Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator
Known treaty-based ISDS cases:
Total: 1303
Pending: 357
Concluded: 924
Unknown: 22
Updated as of 31 July 2023
Concluded original arbitration proceedings:
- Decided in favour of State
- Decided in favour of investor
- Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded)
- Settled
- Discontinued
-
About
Open this in NEW TAB
ISDS data set in excel format (as of 31 July 2022)ISDS Navigator
The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator – the ISDS Navigator – is maintained by UNCTAD’s IIA Section. The ISDS Navigator contains information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements (IIAs). Such arbitrations are also referred to as treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.
Please cite as: UNCTAD, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement
UNCTAD's Work Programme on International Investment Agreements (IIAs) actively assists policymakers, government officials and other IIA stakeholders to reform IIAs with a view to making them more conducive to sustainable development and inclusive growth.
International investment rulemaking is taking place at the bilateral, regional, interregional and multilateral levels. It requires policymakers, negotiators, civil society and other stakeholders to be well informed about foreign direct investment, international investment agreements (IIAs) and their impact on sustainable development.
Main goals of UNCTAD’s Work Programme on IIAs
• Reform the international investment agreements (IIAs) regime to enhance its sustainable development dimension,
• Provide comprehensive analysis on key issues arising from the complexity of the international investment regime,
• Develop a wide range of tools to support the formulation of more balanced international investment policies.
The three pillars of activities
• Research and policy analysis: monitoring trends, identifying key emerging issues and providing cutting-edge knowledge on IIAs from a sustainable development perspective,
See AlsoSpain 7-0 Costa Rica summary: score, goals, highlights | Qatar World Cup 2022Teenager Gavi stars as Spain hammer Costa RicaSpain 7-0 Costa Rica: Ferran Torres scores brace as Luis Enrique’s side begin Qatar World Cup campaign in style - TNT SportsGavi makes World Cup history for Spain in 7-0 thrashing of feeble Costa Rica• Technical assistance: delivering trainings, seminars and workshops; conducting IIA and model BIT reviews; offering ad-hoc advice to strengthen the capacity of beneficiaries in handling the complexities of the IIA regime,
• Intergovernmental consensus-building: exchanging and sharing best practices and experience with the view to fostering global investment governance.
For further information, please contact us via the online contact form.
-
Methodology
Open this in NEW TAB
Disclaimer
The ISDS Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive.
While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data.
We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Please contact us using the online contact form.
Cases included in the Navigator
• an international arbitration between an investor and a State;
• fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation);
• submitted to arbitration through a notice of arbitration or a request for arbitration, and upon registration of such request if applicable (not included are cases where a disputing party has only notified the other party of the existence of a dispute or signalled its intention to submit a claim, but has not yet commenced the arbitration).
Sources of information and frequency of updating
The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Primary sources (i.e. official documents relating to the case and information provided by the administering institutions) are the main and preferred source of information. Secondary sources, such as specialized reporting services and other sources deemed reliable, are used to supplement primary sources and/or obtain case information otherwise unavailable.
The Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis. The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page.Methodological notes for the recording of data
Full case name
The full case name is recorded as it appears in the official case documents and as it is registered at the administering institution if applicable (listing the claimants in alphabetical order). If there are more than five claimants in the case, the names of all claimants can be replaced by the name of the first three claimants followed by the words “and others”.Short case name
The short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name.If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. is added to the name of each subsequent case.
Year of initiation
This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used.Applicable IIA
This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings.Arbitral rules
These are the arbitral rules in accordance with which the proceedings are conducted. Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”.Administering institution
This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. PCA). Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution.Common abbreviations for administering institutions:
• CRCICA: Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
• ICC: International Chamber of Commerce (International Court of Arbitration)
• ICSID: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
• LCIA: London Court of International Arbitration
• MCCI: Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry
• PCA: Permanent Court of Arbitration
• SCC: Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute)Details of investment and summary of the dispute
The details of investment are presented as argued by the claimant, unless otherwise expressly identified by an arbitral tribunal in its decisions or awards.The summary of the dispute describes in very general terms the conduct allegedly in breach of IIA obligations as argued by the claimant (non-exhaustive).
Economic sector and subsector
This refers to the economic sector to which the investment at issue allegedly belongs. The structure of economic activities follows the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 (UN ISIC Rev.4).Status/Outcome of original proceedings
This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings.• Decided in favour of State: the tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or found that the respondent State has not committed any breach of the applicable IIA.
• Decided in favour of investor: the tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA and awarded monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
• Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
• Settled: the disputing parties settled the case and the arbitral proceedings were discontinued for that reason.
• Discontinued: the arbitration was discontinued for any reason other than due to a (known) settlement. This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons).
• Pending: the arbitration proceedings are pending. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet.
Additional notes:
• The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims.
• Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).
Arbitral decisions rendered
These are decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. Discontinuance orders and settlement agreements are also recorded if such information is available.Not included are any other (supplementary) arbitral decisions, e.g. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section.
Amounts claimed and awarded
Amount claimed refers to the amount of monetary compensation claimed by the investor, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.
For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section.
Amounts are recorded in the currency used by the claimant/tribunal. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list.
To enable comparisons between cases, all amounts are also converted to US dollars. For the purposes of such conversion, the OANDA Historical Currency Converter is being used; the date of conversion is the date of the document or other source from which the information was obtained (e.g. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award).
Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. As a general rule, a rounded figure (to the nearest hundred thousand) of the amount claimed or awarded is provided.
If the claimant provides more than one valuation of damages claimed, the highest of these amounts is recorded.
IIA breaches alleged and found
Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. When the relevant case documentation is not publicly available, information about breaches alleged may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.
Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings.
Composition of tribunal
These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators).The disputing party (i.e. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. both types of appointment are recorded under “Appointed by / designated to Respondent” without further distinction).
In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded.
Follow-on (post-award) proceedings
Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings:• ICSID annulment proceedings;
• Judicial review by national courts (set-aside proceedings); and
• ICSID resubmission proceedings.
Initiation of a follow-on proceeding by either disputing party does not affect the field “Case Status/Outcome” of the original proceeding, until the follow-on proceeding is completed. For example, in a case where a final award has been rendered but it is later subject to a follow-on proceeding (e.g. ICSID annulment proceeding), the status of the case is marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).
Decisions, judgments and/or awards rendered in the course of follow-on (post-award) proceedings, as well as any individual opinions appended to them, are recorded.
The composition of the ICSID ad hoc committees that adjudicate requests for annulment under the ICSID Convention is recorded.
Link to Italaw’s case page
The Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for many investor-State disputes. It makes available not only the main arbitral decisions, but also procedural orders, parties’ submissions, expert opinions and other types of documents.A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand.
Additional information
This section provides links to sources of information used for gathering data for the case at hand or otherwise relevant to that case. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources.
Share
- Home >
- Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator >
- Spain
Spain
- Cases as Respondent State
- Cases as Home State of claimant
Results: 56
Results: 71
| NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2022 | WOC Photovoltaik and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in renewable energy generation projects. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector. | Pending | Spain | Germany |
| 2 | 2021 | Spanish Solar v. Spain | Investment: Investments in a renewable energy generation enterprise. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector. | Pending | Spain | Ireland |
| 3 | 2021 | TS Villalba and others v. Spain | Investment: Summary: | Discontinued | Spain | Germany |
| 4 | 2020 | Mitsui v. Spain | Investment: Investments in the construction and operation of a solar power plant at Palma del Río in the Córdoba region, via joint venture enterprise Guzmán Energía. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector. | Pending | Spain | Japan |
| 5 | 2019 | Canepa v. Spain | Investment: Summary: | Pending | Spain | Luxembourg |
| 6 | 2019 | Sapec v. Spain | Investment: Investments in several photovoltaic power plants. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector. | Pending | Spain | Belgium |
| 7 | 2019 | VM Solar Jerez and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in solar power plants. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector. | Pending | Spain | Germany |
| 8 | 2018 | EBL (Genossenschaft Elektra Baselland) and Tubo Sol PE2 S.L. v. Spain | Investment: Summary: | Pending | Spain | Switzerland |
| 9 | 2018 | European Solar Farms v. Spain | Investment: Investments in photovoltaic plants. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | Denmark |
| 10 | 2018 | GBM Global and others v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding and bondholding in Banco Popular Español, S.A., one of Spain’s largest banks. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s withdrawal of significant amounts of deposits from Banco Popular. The authorities allegedly refused to provide financial support during the Bank’s ensuing liquidity crisis in 2017, which led to the Bank’s forced resolution and sale to a Spanish bank – the sole bidder in the auction – for one euro. | Discontinued | Spain | Mexico |
| 11 | 2018 | Itochu v. Spain | Investment: Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | Japan |
| 12 | 2018 | Valle Ruiz and others v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding and bondholding in Banco Popular Español, S.A., one of Spain’s largest banks. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged withdrawal of significant amounts of deposits from Banco Popular. The authorities allegedly refused to provide financial support during the Bank’s ensuing liquidity crisis in 2017, which led to the Bank’s forced resolution and sale to a Spanish bank – the sole bidder in the auction – for one euro. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | Mexico |
| 13 | 2017 | DCM Energy and others v. Spain | Investment: Summary: | Pending | Spain | Germany Switzerland |
| 14 | 2017 | FREIF Eurowind v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding of 50% (preferred equity interest) in a portfolio of six operating wind parks with a total capacity of 244 MW, as part of a joint venture with Spanish company Renovalia. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | United Kingdom |
| 15 | 2017 | Portigon v. Spain | Investment: Investments in three solar power plants with an output of 150 megawatts as part of a consortium of banks. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | Germany |
| 16 | 2017 | Triodos SICAV II v. Spain | Investment: Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | Luxembourg |
| 17 | 2016 | Biram and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in photovoltaic plants. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Germany United Kingdom |
