Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Reporter(s)

Chutinan Chutima

Eskosol SpA (in liquidation) v Italy, Decision on respondent's application under Rule 41(5), ICSID Case No ARB/15/50, IIC 1253 (2017), 20th March 2017, United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved.date: 15 August 2020

Whether the claim manifestly lacked legal merit.

Whether a claimant could be considered a foreign investor under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (‘ICSID Convention’) and whether there were additional requirements to being a qualified investor under the Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’) and the ICSID Convention.

At what point in time must foreign control have been established to enable a party to make a claim under the ICSID Convention.

Whether foreign control over a commercial entity could be lost merely by having the status of being in bankruptcy proceedings and whether this was a matter of national law or international law.

Whether the notions of lis pendens, res judicata and collateral estoppel would have applied to a situation where an arbitration case had been commenced by a majority shareholder of the claimant party based on the same grounds.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.