be applied in determining whether this Tribunal has the competence to consider the merits of the claim: whether the dispute arises out of an investment within the meaning of the Convention and, if so, whether the dispute relates to an investment as defined in the Parties consent to ICSID arbitration, in their reference to the BIT and the pertinent definitions contained in Article 1 of the BIT.

12 German Model BIT (2008), Artikel 1 (1): the term "investments" comprises every kind of asset which is directly or indirectly invested by investors of one Contracting State in the territory of the other Contracting State. The investments include in particular: (a) movable and immovable property as well as any other rights in rem, such as mortgages, liens and pledges; (b) shares of companies and other kinds of interest in companies; (c) claims to money which has been used to create an economic value or claims to any performance having an economic value;

13 German Model BIT (2008), Artikel 1 (1): (d) intellectual property rights, in particular copyrights and related rights, patents, utility-model patents, industrial designs, trademarks, plant variety rights; (e) trade-names, trade and business secrets, technical processes, knowhow, and good-will; (f) business concessions under public law, including concessions to search for, extract or exploit natural resources; any alteration of the form in which assets are invested shall not affect their classification as investment. In the case of indirect investments, in principle only those indirect investments shall be covered which the investor realizes via a company situated in the other Contracting State;

14 Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine, Decision on Jursidiction, 29 April 2004: Sachverhalt: Die Klägerin war ein nach litauischen Recht inkorporiertes Unternehmen, deren Anteilseigner jedoch zu 99 % ukrainische Staatsangehörige waren. Art. 1 (2) (b) des litauisch-ukrainischen BITs definiert Investor u.a. als any entity established in the terriroty of the Republic of Lithuania in vonformity with its laws and regulations. Frage: Ist Tokios Tokeles ein ausländisches Unternehmen eines anderen Vertragsstaats isv Art. 25 ICSID-Übereinkommen?

15 Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine, Decision on Jursidiction, 29 April 2004, para. 38, 40, 42, 43: [I]n light of the object and purpose of the [BIT], the only relevant consideration is whether the Claimant is established under the laws of Lithuania. We find that it is. Thus, the Claimant is an investor of Lithuania under Article 1(2)(b) of the BIT. [ ] We decline to look beyond (or through) the Claimant to its shareholders or other juridical entities that may have an interest in the claim. [ ] [T]he nationality of a corporation is determined on the basis of its siège social or place of incorporation. [ ] [T]he Claimant is an investor of Lithuania under Article 1(2)(b) of the Ukraine-Lithuania BIT based on its state-of-incorporation?

16 Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine, Decision on Jursidiction, 29 April 2004, Dissenting Opinion of the President of Tribunal, Mr Prosper Weil, para. 27: The situation in the instant case is crystal clear and in effect undisputed: it is a situation where there is simply no question of any foreign whether Lithuanian or other investment in Ukraine, and where there is a question only, and indisputably, of an Ukrainian investment in Ukraine. And to such a situation the ICSID Convention and the ICSID procedures are not meant to apply.

17 Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, 17 March 2006: Sachverhalt: In diesem ICSID-Verfahren war die Klägerin eine nach niederländischen Recht inkorporierte Gesellschaft. Die Tschechische Republik als Beklagte war der Auffassung, das niederländisch-tschechische BIT sei nicht anwendbar, da Saluka nur eine Briefkastenfirma sei. Hinter dieser stündenzu 100 % japanische Anteilseigner. Das besagte BIT definierte Investoren u.a. als legal persons constituted under the laws of [The Netherlands]. Fragen: 1. Auf welcher Ebene wird dies relevant? Art. 25 ICSID oder BIT? 2. Teilen Sie die Auffassung der Tschechischen Republik?

18 Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 240: 240. The Tribunal has some sympathy for the argument that a company which has no real connection with a State party to a BIT, and which is in reality a mere shell company controlled by another company which is not constituted under the laws of that State, should not be entitled to invoke the provisions of that treaty. Such a possibility lends itself to abuses of the arbitral procedure, and to practices of treaty shopping which can share many of the disadvantages of the widely criticised practice of forum shopping. Frage: Was meint das Tribunal mit treaty shopping / forum shopping? Warum sieht es darin ein Problem?