| 18 | 2016 | Corcoesto v. Spain | Investment: Exploitation concessions for a gold mining project in Corcoesto, Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a decision of the regional (Galician) Government to unilaterally terminate the claimant’s mining concessions for the Corcoesto gold project in the northwest of Spain. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | Panama |
| 19 | 2016 | Cordoba Beheer and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in a renewable energy generation enterprise. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Netherlands |
| 20 | 2016 | EDF v. Spain | Investment: Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | France |
| 21 | 2016 | Eurus Energy v. Spain | Investment: Investments in 21 wind projects owned and operated by special purpose companies (SPCs), with shares in the SPCs held indirectly through a wholly owned subsidiary, Eurus Europe. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Japan |
| 22 | 2016 | Green Power and SCE v. Spain | Investment: Investments in photovoltaic plants. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | Denmark |
| 23 | 2016 | Infracapital v. Spain | Investment: Investments in photovoltaic plants. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg Netherlands |
| 24 | 2015 | 9REN Holding v. Spain | Investment: Investments in eight solar parks through local subsidiaries, Solaica Power S.L.U. and 9Ren España S.L. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg |
| 25 | 2015 | Alten Renewable v. Spain | Investment: Investments in photovoltaic plants. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Discontinued | Spain | Netherlands |
| 26 | 2015 | BayWa r.e. v. Spain | Investment: Investments in the Spanish solar energy sector; including majority ownership of a 99-megawatt solar power plant in Aragon, a 70-megawatt solar power plant in Valencia and investments in solar power plants in Barcelona, Mallorca and Madrid. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Germany |
| 27 | 2015 | Cavalum SGPS v. Spain | Investment: Ownership of five solar power plants in Western and Central Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Portugal |
| 28 | 2015 | Cube Infrastructure and others v. Spain | Investment: Majority shareholding (66.5 per cent) in a Madrid-based renewable energy company, RPI. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | France Luxembourg |
| 29 | 2015 | E.ON SE and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in solar, wind and mini-hydro electric power plants in Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | Germany |
| 30 | 2015 | Foresight and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in three solar photovoltaic facilities (the Madridejos, La Castilleja and Fotocampillos plants). Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg Denmark Italy |
| 31 | 2015 | Hydro Energy 1 and Hydroxana v. Spain | Investment: Investments in renewable energy generation enterprise. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg Sweden |
| 32 | 2015 | JGC v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding in two solar thermal power plants in Cordoba, Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Japan |
| 33 | 2015 | Kruck and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in photovoltaic power plant facilities in different regions of Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | Germany |
| 34 | 2015 | KS and TLS Invest v. Spain | Investment: Investments in a renewable energy generation enterprise. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | Germany |
| 35 | 2015 | Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in renewable energy generation enterprises (photovoltaic and solar thermal plants). Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Pending | Spain | Germany |
| 36 | 2015 | Novenergia v. Spain | Investment: Indirect investment in eight photovoltaic plants in Spain, through Novenergia II Energy & Environment España, S.L., a locally-incorporated company. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators' revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg |
| 37 | 2015 | OperaFund and Schwab v. Spain | Investment: Investments in two photovoltaic projects, the “PASO Project” in Majorca and the “ECO 3 Project” in Badajoz, through special purpose vehicles and participative loans held by wholly-owned subsidiaries Paso-Palma Sol Gestión de Proyectos, S.L. and Ecoinversión en Extremadura 3 S.L. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Malta Switzerland |
| 38 | 2015 | Solarpark v. Spain | Investment: Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Discontinued | Spain | Germany |
| 39 | 2015 | SolEs Badajoz v. Spain | Investment: Ownership of Fotones de Castuera, a Spanish company operating two photovoltaic plants (Badajoz I and Badajoz II) in the Autonomous Region of Extremadura, Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Germany |
| 40 | 2015 | Stadtwerke München and others v. Spain | Investment: Majority shareholding in the Spanish thermo solar plant Andasol located in Granada and held by the Spanish project company Marquesado Solar S.L. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | Germany |
| 41 | 2015 | STEAG v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding in the Spanish thermosolar power plant Arenales. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Germany |
| 42 | 2015 | Watkins and others v. Spain | Investment: Investments in renewable energy generation enterprises (wind farms). Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg Netherlands |
| 43 | 2014 | InfraRed and others v. Spain | Investment: Equity participations in two concentrated solar projects in Spain, located in Andalucía and Extremadura. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | United Kingdom |
| 44 | 2014 | Masdar v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding in the Spanish company Torresol Energy Investments S.A. which operated three concentrated solar power plants in Spain: Gemasolar, Termesol and Arcosol. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Netherlands |
| 45 | 2014 | NextEra v. Spain | Investment: Construction and operation of two thermosolar plants in Extremadura, Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Netherlands |
| 46 | 2014 | RENERGY v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding in the renewable energy generation company Iberéolica, which owned two thermosolar plants in Seville and Badajoz. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg |
| 47 | 2014 | RWE Innogy v. Spain | Investment: Ownership of several renewable energy generation enterprises in Spain, including the thermosolar plant Andasol 3 in Granada. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Germany |
