Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T06:36:48.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poštová banka, a.s. and ISTROKAPITAL SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8 (Poštová banka v. Greece)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Jonathan Chevry
Jonathan Chevry*
Affiliation:
Ph.D. Candidate – European University Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Poštová banka v. Greece, an ICSID case initiated on the basis of both the Cyprus‒Greece and the Czech Republic‒Greece bilateral investment treaties (the BITs), the tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

Type
Case Summaries
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 169 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Jonathan Chevry 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

Case Summaries: International Investment Law

The following summaries provide a brief factual background and describe the key findings of recent investor-State arbitration cases.

References

1 Poštová banka, a.s. and ISTROKAPITAL SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8, Award, 9 April 2015 (hereinafter ‘Postova banka v. Greece, Award’), available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC5752_En&caseId=C2823 (accessed 31 October 2015).

2 L. E. Peterson, ‘Sovereign Debt Arbitration Against Greece is Dismissed by ICSID Tribunal’ (10 April 2015), Investment Arbitration Report, available upon subscription at http://www.iareporter.com/articles/sovereign-debt-arbitration-against-greece-is-dismissed-by-icsid-tribunal/ (accessed 31 October 2015).

3 Postova banka v. Greece, Award, para. 91.

4 See, for a definition of this test, Phoenix Action, Ltd (Israel) v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 74 (explaining that ‘this double test entails that the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Tribunal rests on the intersection of the two definitions’).

5 Ibid., para. 230.

6 Ibid., para. 245.

7 Ibid., para. 247.

8 Ibid., para. 278, citing Slovakia‒Greece BIT Article 1(1) in its entirety.

9 Ibid., para. 303.

10 Ibid., paras. 332, 350.

11 Ibid., para. 351.

12 Ibid., paras. 353‒359.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., para. 360.  With respect for the criterion of risk, the majority found that it was not present in the case, because the Claimant's operations did not entail any ‘investment risks’ or ‘operational risks’ but only commercial risks.  The tribunal however did not elaborate on this distinction (see paras. 368‒369). As for the third criterion, duration, the majority found that it was satisfied in the case (para. 366.).

15 Ibid., para. 361 (emphasis added).

16 Ibid., para. 364, citing Waibel, M., ‘Opening Pandora's Box: Sovereign Bonds In International Arbitration’, 101 American Journal of International Law (2007), 711, 743‒744 Google Scholar.

17 Postova banka v. Greece, Award, para. 371.

18 See the development of the Annulment proceeding on the ICSID webpage at https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/cases/Pages/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/13/8&tab=PRD (accessed 31 October 2015).