Summary

Source: icsid.worldbank.org

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This case concerns a dispute submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID" or "Centre") on the basis of the Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Georgia Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment signed on 7 March 1994 and entered into force on 10 August 1999 ("BIT" or "Treaty") and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which entered into force on 14 October 1966 ("ICSID Convention").

A. THE PARTIES AND THEIR DISPUTE

2. The first claimant is Mr Mirian G. Dekanoidze ("Mr Dekanoidze"), a natural person born in Georgia on 29 July 1958 who has been a national of the United States of America ("US") since 23 May 2018.1 The second claimant is Turkmenistan Georgia Trade LLC, a company registered under the laws of Georgia on 2 May 2001 ("TG Trade", together with Mr Dekanoidze, "Claimants").

3. The respondent is the sovereign State of Georgia ("Respondent", together with the Claimants, "Parties").

4. The Parties' representatives and their addresses are listed above on page (i).

5. The Parties' dispute has its origins in a series of interactions concerning investments in a railway construction and repair venture dating back to the early 2000s. In 2014, T.G. Trade initiated court proceedings in Georgia, seeking to annul an allegedly coerced share transfer.

The case reached the Supreme Court, the highest court in Georgia, which issued a judgment on 29 March 2019 ("Supreme Court Judgment"). That judgment forms the basis of the Claimants' claims for breach of the Treaty in this arbitration. The Respondent contends that the claims are unfounded, inadmissible, and fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

B. THE KEY FACTS PERTINENT TO THIS BIFURCATED PHASE

6. In the present Decision, the Tribunal addresses certain preliminary objections which, at the request of the Respondent, and pursuant to Rule 44 of the ICSID Rules of Arbitration 2022 ("Arbitration Rules" or "ICSID Rules"), have been bifurcated to be heard separately in a preliminary phase of the arbitration ("Bifurcated Objections"). As set out in the Tribunal's decision on bifurcation of 1 August 2025, in language adopted directly from th Respondent's request for bifurcation, these Bifurcated Objections are:

(a) The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione personae on the basis that Mr Dekanoidze was a Georgian national at the time of the alleged breach and neither the ICSID Convention, nor the BIT, allow claims by individuals who are dual nationals; and it was also improper for Mr Dekanoidze to take steps to renounce his Georgian nationality after the alleged date of breach of the BIT and then commence this arbitration.

(b) The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae on the basis that Mr Dekanoidze does not hold via his spouse (and therefore T.G. Trade does not hold) a qualifying "investment" under the BIT.

7. In order to place the Bifurcated Objections in context, the Tribunal considers it helpful in this Introduction to recall some key background facts, which are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. A more detailed factual account is set out in Part IV.

....

X. DECISION

566. For the reasons outlined in this Decision, the Tribunal:

(1) DISMISSES the Respondent's objection that the Tribunal and the Centre do not possess the necessary jurisdiction ratione personae;

(2) DISMISSES the Respondent's objection that the Claimants' claim amounts to an abuse of process and is thereby inadmissible;

(3) DISMISSES the Respondent's objection that the Tribunal and the Centre do not possess the necessary jurisdiction ratione materiae;

(4) ORDERS, pursuant to Rule 52(3) of the ICSID Rules, that the Respondent pay the Claimants' costs of the Rule 41 Objection phase of proceedings in the amount of [...], within 30 days of this Decision;

(5) ORDERS the Respondent to pay the Claimants interest at a rate of Daily SOFR+4 % compounded monthly, on any amounts from paragraph (4) that remain outstanding beyond the 30-day period;

(6) RESERVES all other questions of costs to subsequent phase of proceedings;

(7) RESERVES all remaining questions of jurisdiction, liability and remedies until subsequent phase of proceedings; and

(8) DIRECTS that the timetable fixed for Scenario 3 in Procedural Order No. 4 of shall apply to proceedings going forward, subject to any adjustments agreed by the Parties and/or approved by the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 6 of Procedural Order No. 1.

567. Nothing in this Decision shall imply a decision on questions of jurisdiction, liability or remedies that were not bifurcated and remain in dispute, unless specifically stated.

...

Footnotes omitted