Document from CIS Legislation database © 2003-2018 SojuzPravoInform LLC

DECISION OF ECONOMIC COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

of September 23, 2014 No. 01-1/1-14

About interpretation of article 11 of the Convention on protection of the rights of the investor of March 28, 1997

Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States in structure:

the chairman – the Chairman of Economic Court of the CIS Kamenkova L. E.,

judges of Economic Court of the CIS: Mountain E.N., Seytimova V. H.,

in case of the court clerk Medvedeva T. E.,

with participation of representatives of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic of Satarov U. M., Askarova A. A., Yakovleva A. (the power of attorney of September 16, 2014 No. 36), Dordoyeva M. B. (the power of attorney of September 16, 2014 No. 34),

having considered in proceeding in open court case on request of the Kyrgyz Republic on behalf of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic about interpretation of article 11 of the Convention on protection of the rights of the investor of March 28, 1997,

Established:

The Kyrgyz Republic on behalf of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic (further – the Applicant) appealed to Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States (further – Economic Court of the CIS, Economic Court, Court) with request about interpretation of article 11 of the Convention on protection of the rights of the investor of March 28, 1997 (further – the Convention of March 28, 1997, the Moscow convention, the Convention).

The fact that the Arbitration under the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry (further – Arbitration under MTPP) accepted and considered claims of number of investors to the Kyrgyz Republic about compensation of damage formed the basis for request. As the basis for the appeal of the above-stated claimants to Arbitration under MTPP and adoptions of the claim under MTPP were applied to consideration by Arbitration regulations of article 11 of the Convention. At the same time the Arbitration under MTPP was not designated as body for consideration of disputes over implementation of investments within the Convention in the national legal system of the State Party of dispute, in the international treaty which party is the State Party of dispute, and/or the free standing agreement between the investor and the State Party of dispute.

The Kyrgyz Republic on behalf of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic asks to explain:

Whether 1) the dispute over implementation of investments within the Convention on protection of the rights of the investor of March 28, 1997 be trial subject in the international court or the international Arbitration Court which is not stipulated in the bilateral international agreement which party is the State Party of dispute, in the national legal system of the State Party of dispute and/or in the free standing agreement between the investor and the State Party of dispute can;

Whether 2) the regulation of article 11 of the Convention on protection of the rights of the investor of March 28, 1997 good cause for the appeal of investors to international courts or the international Arbitration Courts without specification in the national legal system of the State Party of dispute, the international treaty which party is the State Party of dispute, and/or the free standing agreement between the investor and the State Party of dispute is?

The economic Court considers the Applicant's request for refining of request in the following edition: "How it is necessary to interpret the provision of article 11 of the Moscow convention saying (in particular), that "disputes over implementation of investments... are considered... international Arbitration Courts": (a) as establishing only arbitrabelnost of such disputes (that is basic possibility of their consideration by means of international arbitration and the conclusion of arbitral agreements concerning such disputes) or as the representing unconditional consent, or the open offer, the State Parties on presentation to them investors of the claims concerning implementation of investments in any international arbitration at the choice of the investor".

Having heard the judge-speaker Mountain E.N., the Applicant's representatives, having discussed the conclusions of general advisers of Taranova T. S. and Anishchenko A. I., having analysed provisions of the Moscow convention, other international agreements relating to interpretation, the legislation of the State Parties in the field of regulation of investments and investing activities, information on law-enforcement practice on space of the Commonwealth of Independent States (further – the CIS, the Commonwealth) according to questions of competence of the international arbitral institutes (courts), having researched other materials which are available in case, the Economic Court notes the following.

Full text available with active License only!

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info

Effectively work with search system

Database include more 38000 documents. You can find needed documents using search system. For effective work you can mix any on documents parameters: country, documents type, date range, teams or tags.

Get help

If you cannot find the required document, or you do not know where to begin, go to Help section.

In this section, we’ve tried to describe in detail the features and capabilities of the system, as well as the most effective techniques for working with the database.

You also may open the section Frequently asked questions. This section provides answers to questions set by users.

Search engine created by SojuzPravoInform LLC. UI/UX design by Intelliants.