| 48 | 2013 | CSP Equity Investment v. Spain | Investment: Equity interests in six thermo-solar powerplants in Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | Luxembourg |
| 49 | 2013 | Eiser and Energía Solar v. Spain | Investment: Interests in three concentrated solar power plants located in Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg United Kingdom |
| 50 | 2013 | Infrastructure Services and Energia Termosolar (formerly Antin) v. Spain | Investment: Direct and indirect shareholding in two solar thermo plants in Andalucía, Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg Netherlands |
| 51 | 2013 | Isolux v. Spain | Investment: Interests in several photovoltaic plants in Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | Netherlands |
| 52 | 2013 | RREEF v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding in two solar power plants located in Andalucía, Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Luxembourg United Kingdom |
| 53 | 2012 | Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding of 18.66% (by Charanne) and 2.89% (by Construction Investments) in T-Solar Global S.A., a Spanish solar power plant. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | Luxembourg Netherlands |
| 54 | 2012 | IGB v. Spain | Investment: Capital expenditure of over EUR 25 million for the acquisition of land to develop a residential complex in the municipality of Las Rozas, Madrid. Summary: Claims arising out of the non-approval of an urbanistic plan for the development of a residential complex in Madrid, after allegedly receiving incentives from the municipality of Madrid to carry out the investment. | Decided in favour of State | Spain | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of |
| 55 | 2011 | The PV Investors v. Spain | Investment: Interests in photovoltaic energy installations in Spain. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of energy reforms undertaken by the Government affecting the renewables sector, including a 7 per cent tax on power generators’ revenues and a reduction in subsidies for renewable energy producers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Germany Luxembourg Netherlands |
| 56 | 1997 | Maffezini v. Spain | Investment: Shareholding in company engaged in the production and distribution of chemical products in the Spanish region of Galicia. Summary: Claims arising out of the discontinuance of the company's activities due to an internal financial crisis allegedly attributed to Spain, including allegations of misinforming the claimant on the costs of the project and involving alleged unauthorized bank transfers. | Decided in favour of investor | Spain | Argentina |
| NO. | Year of initiation | Short case name | Summary | Outcome of original proceedings | Respondent State | Home State of investor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2023 | Banreal v. Venezuela | Investment: Summary: | Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 2 | 2023 | Canal Extensia v. Colombia | Investment: Summary: | Pending | Colombia | Spain |
| 3 | 2022 | Comervi v. Morocco | Investment: Investments in urban development projects, including the construction of residential buildings at the outskirts of Rabat and Tangier. Summary: Claims arising out the Government’s alleged failure to provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure in the areas of the claimant’s residential construction projects near Rabat, as well as Government authorities’ administrative inaction related to a real estate project in Tangier. | Pending | Morocco | Spain |
| 4 | 2022 | Felipe Velázquez and others v. Venezuela | Investment: Summary: | Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 5 | 2021 | Enagás v. Peru (II) | Investment: Shareholding in pipeline company Transportadora de Gas del Perú S.A. (TGP). Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged measure prohibiting the claimant from making overseas transfers of dividends from its investments in TGP. | Pending | Peru | Spain |
| 6 | 2021 | Holcim v. Ecuador | Investment: Summary: | Pending | Ecuador | Spain |
| 7 | 2021 | IBT and others v. Panama (III) | Investment: Investments in a construction project. Summary: | Pending | Panama | United States of America Spain |
| 8 | 2021 | Liberty v. Venezuela (II) | Investment: Investments in an insurance company. Summary: | Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 9 | 2021 | Telefónica v. Peru | Investment: Summary: | Pending | Peru | Spain |
| 10 | 2020 | AFC v. Colombia | Investment: Investments in Internacional Compañía de Financiamiento S.A. Summary: Claims arising out of the forced liquidation of Internacional Compañía de Financiamiento S.A. ordered by Colombia’s financial regulatory authority (Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia) in 2015. | Decided in favour of State | Colombia | Spain |
| 11 | 2020 | Liberty v. Venezuela (I) | Investment: Investments in an insurance company. Summary: | Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain United Kingdom |
| 12 | 2020 | Santamarta v. Venezuela | Investment: Investments in SM Pharma, a pharmaceutical company. Summary: Claims arising out of Government’s alleged seizure of SM Pharma’s manufacturing facilities in Maracaibo. | Decided in favour of State | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 13 | 2019 | Alcosa and Lucidos de Yeso v. Kuwait | Investment: Investments in Public Services Company (PSC), a local entity providing health insurance services. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s termination of certain health services contracts between the Ministry of Health and local entity PSC in which the claimants allegedly invested following the entity’s privatization in 2017. | Discontinued | Kuwait | Spain |
| 14 | 2019 | Azucarera del Guadalfeo and Martín v. Dominican Republic | Investment: Ownership of local subsidiary Azucarera Porvenir, S. R. L., which operated the Porvenir sugar mill in San Pedro de Macorís. Summary: Claims arising out of the State Sugar Council’s alleged illegal take-over of sugar production facilities operated by the claimants’ local subsidiary based on a lease agreement with the State Sugar Council. | Pending | Dominican Republic | Spain |
| 15 | 2019 | Diamante Trading and others v. Venezuela | Investment: Interests in Herrera, C.A. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged expropriatory measures related to the claimants’ investments in the food sector. | Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Barbados Spain |
