Reproduced from www.worldbank.org/icsid with permission of ICSID. (Document, does not apply to summary and/or TDM IACL Case Report below).
Case report (free download)
Venoklim Holding, B.V. v. República Bolivariana de Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/22)
Case Report by Maria I. Pradilla Picas, Edited by Hernando Otero
In the Award rendered of April 3, 2015, which was accompanied by a concurring and dissenting opinion by the Claimant-appointed arbitrator, the Tribunal decided it did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute between Venoklim Holding, B. V. and the Republic of Venezuela because Venoklim did not meet the nationality requirements under Article 22 of Venezuela's Investment Law and the Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Venezuela. However the Tribunal alsorejected Venezuela's additional objections to jurisdiction, which were that (1) Venezuela did not consent to ICSID arbitration in light of Venezuela's denunciation of the ICSID Convention; (2) Venezuela was not a Contracting Member of ICSID when the request for arbitration was registered; (3) Venezuela's Investment Law did not constitute a valid ground for jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention; and (4) Venoklim violated Article 36 of the ICSID Convention when it raised, for the first time in its counter-memorial, the BIT as a new ground for jurisdiction in violation of the ICSID Arbitration Rules.
An annulment proceeding was initiated by Claimant on August 6, 2015, and the ad hoc Committee was constituted on 23 September 2015.
Main Issues: Jurisdiction personal nationality; jurisdiction temporal; consnent ICSID denunciation investment law.
Case report provided by International Arbitration Case Law (IACL)