Summary

...

II. FACTS

119. Messrs Robert Aleksandrowicz and Tomasz Czescik, Polish citizens, are the only shareholders of [...] a Cypriot Limited Company based in Nicosia and registered in February 2011. This company is particularly active in the fields of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

120. Claimants explain that in late March 2013, the Republic of Cyprus enacted a series of legislative measures aimed at restructuring two Cypriot banks, Laiki Bank and Bank of Cyprus. They add that around the same time, Claimants instructed the Bank of Cyprus to make two payments for the purchase of shares in the Polish company The Bank of Cyprus executed only the first payment but the remaining funds to be transferred were blocked as a result of various legislative measures. They argue that the legislative acts of the State and the restrictive measures undertaken by the organs of the Cypriot State and its dependents limiting and partially blocking the transfer of the Company's capital deposited in the Bank of Cyprus ("bail-in measures") resulted in expropriation of the business of the Claimants' Company.

121. Alleging that the Republic of Cyprus has deprived them of their investments, the Claimants introduced a Request for Arbitration on 5 December 2014 before the SCC on the basis of Article 9 of the agreement concluded on 4 June 1992 between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Poland for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments ("The Treaty" or the "B1T"). Claimants seek a declaration that measures taken by the Republic of Cyprus to prevent the collapse of the Bank of Cyprus constituted breaches of Respondent's obligations under Article 4(1) (expropriation) of the Treaty. They also seek compensation by Respondent of the alleged losses resulting from the alleged breaches.

122. Respondent states that the legislative measures, which aimed at recapitalizing the Bank of Cyprus and avoiding its collapse, were not expropriatory, unreasonable or discriminatory.

123. There is thus a dispute among the parties regarding the existence of an expropriation of Claimants' investment under Article 4 of the Treaty.

...

ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL UNANIMOUSLY DECIDES THAT:

1) The Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide on the existence of an expropriation under the Treaty:

2) There is no expropriation of Claimants' investment under Article 4 of the Treaty:,

3) All other claims of Claimants are dismissed.,

4) Claimants are, jointly and severally, condemned to bear the Costs of the Arbitration as follows: [...]

5) Claimants shall bear their own legal costs as well as 70% of Respondent's legal costs and are consequently jointly and severally condemned to pay Respondent USD 1,173,134.56.

...