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)
Case Report by Sergey Alekhin, Editor Diego Luis Alonso Massa
In Capital Financial v. Cameroon, the Tribunal deemed that it did not have jurisdiction over a dispute opposing the Claimant, a Luxemburg-incorporated holding company, and the Republic of Cameroon under the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union (hereinafter "BLEU")-Cameroon BIT. In particular, the Tribunal found that Claimant's "siège social" was not located in Luxemburg; that it had neither ratione personae nor ratione materiae jurisdiction over the controversy, and that the attempts that were made by the Claimant to "revive" its dormant company with sporadic economic activities, in the wake of the investment dispute with Cameroon, amounted to an abuse of right.
In passing, the Tribunal also deemed that Claimant did not make a qualifying investment, as it failed to undertake an economic contribution into the host State, and thereby did not bear any associated risk.
Notably, Claimant-appointed arbitrator, Mr. Alexis Mourre, disagreed with the majority's finding on jurisdiction, arguing that Claimant was a qualifying investor under the BIT, and that it did make a qualifying investment under the treaty.
jurisdiction ratione personae, jurisdiction ratione materiae, definition of "investment", BLEU-Cameroon BIT, abuse of right, siège social vs. siège statuaire, economic contribution and risk, origin of funds, consent to ICSID arbitration
Case report provided by International Arbitration Case Law (IACL)
More Case Reports?
You can find all TDM IACL Case Reports here.