Available in Russian
Author: Sofia Pimenova
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2025-1-136-149
Keywords: investment arbitration; expropriation; compensation; valuation date; Yukos case
The mechanism for calculating compensation awarded to a foreign investor in disputes arising out of unlawful expropriation has become one of the most critical issues of modern investment arbitration. Despite the seemingly technical nature of the determination of the valuation date of an investment, it is the core element affecting the final amount of compensation. Until the mid-2000s, arbitral tribunals calculated the amount of compensation based on the date of the alleged violation by the State of the agreement on the protection of foreign investments and on the information available at that time. Any increase in the value of investments after expropriation seemed unlikely, and what usually happened was, on the contrary, a sharp decrease in the value of assets as a result of government actions. However, a different approach was soon developed in the academic literature and in practice according to which any increase in the value of investments that took place after the expropriation, but before the date of the award, should be taken into account by the arbitral tribunal when calculating the amount of compensation. According to the scholars, this rule follows from the well-known judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Chorzów Factory case, where it was stated that the amount of compensation should not necessarily be limited to the value of the property at the time of its seizure. This approach has been later developed due to the emergence of situations when the value of investments affected by government actions turned out to be significantly higher by the time of the arbitral award. An eloquent example is the Yukos case in which the date of the arbitral award rendered a decade later the actual expropriation, was chosen as the valuation date of investment. This method of determination of the valuation date of an investment has been criticized as distorting the meaning of the Chorzów Factory judgment and ignoring the absence of a causal relationship between the actions of the state to expropriate the investor’s property and fluctuations in world prices.
About the author: Sofia Pimenova – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, International Law Department, Faculty of Law, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
Citation:
Pimenova S. (2025) Nezamechennoe nasledie dela YuKOSa: dilemma vybora daty otsenki investitsiy v investitsionnom arbitrazhe [The unnoticed legacy of the Yukos case: the dilemma of choosing the valuation date of an investment in investment arbitration]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.15, no.1, pp.136–149. (In Russian).
References
Abdala M.A. (2009) Key Damage Compensation Issues in Oil and Gas International Arbitration Disputes. American University International Law Review, vol.24, no.3, pp.539–570.
Abdala M.A., Spiller P.T., Zuccon S. (2007) Chorzów’s Compensation Standard as Applied in ADC v. Hungary. Transnational Dispute Management. Available at: https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1013 (accessed: 28.02.2025).
Bahmaei M.-A., Mehrabi H.F. (2021) The Valuation Date of an Unlawfully Expropriated Property in International Investment Arbitration: A Critique of Acquisitive Valuation. ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal, vol.36, no.2, pp.441–463.
Bonnitcha J., Langford M., Alvarez-Zarate J.M., Behn D. (2023) Damages and ISDS Reform: Between Procedure and Substance. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol.14, no.2, pp.213–241.
Khachvani D. (2017) Compensation for Unlawful Expropriation: Targeting the Illegality. ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal, vol.32, no.2, pp.385–403.
Lavaud F., Costa G. (2016) Valuation Date in Investment Arbitration: A Fundamental Examination of Chorzów’s Principles. Journal of Damages in International Arbitration, vol.3, no.3, pp.33–72.
Marboe I. (2006) Compensation and Damages in International Law: The Limits of “Fair Market Value”. Journal of World Investment & Trade, vol.7, no.5, pp.723–759.
Marzal T. (2021) Quantum (In)Justice: Rethinking the Calculation of Compensation and Damages in ISDS. Journal of World Investment & Trade, vol.22, no.2, pp.249–312.
Rachkov I. (2014) Byvshie aktsionery “YUKOSa” protiv Rossii: Kommentariy k arbitrazhnomu resheniyu pod egidoy Postoyannoy Palaty Treteyskogo Suda v Gaage [Former shareholders of Yukos against Russia. A commentary on the arbitration award rendered under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.4, no.3, pp.18–34. (In Russian).
Ratner S.R. (2017) Compensation for Expropriations in a World of Investment Treaties: Beyond the Lawful/Unlawful Distinction. The American Journal of International Law, vol.111, no.1, pp.7–56.
Reisman W.M., Sloane R.D. (2003) Indirect Expropriation and Its Valuation in the BIT Generation. British Yearbook of International Law, vol.74, no.1, pp.115–150.
Sim С. (2018) Dealing with Ex Post Information in Investment Arbitrations: Quiborax SA et al v Plurinational State of Bolivia. ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal, vol.33, no.1, pp.212–234.
Simmons J.B. (2012) Valuation in Investor-State Arbitration: Toward a More Exact Science. Berkeley Journal of International Law, vol.30, no.1, pp.196–250.
Starzhenetsky V. (2016) Delo YuKOSa: investitsionny arbitrazh slishkom shiroko tolkuyet svoyu yurisdiktsiyu: Obzor resheniya Okruzhnogo suda Gaagi [Yukos case: investment arbitration has too broadly interpreted its jurisdiction: a review of The Hague District Court decision]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.6, no.2, pp.17–20. (In Russian).
Starzhenetsky V. (2015) Vremennoe primenenie mezhdunarodnogo dogovora, protivorechashchego natsional’nomu pravu: nevozmozhnoe vozmozhno? [Provisional application of an international treaty conflicting with the national law: the possible impossible?]. Mezhdunarodnoye pravosudie, vol.5, no.3, pp.118–127. (In Russian).
Tolstykh V.L. (2014) Rezyume resheniy arbitrazhnogo suda ot 18 iyulya 2014 g. po delu “Hulley Enterprises Limited”, “Yukos Universal Limited”, “Veteran Petroleum Limited” i Rossiyskaya Federatsiya i kommentariy k nim [Summary of and commentary on the July 18, 2014 arbitral awards in the case of Hulley Enterprises Limited, Yukos Universal Limited, Veteran Petroleum Limited and the Russian Federation]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.7, pp.48–54. (In Russian).
Torres F.E. (2021) Revisiting the Chorzów Factory Standard of Reparation — Its Relevance in Contemporary International Law and Practice. Nordic Journal of International Law, vol.90, no.2, pp.190–227.
Yukhno A.S. (2015) Mezhdunarodno-pravovye aspekty vyplaty kompensatsii pri razreshenii investitsionnykh sporov gosudarstv: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [International legal aspects of compensation payment in the resolution of investment disputes of the States: Cand. in law sci. diss.], Moscow. (In Russian).
Ziegler P., Gallorini C. (2023) The Case for the Ex-Post Valuation of Damages Under International Investment Law. Journal of World Investment & Trade, vol.24, no.1, pp.115–165.