Bit meaning

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and another [2024] EWHC 708 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on how the ‘reasonable diligence’ condition in AA 1996, s 73(1) operates. It warns parties in arbitration to remain vigilant to unfolding factual matters that may demand further enquiry, in order to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement and maintain an arguable case that is not rendered time-barred under AA 1996, s 73(1). It also emphasises the elevated duty of care owed by investment arbitration practitioners when advising clients in arbitral proceedings, so as to avoid claims of insufficient diligence in the conduct of jurisdictional challenges before the tribunal. What was the background? ...

Libya v Nurol Insaat Ve Ticaret Anonim, French Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber, 12 February 2025, No. 22-11.436 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision carries concrete consequences. It confirms the independence of the arbitration clause in the investment arbitration context. It further explains that the lawfulness of the investment is a matter for the merits, not a question of jurisdiction, and that lawfulness does not affect whether the BIT applies; instead, it governs access to the BIT’s substantive safeguards for the investment. In short, the core practical points are: The autonomy of the arbitration agreement in investment arbitration is upheld; Whether an investment is lawful concerns the merits rather than jurisdiction; Lawfulness does not determine the BIT’s applicability, but conditions the benefit of its substantive protections. Accordingly, an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction under a BIT is not dependent on the investment’s compliance with host-state legality requirements, save where the BIT expressly stipulates otherwise...

A Ltd v B Pte Ltd , 4A_172/2023 dated 11 January 2024 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment marks a pivotal pronouncement by Switzerland’s highest court on the ambit and reach of the Singapore–China BIT, and on how the Supreme Court reads the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) when assessing the BIT’s jurisdictional functioning and operation, particularly the extent to which the treaty empowers tribunals in this specific context... What was the background? On 11 January 2024 (published 30 January 2024), the Swiss Supreme Court delivered a German-language ruling earmarked for inclusion in the official court reports, signalling its importance. The dispute involved two Singaporean investors with phosphate mining operations in China. Invoking the 1985 Singapore–China BIT, they alleged China had effected unlawful indirect expropriation. The treaty’s dispute resolution clause conferred jurisdiction on an arbitral tribunal solely for disputes ‘involving the amount of compensation resulting from expropriation...’, thereby delimiting the tribunal’s remit...

The primary gateway question for any claim under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), multilateral investment treaty (MIT) or foreign investment laws is whether the claimant truly qualifies as an ‘investor’ and whether its interests in the host state amount to an ‘investment’. If a prospective claimant is not a qualifying investor holding a qualifying investment under the relevant treaty or law, the substantive protections will not engage and there will be no lawful jurisdictional basis for pursuing investor–state arbitration. The definitions of ‘investor’ and ‘investment’ differ across BITs, yet common themes emerge and certain components recur. This Practice Note provides an overview of those themes and the typical issues arising around the definitions of ‘investor’ and ‘investment’. The meaning of investor An investor will typically be an individual citizen of the investor’s home state or a company incorporated in the investor’s home state (domicile). Nonetheless, with individuals holding multiple nationalities and multinational corporations, this question can be complex. Investor—key elements An investor can be a natural...

Under bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and other investment protection treaties such as multilateral investment treaties (MITs), host states generally commit to provide baseline standards of protection and treatment to foreign investors. These baseline standards can range from an undertaking not to discriminate against foreign investors in favour of domestic companies, through to a commitment not to nationalise or expropriate an investment without the payment of adequate compensation. Among other reasons, appreciating the nature and extent of these safeguards is important for advising on related disputes. This Practice Note summarises the forms of protection typically available under BITs and MITs, including: fair and equitable treatment (FET) of investors (sometimes referred to as the FET standard) full protection and security of investments 'national treatment' of investors 'most favoured nation' (MFN) treatment of investors, and protection from expropriation without adequate compensation UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, maintains a useful, searchable database of BITs for each of the world’s countries...

ARCHIVED - this archived case hub records the position as at the judgment of 25 January 2022; it is no longer updated CASE HUB For details, see the timeline. Case C‑638/19 Commission v European Food and Others-an appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T‑624/15, which had granted annulment of Commission decision (SA.38517) concerning aid paid to Viorel and Ioan Micula and companies they own in the form of an arbitration award. Latest development On 25 January 2022, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment. It allowed the appeal, set aside the General Court’s judgment and sent the case back to the General Court. The Court of Justice held, among other matters, that the General Court erred in law by finding that the Commission lacked competence to assess, under state aid law, the compensation Romania paid to Swedish investors in implementing the ICSID award. While that award had accepted those investors’ case that Romania had unlawfully repealed a tax incentives scheme before its accession to...