The Salini test1 is the leading test employed by arbitral tribunals to define the term “investment” in Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention.
See also Definition of investment, Double-barreled test, Contribution of money or assets, Certain duraiton, Risk and Contribution to the economic development of the host State.
Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention provides that “[t]he jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment”.2 Most ICSID tribunals have held that this provision establishes an independent requirement for their jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention: in particular, the alleged investment must constitute an “investment” under Article 25(1).3 The Convention, however, does not contain a definition of “investment”.
See Schreuer, C.H., Article 25, in Schreuer, C.H. (ed.), The ICSID Convention: A Commentary 71, 2nd ed., 2009.
Salini et al. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, para. 52; Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004, para. 19; Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, para. 50; Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn, Bhd v. Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007, paras. 55, 148; Capital Financial Holdings Luxembourg S.A. v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/18, Award, 22 June 2017, para. 413; Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award, 8 November 2010, para. 314; Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11, Award, 1 December 2010, para. 56.
ICSID tribunals thus generally apply the Salini test, or a modified version thereof, to determine whether an alleged investment constitutes an “investment” under Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention.4 See further Section V below.
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras. 130-138; Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 June 2006, paras. 91-92; Joseph Houben v. Republic of Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7, Award, 12 January 2016, paras. 112-114; Jus Mundi search request "Salini test", ICSID (Tribunal/Court/Institution), Decision (Type of document); (DS)2, S.A., Peter de Sutter and Kristof De Sutter v. Republic of Madagascar II, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/18, Award, 17 April 2020, para. 231; RENERGY S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/18, Award, 6 May 2022, para. 564.
Romak S.A. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, PCA Case No. 2007-07/AA280, Award, 26 November 2009, paras. 188, 207; Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 April 2010, paras. 161-172; Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands, BV v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. V2013/153, Award, 12 July 2016, paras. 683-685; 1. Juvel Ltd. 2. Bithell Holdings Ltd. v. The Republic of Poland, ICC Case No. 19459/MHM, Partial Final Award, 26 February 2019, para. 421.
See also Air Canada v. Venezuela, Award, for a nuanced approach.
Flemingo DutyFree Shop Private Limited v. Republic of Poland, PCA, Award, 12 August 2016, para. 298; Anglia Auto Accessories Ltd. v. Czech Republic, SCC Case No. V2014/181, Final Award, 10 March 2017, para. 150; Clorox Spain S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2015-30, Award, 20 May 2019, para. 819; Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award, 30 July 2009, paras. 40 - 42; Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2010, paras. 129 - 130; Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award, 8 November 2010, paras. 311 – 312; Abaclat and others (formerly Giovanna a Beccara and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011, para. 364; Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2 July 2013, paras. 204-206; Garanti Koza LLP v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20, Award, 19 December 2016, paras. 235-242; Fynerdale Holdings BV v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2018-18, Award, 29 April 2021, para. 541; Air Canada v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/17/1, Award, 13 September 2021, para. 293.
The Salini test, established by the tribunal in Salini v. Morocco, requires that the alleged investment satisfy four criteria to be considered an “investment” under Article 25(1): (1) a contribution; (2) a certain duration; (3) a risk; and (4) a contribution to the economic development of the host State.7
Other tribunals have held that the four criteria should not be applied as independent requirements, but rather as factors to be taken into account in determining whether the alleged investment is an “investment” under Article 25(1).9 See also Definition of investment, Section V.
Note that the Salini tribunal employed slightly different wording.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, paras. 316-318; Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn, Bhd v. Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007, para. 106; Capital Financial Holdings Luxembourg S.A. v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/18, Award, 22 June 2017, paras. 419-420; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/41, Award, 11 October 2019, para. 200; Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, paras. 53-54; Theodoros Adamakopoulos, Ilektra Adamantidou, Vasileios Adamopoulos and others v. Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/49, Decision on Jurisdiction, 7 February 2020, para. 294; Patrick Mitchell v. The Democratic Republic of Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award, 1 November 2006, para. 27; Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. Lebanese Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009, paras. 81, 84; Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Award, 16 November 2012, paras. 256-261; Société Civile Immobilière de Gaëta v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/36, Award, 21 December 2015, paras. 204-215; RENERGY S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/18, Award, 6 May 2022, para. 562.
For example, in Joy Mining v. Egypt, the tribunal modified the criterion of contribution to the economic development of the host State such that the contribution must be “significant”.11 As another example, in Quiborax v. Bolivia, the tribunal removed the criterion that the investment must contribute to the economic development of the host State.12 And as a final example, in Phoenix Action v. Czech Republic, the tribunal added the criteria that the assets must be invested in accordance with the laws of the host State and that the assets must be invested bona fide.13
The Award on jurisdiction rendered in MHS v. Malaysia was subsequently annulled for excess of powers.
Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn, Bhd v. Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007, para. 123; Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, para. 53; Alps Finance and Trade AG v. The Slovak Republic, Award, 5 March 2011, para. 243; Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009, para. 80; Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Decision of the Tribunal on Objection to Jurisdiction, 17 October 2006, para. 77.