| 16 | 2019 | Díaz Gaspar v. Costa Rica | Investment: Investments in Ibérico SA, a local food processing company. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of alleged measures by Government agencies against the claimant’s company, including the forced closure of Ibérico’s food production facilities, the revocation of related permits and the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings. | Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Costa Rica | Spain |
| 17 | 2019 | Orazul v. Argentina | Investment: Investments in a hydroelectric power plant and a thermal power plant. Summary: | Pending | Argentina | Spain |
| 18 | 2018 | BBVA v. Bolivia | Investment: Majority shareholding in BBVA Previsión AFP, a pension fund administrator. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged failure to agree on the terms for transferring pension fund administration from BBVA Previsión AFP to a public entity, following the 2010 enactment of a law that nationalized the country’s pension fund sector. | Decided in favour of investor | Bolivia, Plurinational State of | Spain |
| 19 | 2018 | Enagás v. Peru (I) | Investment: A 25% stake in a 34-year concession to build a 1100-kilometre natural gas pipeline, known as the Gasoducto del Sur Peruano (“GSP”) pipeline project. Summary: Claims arising out of Peru’s cancellation of a concession contract to build a natural gas pipeline. | Pending | Peru | Spain |
| 20 | 2018 | Kimberly-Clark v. Venezuela | Investment: Ownership of Kimberly-Clark Venezuela, S.C.A., a locally-incorporated company that operated a production plant of personal care products. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s seizure of the claimants’ factory, following the claimants’ decision to suspend business operations in Venezuela. | Decided in favour of State | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Belgium Netherlands Spain |
| 21 | 2018 | Recalvi v. Dominican Republic | Investment: Summary: | Decided in favour of State | Dominican Republic | Spain |
| 22 | 2018 | Sacyr v. Panama | Investment: 41.6% share in Grupo Unidos por el Canal (GUPC), the consortium in charge of the design and construction of the third set of locks within the Panama Canal expansion project. Summary: Claims arising out of the Panama Canal Authority’s (ACP) alleged breaches of the contract signed with the GUPC consortium led by the claimant for the construction of the third set of locks of the Panama Canal, including ACP’s alleged failure to co-finance extra costs incurred by the consortium. | Pending | Panama | Spain |
| 23 | 2018 | Telefónica v. Colombia | Investment: Ownership of a local subsidiary Coltel that held concessions for the provision of mobile telecommunications services. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s order that certain telecommunication assets be reverted to State control upon the expiry of the mobile concession contracts. | Pending | Colombia | Spain |
| 24 | 2018 | Trapote v. Venezuela | Investment: Investments in LaTele Televisión C.A., Sistemas Cablevisión C.A. and Publicidad Vepaco C.A., providing telecommunications, internet and advertising services. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s revocation of permits held by the Cablevisión group of companies and a criminal case initiated against the claimant in 2002, allegedly resulting in the expropriation of the claimant’s investments. | Decided in favour of State | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 25 | 2017 | Cementos v. Cuba | Investment: Summary: | Decided in favour of State | Cuba | Spain |
| 26 | 2017 | Iberdrola Energía v. Guatemala (II) | Investment: Majority shareholding and operator of Empresa Eléctrica de Guatemala, a local electricity distribution company that held rights under certain authorization agreement for distribution of electricity in the departments of Guatemala, Sacatepéquez and Escuintla, for a period of 50 years. Summary: Claims arising out of Guatemala’s electricity regulator decision to set tariffs for the electricity company in which the claimant had an investment based on an independently commissioned technical study rather than on a study commissioned by the electricity company, during the process of review and pricing of electricity distribution tariffs for the five-year period 2008-2013. | Decided in favour of State | Guatemala | Spain |
| 27 | 2017 | Lidercón v. Peru | Investment: Concession contract with the municipality of Lima for the operation of vehicle inspection centres. Summary: Claims arising out of a municipality’s alleged non-compliance with a concession contract that grants the claimant an exclusive right to operate vehicle inspection centres in Lima. | Decided in favour of State | Peru | Spain |
| 28 | 2017 | Naturgy (formerly Gas Natural) v. Colombia | Investment: Majority shareholding (85 per cent) in Electricaribe, a local electricity provider. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s decision to seize and liquidate Electricaribe and other alleged actions, such as the harassment of the investor and its employees. | Decided in favour of State | Colombia | Spain |
| 29 | 2017 | OHL and others v. Kuwait | Investment: Shareholding in a joint venture for a highway construction project, the Jamal Abdul Nasser Street development. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged actions causing delays and disruption to a highway construction project under a 2011 contract between the claimants’ joint venture and Kuwait’s Ministry of Public Works to upgrade the Jamal Abdul Nasser Street in Kuwait City. | Decided in favour of State | Kuwait | Spain Italy |
| 30 | 2017 | Ortiz v. Algeria | Investment: Investments in the construction of social housing units in Algeria. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged refusal of Algerian authorities to award investor’s joint venture company procurement contracts for the construction and sale of 5,000 housing units. | Decided in favour of State | Algeria | Spain |
| 31 | 2017 | Pey Casado and others v. Chile | Investment: Ownership of the Chilean newspaper enterprises Consorcio Publicitario y Periódico S.A. (CPP) and Empresa Periodística Clarín Ltda. (EPC). Summary: Claims arising out of the State’s actions following a 2008 judgment of the Santiago court in relation to the confiscation of the Goss printing press, as well as the alleged lack of remedy for the claimants’ deprivation of their property rights in the Chilean newspaper El Clarín. | Decided in favour of State | Chile | Spain |
