Note: updated version 02/2007

Introduction

The fact that an investor can bring a claim arising out of an investment dispute against a state is decreasingly surprising to the observer, but the reverse is still a rarity, even more so when it happens in form of a counterclaim based on a BIT. Generally, only few cases exist, or have been published, which can provide some insight as to how the procedure functions when it is the host state which starts proceedings.[1] In none of them the state relied on a BIT. The decision in Saluka Investments B.V. v Czech Republic[2] - rendered already on 7 May 2004, but published only ...