Investment Treaty Arbitration

Last verified on Saturday 17th September 2022

Investment Treaty Arbitration: Italy


Overview of investment treaty programme

1. What are the key features of the investment treaties to which this country is a party?

Italy

 

BIT

Substantive protections

Procedural rights

BIT Contracting Party or MIT

Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET)

Expropriation

Protection and Security

Most-favoured-nation (MFN)

Umbrella clause

Cooling-off period

 

Local courts

Arbitration

Albania

(29 January 1996)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Algeria

(26 November 1993) (Terminated)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Angola

(21 May 2007)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Argentina

(14 October 1993)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

18 months

Yes

Yes

Armenia

(13 January 2003)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Azerbaijan

(4 February 2000) (Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Bahrain

(28 June 2009)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Bangladesh

(20 September 1994)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Barbados

(21 July 1997)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

3 months

Yes

Yes

Belarus

(12 August 1997) (Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Belize

(Signed on 23 November 2005)

(Not in force)

Text not available

Bolivia, Plurinational State of

(22 February 1992) (Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(10 February 2005)(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Brazil

(Signed on 3 April 1995)

(Not in force)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Bulgaria

(27 December 1990)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Cameroon

(1 April 2004)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Cape Verde

(Signed on 12 June 1997)

(Not in force)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Chad

(11 June 1969)

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Chile

(8 February 1995)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

China

(28 August 1987)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Congo

(10 January 2003)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Congo, Democratic Republic of the

(Signed on 13 September 2006)

(Not in force)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Côte d'Ivoire

(Signed on 23 July 1969)

(Not in force)

Text not available

Croatia

(12 June 1998)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Cuba

(23 August 1995)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Czech Republic

(1 November 1997)(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Dominican Republic

(25 November 2009)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Ecuador

(1 February 2005)(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Egypt

(1 May 1994)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Eritrea

(14 July 2003)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Estonia

(9 May 2000)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Ethiopia

(8 May 1997

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Gabon

(7 July 2006)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Georgia

(26 July 1999)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Ghana

(Signed on 25 June 1998)

(Not in force)

Text not available

Guatemala

(3 March 2008)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Guinea

(20 February 1964)

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Hong Kong

(2 February 1998)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Hungary (6 September 1989) (Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

India

(26 March 1998)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Indonesia

(25 June 1995)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Iran, Islamic Republic of

(8 August 2003)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Jamaica

(9 November 1995)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

3 months

Yes

Yes

Jordan

(17 January 2000)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Kazakhstan

(12 July 1996)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Kenya

(4 August 1999)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Korea, Dem. People's Rep. of

(Signed on 27 September 2000) (Not in force)

Text not available

Korea, Republic of

(26 June 1992)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Kuwait

(21 May 1990)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Latvia

(2 March 1999) (Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Lebanon

(9 February 2000)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Libya

(20 October 2004)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Lithuania

(15 April 1997) (terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Macedonia, North

(28 May 1999) (terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Malawi

(21 March 2012)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Malaysia

(25 October 1990)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Malta

(15 October 1973) (Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Mauritania

(9 December 2009)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Mexico

(5 December 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Moldova, Republic of

(26 August 2001)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Mongolia

(1 September 1995)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Morocco

(07 April 2000)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Mozambique

(17 November 2003)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Namibia

(30 May 2006)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Nicaragua

(22 May 2006) (Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Nigeria

(22 August 2005)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Oman

(23 January 1997)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Pakistan

(22 June 2001)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Panama

(12 October 2010)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Paraguay

(30 June 2013)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Peru

(18 October 1995)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Philippines

(4 November 1993)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Poland

(9 January 1993)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

3 months

Yes

Yes

Qatar

(1 August 2004)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Romania

(14 March 1995)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Russian Federation

(7 July 1997)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Saudi Arabia

(22 May 1998)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Senegal

(16 December 2008)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Serbia

(Signed 11 December 2000)

(Not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Slovakia

(22 November 2000)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Slovenia

(11 August 2003)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

South Africa

(16 March 1999)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Sri Lanka

(20 March 1990)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Sudan

(Signed on 19 November 2005)

(Not in force)

Text not available

Syrian Arab Republic

(13 November 2003)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Tanzania, United Republic of

(25 April 2003)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Tunisia

(24 June 1989)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Turkey

(2 March 2004)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Turkmenistan

(Signed on 25 November 2009)

(Not in force)

Text not available

Uganda

(24 September 1999)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Ukraine

(12 September 1997)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

United Arab Emirates

(29 April 1997)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Uruguay

(2 March 1998)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Uzbekistan

(14 October 1999)

(Terminated)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of

(Signed on 14 February 2001)

(Not in force)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Vietnam

(6 May 1994)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Yemen

(3 May 2008)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Zambia

(2 December 2014)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Zimbabwe

(Signed on 16 April 1999)

(Not in force)

Text not available

Energy Charter Treaty (Terminated)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

Yes

Yes

Answer contributed by

Qualifying criteria - any unique or distinguishing features?