| 32 | 2016 | Agroinsumos Ibero-Americanos and others v. Venezuela | Investment: Majority shareholding in agriculture and food enterprises: Agroisleña, C.A., Sucesora de Enrique Fraga Afonso, Insecticidas Internacionales, C.A., Proyefa, C.A., and Venezolana de Riego, C.A. Summary: Claims arising out of the Governmental Decree No. 7.700 of 2010 that nationalized all assets of the Agroisleña Group and of associated agriculture and food companies in which the claimants held majority interests. The Government allegedly ordered a series of additional judicial and administrative measures to take control over the companies, including the occupation of company premises, removal of the management boards and appointment of new directors. | Decided in favour of investor | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 33 | 2016 | Albacora v. Ecuador | Investment: Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged denial of certain tax exemptions to which the claimant considered its company to be entitled as a user of the free economic zone of Posorja (Zona Franca de Posorja) in the Guayas province of Ecuador. | Decided in favour of State | Ecuador | Spain |
| 34 | 2016 | García Armas v. Venezuela | Investment: Investments in food products enterprises Frigoríficos Ordaz, S.A.; García Armas Inversiones, S.A.; Koma Inversiones, S.A.; and La Fuente Delicatesses, C.A. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimant's investments in food products enterprises. | Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 35 | 2015 | Abertis v. Argentina (I) | Investment: Shareholdings in two companies, Grupo Concesionario del Oeste (“GCO”, 48.6 per cent) and Autopista del Sol S.A. (“Ausol”, 31.6 per cent), that hold toll highway concessions. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s decision to freeze tools for highways in 2003, which allegedly adversely affected the economic balance of the concession contracts held by GCO and Ausol. | Settled | Argentina | Spain |
| 36 | 2015 | Clorox v. Venezuela | Investment: Ownership of Corporación Clorox de Venezuela S.A. (“Clorox Venezuela”), a local company engaged in manufacturing of cleaning products. Summary: Claims arising out of Government measures that allegedly forced Clorox Venezuela to discontinue its operations in the country, and the alleged expropriation of its production facilities and offices after Clorox had announced its plans to exit the country and to sell its assets. | Pending | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 37 | 2015 | García Armas and others v. Venezuela | Investment: Investments in six locally incorporated companies (Friosa, La Fuente, Koma, Gaisa, La Meseta, Ingahersa). Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged expropriation of the claimants’ investments in six Venezuelan companies engaged in food distribution and marketing. | Decided in favour of State | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 38 | 2015 | MAESSA and SEMI v. Ecuador | Investment: Shareholding in Consorcio GLP, which held a contract with the Ecuadorian state-owned oil and gas transport company Flopec for the construction of storage spheres for liquefied petroleum gas at a terminal at the Ecuadorean port of Monteverde. Summary: Claims arising out of government resolutions that declared Consorcio GLP in default of its obligations under a construction contract. | Decided in favour of investor | Ecuador | Spain |
| 39 | 2014 | Iberdrola v. Bolivia | Investment: Shareholding of 63.4 per cent in a Bolivian enterprise (Iberbolivia) which was the majority shareholder in four Bolivian electricity companies (Electropaz, ELFEO, CADEB and EDESER). Summary: Claims arising out of Bolivia’s Supreme Decree No. 1448 of 2012, which ordered the nationalization of claimants’ (indirectly-held) shares in four electricity companies. | Settled | Bolivia, Plurinational State of | Spain |
| 40 | 2014 | Red Eléctrica v. Bolivia | Investment: Ownership and control (99 per cent shareholding) of Transportadora de Electricidad S.A. (TDE), a Bolivian electricity company. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's issuance of Supreme Decree No. 1214 that seized and nationalized an electricity transmission company controlled by the claimant. | Settled | Bolivia, Plurinational State of | Spain |
| 41 | 2014 | Unión Fenosa v. Egypt | Investment: Majority shareholding (80 per cent) in SEGAS, an Egyptian company that operated the Damietta liquefied natural gas plant in the port of Damietta. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged suspension of gas supplies by an Egyptian State-owned enterprise to the claimant's liquefied natural gas plant in contravention of the gas purchase agreement. | Decided in favour of investor | Egypt | Spain |
| 42 | 2013 | Cementos La Union v. Egypt | Investment: Majority shareholding (60 per cent) in the cement manufacturing company Arabian Cement Company that had concluded the construction of a cement production facility in Suez. Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged overpricing by the Government of an operating license for a cement manufacturing plant, and the application of an allegedly uncommon system of granting the licenses through tenders. | Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Egypt | Spain |
| 43 | 2013 | Cemusa v. Mexico | Investment: Rights under a concession held by claimants' locally-incorporated company Eumex to provide the city of Guadalajara with bus stops and other street furniture containing advertising space. Summary: Claims arising out of the annulment of claimants' street furnishing concession by an administrative court in the Mexican state of Jalisco and its transfer to another street furnishing company, allegedly in contravention of claimants' rights under the concession. | Discontinued | Mexico | Spain |
| 44 | 2013 | Exeteco v. Peru | Investment: Concession for the construction and management of a prison. Summary: Claims arising out of cancellation of a concession to construct and manage a private prison that had been granted to a group of enterprises which included the claimant. | Discontinued | Peru | Spain |
