Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Anor [2024] EWHC 2102 (Comm) (09 August 2024)

Czech Republic v Diag Human SE & Anor [2024] EWHC 2102 (Comm) (09 August 2024)

The court held that the arbitral tribunal had substantive jurisdiction under s.67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 because the assets and activities relied upon by the claimants, including contractual rights, know-how, and goodwill, constituted a protected investment under the BIT when interpreted in accordance with the Vienna Convention. The court found that the BIT's definition of investment was broad and not limited to the Salini criteria, and that the claimants qualified as protected investors. The Czech Republic's challenges to the tribunal's jurisdiction and the existence of an investment failed on the merits. The application to amend to advance issue estoppel was addressed but did not...

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2102 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: The Czech Republic; Defendant/respondent: Diag Human SE; Defendant/respondent: Mr Josef Stava
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Challenge to Arbitral Award Under Arbitration Act 1996 (ss.67 and 68) / Final Judgment on Surviving Jurisdictional and Procedural Challenges
Outcome
All surviving challenges by the Czech Republic dismissed; award upheld.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Challenge Under S.67 Arbitration Act 1996, Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996, Interpretation of Bilateral Investment Treaty (bit), Definition of Investment Under BIT, Issue Estoppel, Treaty Interpretation Under Vienna Convention
Arbitration International Investment Law Commercial Law Jurisdictional Challenge Under S.67 Arbitration Act 1996 Serious Irregularity Under S.68 Arbitration Act 1996 Interpretation of Bilateral Investment Treaty (bit) Definition of Investment Under BIT Issue Estoppel +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Czech Republic

Claimant/applicant

Diag Human SE

Defendant/respondent

Mr Josef Stava

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Challenge to Arbitral Award Under Arbitration Act 1996 (ss.67 and 68) / Final Judgment on Surviving Jurisdictional and Procedural Challenges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal had substantive jurisdiction under s.67 Arbitration Act 1996 to make the award under the BIT
  2. 2 Whether the assets and activities relied upon constituted a protected investment under the BIT
  3. 3 Whether Diag Human SE and Mr Stava qualified as protected investors under the BIT

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitral tribunal had substantive jurisdiction under s.67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 because the assets and activities relied upon by the claimants, including contractual rights, know-how, and goodwill, constituted a protected investment under the BIT when interpreted in accordance with the Vienna Convention. The court found that the BIT's definition of investment was broad and not limited to the Salini criteria, and that the claimants qualified as protected investors. The Czech Republic's challenges to the tribunal's jurisdiction and the existence of an investment failed on the merits. The application to amend to advance issue estoppel was addressed but did not...

Court Disposition

All surviving challenges by the Czech Republic dismissed; award upheld.

Orders

  • Application under s.67 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed
  • Application under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 dismissed