Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. v Hellenic Republic - ICSID Case No. ARB/14/16 - Excerpts of Award - 15 April 2021
Country
Year
2021
Summary
Source: icsid.worldbank.org
AWARD
Members of the Tribunal
Prof. Juan Fernández-Armesto, President
Prof. Philippe Sands, Arbitrator
Prof. Giorgio Sacerdoti, Arbitrator
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
IV. POSITION OF THE PARTIES
IV.1. POSITION OF CLAIMANT
IV.2. POSITION OF RESPONDENT
V. DECISION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
V.2. APPLICABLE STANDARD
V.3. LOSSES SUFFERED BY CLAIMANT
V.4. INTEREST
VI. COSTS
VII. AWARD
ANNEX DECISION ON JURISDICTION AND LIABILITY 8 JANUARY 2019
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This case concerns a dispute submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ["ICSID" or the "Centre"] on the basis of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and the Government of the Hellenic Republic on the Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments dated 30 March 1992 [the "Greece-Cyprus BIT" or "BIT"] and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which entered into force on 14 October 1966 [the "ICSID Convention"].
2. The Claimant is Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. ["Laiki" or "Claimant"], a company established under the laws of the Republic of Cyprus, and under special administration, as the Special Administrator of Laiki.
3. The Respondent is the Hellenic Republic [the "Respondent" or "Greece"].
4. The Claimant and Respondent are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties". The Parties' representatives are listed above on page (ii).
...
IX. DECISION
1535. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal unanimously rules as follows:
(1) Dismisses the jurisdictional and admissibility arguments of Respondent in respect of the Inter-State Dispute Objection, Transfer of Claims Objection, EU Law Incompatibility Objection and Amicable Settlement Requirement Objection;
(2) Upholds the jurisdictional and admissibility arguments of Respondent in respect of the EU Law Claims and Human Rights Objection;
(3) Decides that the Centre has jurisdiction and the Tribunal is competent to adjudicate the claims put forward by Claimant in respect of the Debt Exchange Claim, the [...] Claim, the [...] Claim and the Composite Breach Claim;
(4) Decides that Respondent, [...], has violated its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the BIT.
(5) Dismisses all other Claims put forward by Claimant.
(6) Decides to proceed to determine the consequences that follow from the violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the BIT identified at paragraph 4 above, including the measure and quantum of damages that are to be paid, if any, in accordance with Procedural Order No. 3; and
(7) Reserves its decision on the costs of the proceedings.
...