| 45 | 2013 | Valores Mundiales and Consorcio Andino v. Venezuela | Investment: Ownership of two local cornflour and tortillas production companies, Monaca and Demaseca. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's issuance of a decree that expropriated claimants' tortilla and corn flour production businesses in Venezuela. | Decided in favour of investor | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 46 | 2012 | García Armas and García Gruber v. Venezuela | Investment: Shareholding in the Venezuelan food companies Alimentos Frisa, C.A. and Transporte Dole, C.A. Summary: Claims arising out of Government authorities’ alleged administrative takeover, occupation and confiscation of goods of two companies in which the claimants had invested. | Decided in favour of investor | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 47 | 2012 | Grupo Francisco v. Equatorial Guinea | Investment: Rights under an agreement for the construction of housing and sports facilities in Malabo. Summary: Claims arising out of the termination of a project for the construction of housing and sports facilities in Equatorial Guinea. | Decided in favour of State | Equatorial Guinea | Spain |
| 48 | 2012 | Isolux v. Peru | Investment: Rights under two concession agreements to build an electrical transmission line in Peru. Summary: Claims arising out of the modification of tender rules by Peru concerning the construction of an electrical transmission line allegedly designed to prevent further participation by the claimant after it had initially qualified, by requiring Isolux a higher bank guarantee as opposed to that required from other bidders. | Settled | Peru | Spain |
| 49 | 2012 | Repsol v. Argentina | Investment: Majority shareholding in the Argentinean oil company YPF. Summary: Claims arising out of the issuance of Law no. 660/2012 and decree 660/2010 that expropriated Repsol's 51 per cent shareholding in an Argentinean oil company. | Settled | Argentina | Spain |
| 50 | 2012 | Supervision v. Costa Rica | Investment: Shareholding in a Costa Rican joint venture, Riteve SyC, that held rights under a 10-year concession agreement to build and operate motor vehicle inspection facilities in Costa Rica. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision by Costa Rica’s ministry of public works and transport not to effect annual increases to the rates for vehicle inspection services as allegedly required by the concession agreement at issue. | Decided in favour of State | Costa Rica | Spain |
| 51 | 2012 | Telefónica v. Mexico | Investment: Ownership of seven Mexican telecommunications subsidiaries, including their assets, contracts, concessions, permits and authorizations. Summary: Claims arising out a series of measures adopted by Mexican authorities allegedly aimed at settling disagreements among telecommunications operators in the country, including the issuance of a resolution by the regulatory authority Cofetel requiring all telecoms operators to reduce their interconnection tariffs. | Settled | Mexico | Spain |
| 52 | 2012 | Ternium v. Venezuela | Investment: Majority shareholding in Sidor, a Venezuelan steel manufacturing plant. Summary: Claims arising out of an alleged outstanding amount of compensation owed under certain settlement agreement for the nationalization of claimants' stake in a Venezuelan steel production company. | Discontinued | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain Luxembourg |
| 53 | 2012 | Valle Verde v. Venezuela | Investment: Shareholding in a Venezuelan lending and savings bank. Summary: Claims arising out of the expropriation of Casa Propia Entidad de Ahorro y Préstamo, a Venezuelan financial institution in which the claimant had invested, due to alleged illegal banking practices. | Discontinued | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 54 | 2011 | Abertis v. Bolivia | Investment: Controlling interest in three Bolivian airports (Santa Cruz, La Paz and Cochabamba) through a concession company in which claimant held a 90 per cent shareholding; related capital contributions. Summary: Claims arising out of allegations that Bolivia breached the regime applicable to tariffs for boarding and landing services under certain airport concession agreement since it froze these tariffs in 2003 and later reduced them in 2005. The Government later nationalized SABSA, claimant's airport subsidiary in Bolivia after the arbitration was initiated and disagreements between the parties on appropriate compensation arose. | Settled | Bolivia, Plurinational State of | Spain |
| 55 | 2011 | Gamesa v. Syria | Investment: Investments in the Qatineh wind farm project near the city of Homs. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged call upon a bank guarantee posted by the claimant in relation to a project to build a wind farm in Syria as part of tender documentation. The claimant won the tender, but has not continued with the project due to the outbreak of civil conflict in Syria, and the subsequent imposition of sanctions by the European Union. | Decided in favour of investor | Syrian Arab Republic | Spain |
| 56 | 2010 | Universal Compression v. Venezuela | Investment: Natural gas compression services and products to the natural gas Venezuelan industry, including personnel, equipment, tools, materials, and supplies necessary for gas compression. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's nationalization of claimant's assets, operations and personnel, including over fifty gas compression and power-generation facilities in Venezuela. | Settled | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Spain |
| 57 | 2009 | Abengoa v. Mexico | Investment: Construction of a hazardous waste landfill and treatment plant under authorizations and permits granted to claimants' investment vehicle company by a Mexican municipality. Summary: Claims arising out of the stalled opening of a hazardous waste landfill and treatment plant built by the claimants in the Mexican state of Hidalgo, due to several alleged acts by the municipality of Zimapán and certain federal authorities, including Mexico's Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Interior. | Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | Spain |
| 58 | 2009 | Iberdrola Energía v. Guatemala (I) | Investment: Majority shareholding and operator of Empresa Eléctrica de Guatemala, a local electricity distribution company that held rights under certain authorization agreement for distribution of electricity in the departments of Guatemala, Sacatepéquez and Escuintla, for a period of 50 years. Summary: Claims arising out of Guatemala’s electricity regulator decision to set tariffs for the electricity company in which the claimant had an investment based on an independently commissioned technical study rather than on a study commissioned by the electricity company, during the process of review and pricing of electricity distribution tariffs for the five-year period 2008-2013. | Decided in favour of State | Guatemala | Spain |
