Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T14:49:15.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  30 November 2009 ; 18 July 2014 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Provisional application — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 45 — Whether the State was required to make prior declarations to benefit from limitations on the treaty’s provisional application — Whether the limitation clause required analysis of the treaty’s overall consistency with domestic law or of the consistency of each treaty provision

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 1(7) — Origin of capital — Whether an investor must have an effective link with the home State

Jurisdiction — Investment — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 1(6) — Definition of protected investment — Whether the ultimate source of investment must be foreign

Jurisdiction — Denial of benefits — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 17 — Whether the State exercised its right to deny the treaty’s benefits — Whether the investors were owned or controlled by citizens of a third State

Jurisdiction — Fork-in-the-road clause — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 26(3)(b)(i) — Whether domestic and international human rights proceedings covered the same parties, facts and cause of action as the investment treaty claims

Defence — Unclean hands — Whether the doctrine of unclean hands constituted a general principle of law — Whether the doctrine applied to how the investor obtained an investment — Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applied to the investors’ performance of the investment

Defence — Exclusions and reservations — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 21 — Taxation measures — Expropriation — Good faith — Whether the carve-out applied only to bona fide taxation measures — Whether the measures could be clawed back as expropriative taxes

State responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility — Whether the State can be held liable for the actions of a State-owned entity — Whether the State can be held liable for the actions of a bankruptcy administrator

Expropriation — Energy Charter Treaty, Article 13 — Whether the State’s actions had an effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation — Whether the expropriation was lawful

Remedies — Contributory fault — Mitigation — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 31 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 39 — Whether the investors’ use of tax avoidance arrangements contributed in a material and significant way to their loss — Whether the investors could have mitigated their loss

Remedies — Quantum — Whether the investors’ loss should be valued at the date of expropriation or the date of award — Whether there was any risk of double recovery

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)