Search results

… that also reject such claims.114 Even some investment tribunals have found it “not conceivable that a Mexican corporation becomes entitled to the anti-discrimination protections of international law by virtue of the sole fact that a foreigner buys a share of it”, conveying that even in IIL some tribunals resist the notion that loss in value of shares can entitle an investor to access ISDR.115 108 ibid p. 199. 109 ibid p. 201. 110 Kramer v. W. Pac. Indus., Inc., 546 A.2d 348, 351 (1988) (US … SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8, Award (9 April 2015) para. 371. 119 Korzun (n 103) pp. 213-215. 120 CME Czech Republic B.V. (The Netherlands) v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (13 September 2001) para. 620; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Respondent’s Application under Rule 41(5), (20 March 2017) paras. 20– 21. 121 The term “Indirect Shareholder” refers to shareholders who invest in companies that invest in other … 076117090061081024064042097093101113009017023125085038045121110117014126089095 125099015022120113097104101014003070100091087004122090007&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TR UE> accessed 19 April 2022. 45 Sabrina Praduroux, ‘Property and Expropriation: Two Concepts Revisited in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice’ (2019) 8 EPLJ 180. 46 Vistins and Prepjolkin App no 71243/01 (ECtHR, 8 March 2011), para [36]. …