| 59 | 2009 | Teinver and others v. Argentina | Investment: Indirect shareholding in two Argentinean airlines. Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's alleged re-nationalization and taking of other measures regarding claimants' investments in two Argentine airlines, Aerolíneas Argentinas S.A. and Austral-Cielos del Sur S.A., and subsequent disagreements between the parties as to the remedy due to claimants for the expropriation of their shares in those airlines. | Decided in favour of investor | Argentina | Spain |
| 60 | 2007 | Renta 4 S.V.S.A and others v. Russia | Investment: Ownership of Yukos American Depository Receipts, related to the value of Russian-incorporated Yukos Oil Company. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of actions undertaken by the respondent against Yukos Oil Company, including arrests, large tax assessments and liens, and the auction of the main Yukos facilities, among others, which allegedly led to the bankruptcy of the company and eliminated all value of claimants' American Depository Receipts in Yukos. | Decided in favour of investor | Russian Federation | Spain |
| 61 | 2007 | Urbaser and CABB v. Argentina | Investment: Direct and indirect minority shareholding in an Argentinean vehicle company that held a concession for the provision of a drinking water supply and sewerage services in Buenos Aires. Summary: Claims arising out of Argentina's alleged interference with the tariff regime applicable to claimant's investment and other alleged breaches of obligations under the relevant concession agreement through the enactment of emergency measures during its 2001-2002 economic crisis. | Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Argentina | Spain |
| 62 | 2006 | Técnicas Reunidas v. Ecuador | Investment: Rights under an oil refinery expansion contract. Summary: Claims arising out of a contract concluded between Ecuador and two engineering and construction companies to upgrade Ecuador's largest oil refinery in the Esmeraldas province in north-west Ecuador, operated by Petroindustriel, a subsidiary of Ecuador's state-run oil company, Petroecuador. | Settled | Ecuador | Spain |
| 63 | 2004 | Vieira v. Chile | Investment: Shareholding in local company that had a 'foreign investment contract' with the Chilean government for fishing activities, and that subsequently transferred all its contractual rights as foreign investor to the claimant. Summary: Claims arising out of Chile's alleged imposition of fishing quota on hake catches off the coast of southern Chile despite earlier licenses that enabled the investor's company to fish in Chilean waters. | Decided in favour of State | Chile | Spain |
| 64 | 2003 | Aguas Cordobesas v. Argentina | Investment: Shareholding in company that had been awarded a water services concession for the city of Córdoba. Summary: Claims arising out of Argentina's enactment of an Emergency Law and other measures undertaken by the respondent to stem the country's economic crisis of 2001-2002 which allegedly affected the claimants' investments. | Settled | Argentina | Spain |
| 65 | 2003 | Gas Natural v. Argentina | Investment: Indirect shareholding in local corporation engaged in the production and distribution of natural gas for the northern parts of the Province of Buenos Aires. Summary: Claims arising out of Argentina's enactment of an Emergency Law and other measures undertaken by the respondent to stem the country's economic crisis of 2001-2002 which allegedly affected the claimant's investments. | Settled | Argentina | Spain |
| 66 | 2003 | Inceysa v. El Salvador | Investment: Rights under a service contract for installation, management and operation of mechanical inspection stations for vehicles, executed under public bid organized by the Salvadorian Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources. Summary: Claims arising out of the decision of El Salvador's Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources not to proceed with a concession contract for the operation of vehicle inspection services, despite previously awarding the concession to the investor. | Decided in favour of State | El Salvador | Spain |
| 67 | 2003 | Suez and Vivendi v. Argentina (II) | Investment: Shareholding in local company that had a concession for water distribution and waste water treatment services in the city of Buenos Aires and some surrounding municipalities. Summary: Claims arising out of a series of alleged acts and omissions by Argentina, including its alleged failure or refusal to apply previously agreed adjustments to the tariff calculation and adjustment mechanisms affecting claimants' investment. | Decided in favour of investor | Argentina | France Spain |
| 68 | 2003 | Telefónica v. Argentina | Investment: Indirect majority shareholding in local company holding a telecom license. Summary: Claims arising out of the modification of the investor's licensee tariff regime, as a result of the enactment of Argentina's Emergency Law, whereby the free conversion of the Argentine currency into U.S. dollars was eliminated and previous dollar adjustment clauses and indexation clauses based on foreign price indexes became invalid. | Settled | Argentina | Spain |
| 69 | 2001 | Crespo and others v. Poland | Investment: Investments in an agri-food business. Summary: Claims arising out of the Polish tax authority’s blocking of funds on the claimants’ bank accounts, related to the collection of corporate taxes allegedly due to the state. | Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded) | Poland | Spain |
| 70 | 2000 | Tecmed v. Mexico | Investment: Majority shareholding in local investment vehicle which acquired land, buildings and other assets through a bid procedure to operate a hazardous waste landfill in Mexico. Summary: Claims arising out of Mexico's alleged non-renewal of a licence necessary to operate a landfill of hazardous industrial waste. | Decided in favour of investor | Mexico | Spain |
| 71 | 1998 | Pey Casado and Allende Foundation v. Chile | Investment: Majority shareholding in a Chilean newspaper. Summary: Claims arising out of the confiscation and eventual expropriation in the 1970s of the newspaper El Clarín, of which Victor Pey Casado and the President Allende Foundation claimed ownership. | Decided in favour of investor | Chile | Spain |
Related Products
Previous Next
