Siemens v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. From coal to gas, from transmission to renewables and industrial-scale electrolysis: We are building the energy of tomorrow starting today. These issues are discussed further below. In late February 2000, Argentina suspended production and distribution of all new national identity cards because a system error had resulted in the left thumbprint being printed where the right thumbprint should have been. "Siemens AG v Argentina, Award and Separate Opinion, ICSID Case No ARB/02/8, IIC 227 (2007), 6th February 2007, United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]" published on by Oxford University Press. Argentina - Germany BIT (1991) Nationality of the parties. In its award dated 17 January 2007, the Tribunal held that Argentina had breached its obligations under the Germany–Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) by expropriating Siemens’ investment, failing to accord fair and equitable treatment to the investment, failing to provide full protection and legal security for the investment, and taking arbitrary measures with respect to the … ... Miniature circuit breaker 400 V 6kA, 2-pole, C, 10 A Product family: Basic Devices: ga('create', 'UA-68964108-1', 'auto'); Please enable it to continue. This case is notable in several respects. From V-ASSISTANT software version V1.05, the supported language packages shall be installed independently. (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website on October 18, 2018. Under customary international law, Siemens would be entitled not only to the value of its enterprise as of 18 May 2001 (the date of expropriation) but also to any greater value that enterprise gained up to the date of the award, plus any consequential damages to wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act. Applicable investment treaty: Argentina – Germany BIT (1991) Arbitrators. Language packages. Argentina argued that, when a state expropriates for social or economic reasons, fair market value should not apply because this would limit the sovereignty of countries, in particular poor countries, to introduce reforms. Siemens A.G. v The Argentine Republic. (i[r].q=i[r].q||).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), ICS v. Argentina (I) ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited v. The Argentine Republic (I) (PCA Case No. 348–357). The Tribunal concurred with the Maffezini Tribunal that an MFN clause may not override public policy considerations judged by the BIT’s parties as essential, but held that the public policy considerations adduced by Argentina were not applicable (paras. Siemens AG saw its annual revenue in 2020 decrease by over two percent, with its annual revenue surpassing 57 billion euros in the 2020 fiscal year.  Article 36, “Compensation,” is based on the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Factory at Chorzów case, which held: The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act—a principle which seems to be established by international practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral tribunals—is reparation must, so far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed. The Tribunal held, however, that there was no evidence of a public purpose in the measures taken prior to the issuance of the decree (e.g., the permanent suspension of printing identity cards, and the forced contract changes). TheSiemens Tribunal noted that the MFN clause at issue in Maffezini v. Spain referred to “all matters subject to this Agreement,” while the MFN clause in the BIT applicable to the Siemens dispute (the Germany–Argentina BIT) referred only to “treatment.” The Siemens Tribunal concurred with the Maffezini Tribunal’s finding that the formulation used in the Germany–Argentina BIT was a narrower formulation of the MFN obligation, but held that the term “treatment” and the phrase “activities related to the investments” were still sufficiently wide to include dispute settlement. The Tribunal thus dismissed Argentina’s preliminary objections to jurisdiction. Argentina asserted that if this evidence had gone before the Tribunal in the arbitration proceeding, it might have rendered Siemens’ investments unlawful and ineligible for protection under the BIT. In March 2000, the government set up a special commission under the Ministry of the Interior (“the Commission”) to review the Contract. During the arbitration proceeding, Argentina had attempted to introduce evidence regarding the alleged corruption of Siemens, but the Tribunal refused on the basis that Argentina was raising the allegations too late. ARB/02/8, Award 6 February 2007 . The government gave Siemens a “Contract Restatement Proposal” in the renegotiated terms. About Us. ]]>, Legal opinion of Prof. Schreuer (not public), See case mapped in Subject Navigator on Investor-State LawGuide, See discussion and analysis of the case on IAReporter, Separate Opinion From Professor Domingo Bello Janeiro, Arbitrator, Submission by the United States of America to the ad hoc Annulment Committee regarding Arts. SITS was later informed that the new proposal was not negotiable. Tecnología de punta, tanto en imágenes como en laboratorio, priorizo la … United States V. Siemens S.A. (Argentina) Court Docket Number: 08-CR-368-RJL Related Enforcement Actions This case was filed on December 12, 2008, in the District of Columbia.  