Quiborax S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012, paras. 218-227; Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 111; LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi, S.p.A. v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 July 2006, para. 72; Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Award, 8 May 2008, para. 232; Electrabel S.A. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, 30 November 2012, para. 5.43; Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/2, Award, 31 October 2012, para. 295; AHS Niger and Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. v. Republic of Niger, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 13 March 2013, paras. 209-211; KT Asia Investment Group B.V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/8, Award, 17 October 2013, paras. 170-173; Poštová banka, a.s. and Istrokapital SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8, Award, 9 April 2015, para. 360; Bernhard von Pezold and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Award, 28 July 2015, para. 285; Lundin Tunisia B. V. v. Republic of Tunisia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/30, Award (Excerpts), 22 December 2015, paras. 139-140; Vestey Group Ltd v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/4, Award, 15 April 2016, para. 187; Krederi Ltd. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/17, Award, 2 July 2018, para. 237; İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/24, Award, 8 March 2016, para. 290; Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I. - DIPENTA v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/8, Award, 10 January 2005, Part II, para. 13; MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V v. Montenegro, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8, Award, 4 May 2016, paras. 189-190; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Arrest van de Gerechtshof del Haag, 18 February 2020, para. 5.1.9.4; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226, Arrest van de Gerechtshof del Haag, 18 February 2020, para. 5.1.9.4; Veteran Petroleum Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-05/AA228, Arrest van de Gerechtshof del Haag, 18 February 2020, para. 5.1.9.4; Mabco Constructions SA v. Republic of Kosovo, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 October 2020, para. 296; Mabco Constructions SA v. Republic of Kosovo, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 October 2020, Dissenting Opinion by Arbitrator August Reinisch, para. 28; Spółdzielnia Pracy Muszynianka v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2017-08, Award, 7 October 2020, para. 289; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Decision on Jurisdiction Admissibility and Liability, 21 April 2015, para. 114; Manchester Securities Corporation v. Republic of Poland, PCA Case No. 2015-18, Award, 07 December 2018, para. 370.
Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 114; RSM Production Corporation v. Central African Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/2, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 7 December 2010, para. 58; Cortec Mining Kenya Limited, Cortec (Pty) Limited and Stirling Capital Limited v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/29, Final Award, 22 October 2018, paras. 260-261; Bay View Group LLC and The Spalena Company LLC v. Republic of Rwanda, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/21, Award, 30 March 2022, paras. 218, 221, 224-225, 227.
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, para. 130; Compagnie d'Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Transgabonais v. Gabonese Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 December 2005, paras. 27-28; Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 June 2006, para. 91; Saipem S.p.A. v. People's Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures, 21 March 2007, paras. 99, 111; Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 July 2007, para. 116; Sistem Mühendislik Inşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 13 September 2007, para. 94; Noble Energy Inc. and Machala Power Cía. Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Consejo Nacional de Electricidad, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 5 March 2008, para. 128; Millicom International Operations B.V. and Sentel GSM S.A. v. Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/20, Decision on Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, 16 July 2010, para. 80; M. Meerapfel Söhne AG v. Central African Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/10, Excerpts of Award, 12 May 2011, paras. 184, 210; Ulysseas, Inc. v. The Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-19, Final Award, 12 June 2012, para. 251; Karkey Karadeniz Elektrik Uretim A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/1, Award, 22 August 2017, paras. 633-636; Casinos Austria International GmbH and Casinos Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/32, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 June 2018, para. 191; Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, Award, 31 August 2018, para. 6.66; Joseph Houben v. Republic of Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7, Award, 12 January 2016, paras. 111-115; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Final Award, 21 December 2020, para. 706; Strabag SE v. Libya, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/1, Award, 29 June 2020, para. 110; Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB 05/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 October 2006, para. 77; Grupo Francisco Hernando Contreras S.L. v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/2, Award on Jurisdiction, 4 December 2015, paras. 139-140; Hope Services LLC v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/2, Award, 23 December 2021, paras. 158-159.
Castro de Figueiros, R., Chapter 3: The Notion of Investment and Economic Development under the ICSID Convention, in Baltag, C. (ed.), ICSID Convention after 50 years: Unsettled Issues, 2016.
Gaillard, E., Reconnaître ou définir ? Réflexions sur l’évolution de la notion d'investissement dans la jurisprudence du CIRDI, in Le droit international économique à l'aube du XXIe siècle. En Hommage aux professeurs Dominique Carreau et Patrick Juillard, Textes Réunies par Jean-Marc Sorel 18, Pédone. 2009.
Gaillard, E. and Banifatemi, Y., The Long March towards a Jurisprudence Constance on the Notion of Investment, in Kinnear, M. (ed.), Building International Investment Law, The First 50 Years of ICSID, 2015.
Garcia-Bolivar, O.E. and Others, Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration, 2011.
Accédez à la source d'information la plus complète et la plus fiable en arbitrage
DEMANDEZ UN ESSAI GRATUITDéjà enregistré ?