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. 81–97). 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. § 371) STATEMENT OF OFFENSE The United States and Defendant SIEMENS S.A. (ARGENTINA ("SIEMEN) S ARGENTINA") agree that the following facts are true and correct: SIEMENS ARGENTINA AND OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS 1. "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 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 ]]>, 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. 53 and 54, Argentina's Response to the Submission by the United States of America to the ad hoc Annulment Committee. Argentina filed a preliminary objection to jurisdiction, inter alia, objecting to Siemens’ use of the MFN clause in this way. From coal to gas, from transmission to renewables and industrial-scale electrolysis: We are building the energy of tomorrow starting today. ), Decision, award and other documents available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/1026, Corruption, damages, expropriation, interpretation, investor obligations, margin of appreciation, most favoured nation, proportionality, umbrella clause, Request by Argentina for Annulment of Award: 16 July 2007, Request by Argentina for Revision of Award: 9 July 2008, Order Taking Note of Discontinuance: 9 September 2009, Judge Charles N. Brower (claimant appointee), Prof. Domingo Bello Janeiro (respondent appointee), International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, Germany–Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). In accordance with the bidding terms, Siemens A.G. incorporated an Argentine company (SITS) for the purposes of the bid. The latest version of SINAMICS V-ASSISTANT commissioning tool for the device SINAMICS V90 is provided here. 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. ... Miniature circuit breaker 400 V 6kA, 2-pole, C, 10 A Product family: Basic Devices: Argentina selected the SITS bid, taking into consideration Siemens’ credentials and financial soundness. This case is one of the more than forty arbitrations against Argentina related to measures taken during its financial crisis in 2001–2002, although the financial crisis was more peripheral to the facts of this case than it was to most of the others. It claimed that Argentina’s actions amounted to a breach of the umbrella clause, an expropriation of its investment, a violation of its obligations to accord fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security, and were arbitrary and discriminatory. The Tribunal also ordered Argentina to return the US$20 million performance bond provided by SITS under the Contract. [1] L. E. Peterson (2008), “Argentina and Siemens ask annulment committee to suspend proceedings, following request by Argentina for revision of arbitral award in light of recent evidence of alleged bribes paid by German firm Siemens,” Investment Arbitration Reporter, 28 July. About Siemens Energy About Siemens Energy. No. Investment treaty: Argentina-Germany BIT. This case is notable in several respects. "Siemens AG v Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/02/8, (2005) 44 ILM 138, IIC 226 (2004), 3rd August 2004, United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]" published on by Oxford University Press. [1]In December 2008, Siemens A.G. and its Argentine subsidiary, Siemens Argentina S.A., each pleaded guilty to breaches of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 2020 International Institute for Sustainable Development The government gave Siemens a “Contract Restatement Proposal” in the renegotiated terms. 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. These issues are discussed further below. The Tribunal held that the 2000 Emergency Law (under which the decree terminating the contract was issued) was enacted to face the dire fiscal situation of the government and that the decree therefore met the public purpose requirement for expropriation under the BIT. 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 noted that the key difference between compensation under the Draft Articles and Article 4(2) of the BIT (on expropriation) is that under the former, compensation must take into account “all financially assessable damage” or “wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act” as opposed to compensation “equivalent to the value of the expropriated investment” under the BIT. 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. Claimant(s): Siemens A.G. Respondent state: Argentina. In a meeting in December 2000, the President of Argentina promised Siemens to issue the decree approving the Contract Restatement Proposal by the end of the month; however, in March 2001, the Minister of the Interior claimed to have been unaware of the Contract Restatement Proposal. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established. ARB/02/8, Award 6 February 2007 . The immigration control system started to operate in February 2000 but was halted by the government one day later and continued to be interrupted indefinitely. 378–379). ICS v. Argentina (I) 2009. 273, Award).