Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Edited Legal Collections Data

Bimbilovski, Ivan; Spiroska, Elizabeta --- "MACEDONIA" [2019] ELECD 2745; in Nagy, Csongor (ed), "Investment Arbitration in Central and Eastern Europe" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019) 261

Book Title: Investment Arbitration in Central and Eastern Europe

Editor(s): Nagy, Csongor

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

Section: Chapter 9

Section Title: MACEDONIA

Author(s): Bimbilovski, Ivan; Spiroska, Elizabeta

Number of pages: 22

Abstract/Description:

The national chapter on Lithuania reviews the context in which investor-state arbitration functions, discusses BITs and FTAs, their common clauses, Lithuanian investor-state arbitration practice and domestic status of ISA. Firstly, the analysis shows that the provisions of Lithuanian BITs are quite basic and comparable to other European states. The ‘Dutch gold standard’ model BIT forms a basis for the majority of Lithuania’s BITs. National laws also protect foreign investments, however, up to date there are no precedents when foreign investors themselves brought claims for violation of the BITs against the Lithuania in national courts. Secondly, authors provide a comprehensive discussion of the relevant and most important case-law. The L. Bosca v Lithuania case is analysed in detail as it is the only case to date where the Republic of Lithuania was found to be in breach of investor’s rights and where the recognition and enforcement of investor-state award has followed in Lithuanian courts. Among other important disputes discussed in the chapter are: the Kaliningrad v Republic of Lithuania arbitration, initiated under the Russia-Lithuania BIT and conducted under ICC rules; Parkerings v Lithuania, the dispute between Norwegian corporation and Vilnius City Municipality regarding the violation of the most-favoured nation treatment under the Lithuania – Norway BIT; Gazprom v Lithuania, including the withdrawn claim by Gazprom with the UNICITRAL arbitration, claim filled with ICC arbitration in Paris and Lithuanian Government’s EUR 1,4 billion claim at in SCC arbitration; the ongoing Veolia v Lithuania dispute under the auspices of ICSID; and investment arbitration attempts of Russian national in Antonov v Lithuania. The research shows that Lithuania is still a rare respondent in investor-state disputes. Furthermore, FDI related investment litigation under domestic law and national jurisprudence in the field is scarce. However, most Lithuanian ISA cases were directly linked or initiated in the context of other litigations at national courts or as a consequence of that. Examples of L. Bosca v Lithuania, Gazprom v Lithuania and Veolia v Lithuania clearly show that issues faced by investors are of more complex nature than a regular business dispute. Thus, concluding from the Lithuanian experience, neutral forum of arbitration is seen as a more effective in FDI related dispute resolution compared to the remedies under domestic law.