19 Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 240: 241. However that may be, the predominant factor which must guide the Tribunal s exercise of its functions is the terms in which the parties to the Treaty now in question have agreed to establish the Tribunal s jurisdiction. In the present context, that means the terms in which they have agreed upon who is an investor who may become a claimant entitled to invoke the Treaty s arbitration procedures. The parties had complete freedom of choice in this matter, and they chose to limit entitled investors to those satisfying the definition set out in Article 1 of the Treaty. The Tribunal cannot in effect impose upon the parties a definition of investor other than that which they themselves agreed. That agreed definition required only that the claimantinvestor should be constituted under the laws of (in the present case) The Netherlands, and it is not open to the Tribunal to add other requirements which the parties could themselves have added but which they omitted to add.

20 Impregilo v. Pakistan, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005, para. 311: Impregilo complains of a number of acts for which Pakistan is said to be responsible. The legality of such acts must be determined, in each case, according to the law applicable at the time of their performance. SGS v. Philippines, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004, para. 116 f.: According to Article II of the BIT, it applies to investments made whether prior to or after the entry into force of the Agreement. Article II does not, however, give the substantive provisions of the BIT any retrospective effect. The normal principle stated in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties applies [ ] It may be noted that in international practice a rather different approach is taken to the application of treaties to procedural or jurisdictional clauses than to substantive obligations.

21 S.D. Myers v. Canada, First Partial Award, NAFTA, 13 November 2000, para. 250: 250. The Tribunal considers that the interpretation of the phrase like circumstances in Article 1102 must take into account the general principles that emerge from the legal context of the NAFTA, including both its concern with the environment and the need to avoid trade distortions that are not justified by environmental concerns. The assessment of like circumstances must also take into account circumstances that would justify governmental regulations that treat them differently in order to protect the public interest. The concept of like circumstances invites an examination of whether a non-national investor complaining of less favourable treatment is in the same sector as the national investor. The Tribunal takes the view that the word sector has a wide connotation that includes the concepts of economic sector and business sector.

22 Goetz v. Burundi, Award, 10 February 1999, para. 124: Dès lors que [ ] la révocation du certificat d entreprise franche les a contraints à arrêter toute activité [ ], ce qui a privé de toute utilité les investissements réalisés et dépouillé les investisseurs requérants du bénéfice qu ils pouvaient attendre de leurs investissements, la mesure litigieuse peut être regardée comme une mesure ayant un effet similaire à une mesure privative ou restrictive de propriété au sens de l article 4 de la Convention d investissement.

23 Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 262: 262. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the principle that a State does not commit an expropriation and is thus not liable to pay compensation to a dispossessed alien investor when it adopts general regulations that are commonly accepted as within the police power of States forms part of customary international law today. There is ample case law in support of this proposition. [ ]

24 Tecmed v. Mexico, Award, 29 May 2003, para. 122 [T]he Arbitral Tribunal will consider, in order to determine if they are to be characterized as expropriatory, whether such actions or measures are proportional to the public interest presumably protected thereby and to the protection legally granted to investments, taking into account that the significance of such impact has a key role upon deciding the proportionality.

25 Siemens v. Argentina, Award, 6 February 2007, para. 263: 263. By definition, creeping expropriation refers to a process, to steps that eventually have the effect of an expropriation. If the process stops before it reaches that point, then expropriation would not occur. This does not necessarily mean that no adverse effects would have occurred. Obviously, each step must have an adverse effect but by itself may not be significant or considered an illegal act. The last step in a creeping expropriation that tilts the balance is similar to the straw that breaks the camel s back. The preceding straws may not have had a perceptible effect but are part of the process that led to the break.

26 Tecmed v. Mexico, Award, 29 May 2003, para. 154: 154. The Arbitral Tribunal considers that this provision of the Agreement, in light of the good faith principle established by international law, requires the Contracting Parties to provide to international investments treatment that does not affect the basic expectations that were taken into account by the foreign investor to make the investment. The foreign investor expects the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, so that it may know beforehand any and all rules and regulations that will govern its investments, as well as the goals of the relevant policies and administrative practices or directives, to be able to plan its investment and comply with such regulations.

