Loading...
topic
HOME  /  PUBLICATIONS  /  THE FIRST INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE AGAINST IRAN

Publications

Search Publications
The First Investor-State Dispute Against Iran

The First Investor-State Dispute Against Iran

The first investment arbitration against the Islamic Republic of Iran was put to rest on 15 October 2014 by an arbitral tribunal operating under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules (Turkcell İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran).

The tribunal held that the activities of the claimant (Turkcell İletişim Hizmetleri A.Ş., a Turkish telecommunications company) in Iran, were not an “investment” qualifying for protection under the applicable Turkey-Iran Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).

The claimant was the majority shareholder in a consortium that bid successfully in a tender process for a GSM licence in 2004. When the claimant resisted a new legislation in Iran requiring it to surrender the majority of its shareholding in its activities to Iranian entities, the GSM license was eventually awarded to a South African telecommunications company. This led the claimant to initiate arbitration proceedings against Iran in 2008, alleging that its contractual rights on account of its successful bid in the tender process and a related license agreement, were a protected investment under the Turkey-Iran BIT which had been unlawfully expropriated by Iran.

The claimant also invoked the fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security and most favoured nation clauses of the BIT. The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims holding that it had no jurisdiction because there was no “investment” within the meaning of the BIT. Further, the Tribunal ordered the claimant to reimburse Iran at an amount of approximately USD 1 million which constituted Iran’s arbitration costs. The Tribunal’s award found disagreement by the arbitrator who was appointed by the claimant.

Despite having signed the award, said arbitrator issued a dissent finding that the claimant was the holder of an investment subject to protection by the Turkey-Iran BIT.

This content is solely for general information purposes. None of the information herein should be relied on or substituted for specific professional advice regarding a particular matter or situation and no person should act or refrain from acting on the basis of the information contained in this brochure without first obtaining advice from an attorney. A.G. Erotocritou LLC is not engaged in rendering legal services or advice by providing the information contained in this brochure. © A.G. Erotocritou LLC, a Cyprus lawyers’ limited liability company regulated by the Cyprus Bar Association, with registration number HE 326006. Address: 1 Arch. Kyprianou and Ayiou Andreou Str, Loucaides Building, 6th floor, 3036 Limassol Cyprus I website: www.erotocritou.com I Telephone: +35725370101 I Fax: +35725370102 I email: info@erotocritou.com

Related Publications

An effective weapon in a liquidator's and creditor's arsenal to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all creditors of a failing company is the ability to challenge past transactions that sought to favour ...
Banks have a number of legal mechanisms at their disposal with a view to safeguarding their interests in circumstances where they are owed money by defaulting customers who are unlikely to take steps ...
Chapter 113(III) of the Companies Law is the main legal framework which regulates the voluntary liquidation procedure in Cyprus. There are two ways in which voluntary liquidation can be triggered.
A company may, for a variety of reasons, choose to remove a director from office. In this respect, due consideration should be given to what statutory or constitutional devices are available for the purposes ...
The Covid-19 pandemic created an unprecedented situation for the lives and livelihoods of people from every socioeconomic background. In response to the pandemic, Cyprus introduced a series of humanitarian ...