Available in Russian
Author: Marina Trunk-Fedorova
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2024-2-63-76
Keywords: international investment arbitration; Eurasian Economic Union; tax measures; jurisdiction ratione temporis
According to the data provided by the UNCTAD, there are currently 1 332 known international investment disputes arising out of international investment agreements. More than 3 000 such agreements have been concluded in the world, and their number continues to grow. The Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which was signed on 29 May 2014 and entered into force on 1 January 2015, also contains provisions regulating promotion and protection of foreign investments. This article is devoted to the first published decision of an arbitral tribunal which heard an investment dispute between an investor from a EAEU Member State (Russia) and a EAEU Member State (Belarus) — OOO Manolium-Processing v. The Republic of Belarus. A special attention is paid, inter alia, to the issue of jurisdictional objection ratione temporis, as the acts of the state that led to the investment arbitration proceedings partly took place before the EAEU Treaty entered into force. Another interesting aspect is the analysis by the tribunal of tax measures imposed by the respondent state on the claimant: although the collection of taxes is deemed to be a right of a state and is usually not thought to be a violation of investor’s rights, in certain cases tax measure can still be considered by an arbitral tribunal from the perspective of an alleged violation of investment law, which was the case in the investment dispute under consideration.
About the author: Marina Trunk-Fedorova – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Department of Administrative and Financial Law, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Citation: Trunk-Fedorova M. (2024) Investitsionnyy spor v ramkakh Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza: delo OOO “Manolium-protsessing” protiv Respubliki Belarus' [Investment dispute within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union: OOO Manolium-Processing v. The Republic of Belarus]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 63–76. (In Russian).
References
Crawford J. (2013) State Responsibility: The General Part, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ispolinov A. (2022) Prekrashchenie mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov: buystvo krasok za ramkami Venskoy konventsii o prave mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov 1969 goda [Termination of international treaties: a riot of colors beyond the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.12, no.3, pp.75–95. (In Russian).
Murphy S.D. (2022) Temporal Issues Relating to BIT Dispute Resolution. ICSID Review, vol.37, no.1–2, pp.51–84.
Nadakavukaren Schefer K. (2016) International Investment Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rachkov I. (2014) Byvshie aktsionery “YUKOSa” protiv Rossii: Kommentariy k arbitrazhnomu resheniyu pod egidoy Postoyannoy Palaty Treteyskogo Suda v Gaage [Former “YUKOS” shareholders v. Russia: A commentary on the arbitral 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).