27 Tecmed v. Mexico, Award, 29 May 2003, para. 154: Any and all State actions conforming to such criteria should relate not only to the guidelines, directives or requirements issued, or the resolutions approved thereunder, but also to the goals underlying such regulations. The foreign investor also expects the host State to act consistently, i.e. without arbitrarily revoking any preexisting decisions or permits issued by the State that were relied upon by the investor to assume its commitments as well as to plan and launch its commercial and business activities. The investor also expects the State to use the legal instruments that govern the actions of the investor or the investment in conformity with the function usually assigned to such instruments, and not to deprive the investor of its investment without the required compensation.

28 Argeninienkrise 2001/2002: Gegen Ende 2001 verschlechterte sich die wirtschaftliche Lage in Argentinien in signifikantem Maße. Arbeitslosigkeit und Armut stiegen rasant. Die Hälfte der Bevölkerung fiel unter die Armutsgrenze und die Arbeitslosenrate stieg auf über ein Viertel der werktätigen Bevölkerung. Zum Jahresende 2001 konnte Argentinien seine Auslandsschulden nicht mehr tilgen. Daraufhin begannen die meisten Argentinier, aus Angst die argentinischen Banken könnten in Insolvenz verfallen, zur Sicherheit ihr Geld abzuheben, woraufhin die Regierung den Geldtransfer erheblich einschränkte. Diese Maßname ist unter dem Stichwort Corralito bekannt geworden.

29 In den letzten Tagen des Dezembers 2001 sah sich Präsident de la Rúa angesichts gewaltsamer Unruhen und landesweiter Proteste gezwungen, seinen Rücktritt einzureichen. Innerhalb von weniger als zwei Wochen folgten vier weitere Präsidentschaften, die alle angesichts der aussichtslosen Lage jeweils nach wenigen Tagen scheiterten. Im Januar 2002 verabschiedete der argentinische Gesetzgeber das so genannte Notstandsgesetz ( Emergency Law ), das die Dollarbindung des Pesos beendete und damit in den schnellen Verfall der argentinischen Währung mündete. Ferner mussten ausländische Investoren im Strom- und Gassektor aufgrund des Gesetzes auf ihr vorheriges Privileg verzichten, ihre Gebühren in Dollar zu berechnen und zu einer Rate von 1 Peso: 1 Dollar umwandeln zu können. Im März des Jahres 2002 wies die Regierung ENARGAS und ENRE an, alle Gebührenanpassungen und -überprüfungen auf unbestimmte Sicht auszusetzen.

30 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility (2001) Article 25 Necessity 1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act: (a) Is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and (b) Does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole. 2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if: (a) The international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or (b) The State has contributed to the situation of necessity.

31 CPI v. Mexico Sachverhalt: Angesichts eines Handelsdisputs zwischen Mexiko und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika bezüglich in Softgetränken verwendeter Süßstoffe erhoben drei US-Gesellschaften, die in die Herstellung künstlicher Süßstoffe in Mexiko investiert hatten, Klage gegen diesen Staat vor einem NAFTA-Tribunal. Sie argumentierten, dass ein mexikanisches Gesetz, das auf völkerrechtlicher Ebene als Gegenmaßnahme ( countermeasure ) gegen angebliche Verletzungen von WTO-Regeln durch die USA intendiert war und eine 20-prozentige Abgabe auf Import und Export von nicht aus Rohrzucker hergestellten Süßstoffen vorschrieb, ihre Rechte nach Kapitel 11 NAFTA verletzten

32 Factory at Chorzow, Merits, 1928, PCIJ, Series A, No. 17, p. 47: The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act a principle which seems to be established by international practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral tribunals is that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.

33 Literaturhinweise zur Vorbereitung auf die nächste Vorlesung: Krajewski, S Zimmermann, EuZW 2009, S. 1 ff. Zur Vertiefung: Hirsch, Internactions between Investment and Non-Investment Obligations, in Muchlinski/Ortino/Schreuer, The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, S