Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T14:32:15.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Von Pezold, Von Pezold, Webber, Von Pezold, Batthyàny, Von Pezold, Von Pezold, Von Pezold and Von Pezold v. Republic of Zimbabwe

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  28 July 2015 ; 21 November 2018 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25(2) — Whether the requirements of foreign nationality or control were satisfied

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test — Origin of capital — Whether the claims related to foreign investments fulfilling the applicable test

Jurisdiction — Standing — Whether the claimants had standing to bring a claim for loss in respect of assets held by local companies

Jurisdiction — Provisional application — VCLT, Article 25 — Whether the parties to the BIT agreed to provisional application prior to the date of its ratification

State responsibility — Attribution — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 11 — Customary international law — Whether the State could be held responsible for police inaction in the face of the unlawful occupation movement — Whether the occupation movement was under the direct order or control of the State

Defence — Proportionality — Margin of appreciation — Whether land expropriations could be justified as a proportionate exercise of State regulatory powers — Whether a margin of appreciation may be applied in the context of investment treaty disputes

Expropriation — Direct expropriation — Compensation — Non-discrimination — Due process — Public purpose — Whether the taking of land complied with the conditions of a lawful expropriation — Whether direct debit from bank accounts and seizure of grain at less than market price constituted unlawful expropriations

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Whether assets that were not directly expropriated but were no longer commercially viable were unlawfully expropriated — Whether changes to water permits were so significant as to constitute expropriation — Whether refusal to release foreign currency led to expropriation of an unpaid loan

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Whether the State provided specific assurances that the investors would not be expropriated — Whether changes to water permitting without compensation violated legitimate expectations — Whether restrictions on foreign currency and exchange were in breach of fair and equitable treatment

Full protection and security — Law enforcement — Whether the State took all reasonable measures to remove occupiers from the investors’ land — Whether the police were overwhelmed or would have needed to use disproportionate force — Whether responsibility was excepted by a situation of war or revolution

Free transfer — Whether refusal to release foreign currency and imposition of local currency constituted an investment treaty breach

Defence — Necessity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 25 — Customary international law — Whether property invasions should be considered a threat to an essential interest of the State — Whether there was an essential interest of the State at stake — Whether there was a grave and imminent peril to the existence of the State or merely the incumbent political party — Whether the acts of State were the only way to stop the occupations — Whether the measures were in violation of obligations erga omnes not to discriminate based on race — Whether the State contributed to the situation

Remedies — Restitution — Whether it was possible to reinstate title to expropriated land

Remedies — Damages — Whether there was a compensable difference between the value of land as is and but for the unlawful measures due to damage and loss of productivity

Remedies — Moral damages — Whether exceptional circumstances existed to award moral damages — Whether corporate claimants may be awarded moral damages

Annulment — Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Whether the State had been denied an opportunity to present a case on illegality due to procedural orders on admissibility

Annulment — Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — Composition of tribunal — Corruption of tribunal member — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Waiver — Whether the late disclosure of the tribunal president’s role with another World Bank body formed a basis for annulment — Whether the State waived its right to challenge the arbitrator

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Whether the tribunal failed to apply the proper law for the defence of necessity and legality of investments

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.)