L. E. Peterson (2008), “Siemens, and its Argentine subsidiary, plead guilty to certain breaches of Foreign Corrupt-Practices Act (FCPA) in deal that brings U.S. bribery investigation to a close,” Investment Arbitration Reporter, 17 December. ), © v. SIEMENS S.A. (ARGENTINA), Defendant Cr.  The Tribunal referred to the much-cited case of Maffezini v. Spain, where the investor was likewise allowed to use an MFN clause to access a more favourable dispute settlement clause in another Spanish BIT. ga('send', 'pageview'); ISSN 2519-8823 (French ed.) The Tribunal held that the BIT itself only provided for compensation with respect to expropriation and that the measure of compensation for the other breaches identified by the Tribunal therefore was to be determined in accordance with customary international law. The English and Chinese are integrated in the V-ASSISTANT installation package. The latest version of SINAMICS V-ASSISTANT commissioning tool for the device SINAMICS V90 is provided here. Important from the host state perspective, the award in Siemens v. Argentina clarified that not every breach of a contract is capable of being considered a potential expropriation, but rather only those interferences made through the use of the host state’s “superior governmental power.” Finally, although the award itself did not address investor corruption, the events in its aftermath support the growing view that investors should not be entitled to protection under a BIT when they have themselves acted unlawfully with respect to their investment. In accordance with the bidding terms, Siemens A.G. incorporated an Argentine company (SITS) for the purposes of the bid. The Tribunal also ordered Argentina to return the US$20 million performance bond provided by SITS under the Contract. 103–109, Decision on Jurisdiction). Read more here. German engineering group Siemens plans to help create projects worth up to 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) in Argentina after agreeing to intensify cooperation with Buenos Aires, it said on Thursday. The Tribunal rejected Siemens’ claim for US$124.5 million in lost profits (paras. As to whether the expropriation was in accordance with Article 4(2) of the BIT, the Tribunal noted that this required the expropriation be for a public purpose and compensated. Claimant(s): Siemens A.G. Respondent state: Argentina. ... Home Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established. Two weeks later, the Contract was terminated by decree under the terms of the 2000 Emergency Law. The Tribunal also ordered Argentina to return the US$20 million performance 303 2 Jun 2008. Argentina Looking Back: In Siemens v. Argentina, arbitrators used MFN to bypass local litigation requirement and found an expropriation of contractual rights, but ultimately saw their award abandoned as part of Siemens’ settlement of bribery scandal Feb 3, 2020 Timeline of the dispute. Applicable arbitration rules: ICSID. Argentina - United Kingdom BIT (1990) Nationality of the parties. According to Argentina, this requirement is "nothing but a moderated form of the exhaustion of local remedies rule," 72 and the exhaustion of local remedies cannot be tacitly waived by operation of the the MFN clause. Argentina further relied on Tecmed v. Mexico to support its view of the need to consider the purpose and proportionality of the measures taken by the host state. The Tribunal, in fact, held that the term “treatment” was so general that its application could not be limited except as specifically agreed upon by the parties. Under the Contract, SITS would receive compensation only during the operation stage. For these reasons, the expropriation was unlawful (para. The Tribunal ordered Argentina to pay Siemens compensation of approximately US$208 million for its investment, a further US$9 million for consequential damages and US$220,000 for unpaid bills for services by SITS to the government. The Tribunal ordered Argentina to pay Siemens compensation of approximately US$208 million for its 130 Siemens A.G. v. Republic of Argentina investment, a further US$9 million for consequential damages and US$220,000 for unpaid bills for services by SITS to the government. In July 2007, Argentina filed an application for annulment with ICSID. Professor Domingo Bello Janeiro. Applicable legal instruments: Argentina-Germany BIT.