2. What are the distinguishing features of the definition of “investor” in this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

Issue

Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of “investor”

Qualifying investors

Both the 2003 and 2020 Model BIT provide that a qualifying investor is a natural or legal person investing in the territory of the other contracting party.[1]

Natural persons

The 2003 Model BIT provides that a natural person is defined on the basis of his or her nationality in accordance with the domestic law of the contracting party the natural person claims to be a national of.

The 2020 Model BIT defines an investor of Italy also to include a national of a member state of the European Union or the European Economic Area who, within the context of freedom of establishment under EU law, is established in Italy.

Nine investment treaties (eg, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Chile, Congo, Cuba, Ethiopia, Mongolia, Pakistan and Venezuela BITs) extend their scope to any legal or natural person that effected, is effecting or intending to effect an investment. The Oman BIT applies to any natural or legal person intending to effect an investment in accordance with an investment agreement signed by the parties, while the Albania, Mexico and Russian Federation treaties apply to any legal or natural person entitled in accordance with the legislation to make an investment (in the case of Mexico and the Russian Federation, the legislation of the home state, whereas the reference is to the legislation of the host state in the case of Albania). The Italy–Venezuela BIT defines as investor any legal or natural person that has undertaken an irrevocable obligation to make an investment.

Dual nationals

Italian BITs do not specifically deal with the issue of dual nationals. However, cases of investors involved in investment treaties under Italian BITs have arisen with arbitral tribunals dealing with potential dual nationals and the determination of nationality of natural persons under particular treaties and circumstances.

In Souffraki v United Arab Emirates, Mr Souffraki was a Canadian national and argued that he also held Italian nationality. The tribunal considered the applicable domestic law but relied on the evidence put before it to determine that Mr Souffraki was no longer an Italian citizen because he did not have Italian nationality when he filed the claim and had abandoned his Italian nationality when he moved to Canada.[2] In Siag v Egypt, the tribunal found that the claimants’ continuing residence and operation of business in Egypt were irrelevant as long as they were Italian citizens under Italian law and were not Egyptians under Egyptian law.[3]

Seat of investor/Place of business

The vast majority of Italian BITs adopts the incorporation approach with the requirement of having the seat in the territory of the contracting party.

The Italy–Algeria BIT adopts a more restrictive approach requiring, in addition to incorporation and establishment, that an entity has its principal centre of its economic interests in the territory of the contracting party.

The 2020 Model BIT adopts the incorporation approach but also adds the requirement of engaging in substantive business operations in the territory of the contracting party.

Control by national of a contracting party

Some BITs provide for a broad protection of wider categories of investors, expanding the application of the BIT to any legal person established outside the jurisdiction of a contracting state and in which such state, any of its nationals or any legal person established within its jurisdiction has a predominant interest (see, eg, the Italy–UAE BIT).  Some Italian investment treaties extend the definition of investor to include the subsidiaries and branches owned or controlled in any way by a protected investor (eg, Mauritania and Croatia BITs). In some cases, it is expressly required that such subsidiaries and branches be registered and have their seat or headquarters or registered office in the territory of a contracting party (eg, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova and Panama BITs). The Oman BIT also applies to any juridical person established outside the territory of the contracting party in which such contracting party or one of its nationals (natural or juridical persons) holds a dominant interest.

The 2020 Model BIT widens the scope of protected investors, referring to direct and indirect control (which was not included in the 2003 Model BIT). The 2020 Model BIT further provides a set of factors to determine direct or indirect control, such as the exercise of more than 50% of the voting power at general meetings, directors who in the aggregate exercise more than 50% of the voting power, and anyone entitled to exercise a dominant influence over that juridical person by virtue of constitutional documents.

Residents

In four Italian BITs, the scope of ratione personae includes tests relating to residence. In the Hong–Kong BIT, the term investors includes – with respect to Hong Kong – any physical persons who have the right of abode in its area. In the Korea BIT, the protection is granted to any natural or legal person, which is recognised as a resident by the legislation and regulations in force, who makes investments in the territory of the other contracting party. In the Uruguay and Poland BITs, only those who are citizens and also residents of the other contracting parties respectively are afforded protection under the respective BITs.

The Italy–Argentina BIT does not apply: (i) to those nationals who at the time of the investment have been residents for more than two years in the territory of the other contracting party; and (ii) to those natural persons who for more than two years have had their residence in their country and at the same time their domicile in the territory of the other contracting party.

Government

Both the 2003 and the 2020 Model BIT include among the indicative list of covered entities, in addition to corporations, partnerships, foundations and associations, those that are established according to public law. The Italy–Saudi Arabia BIT recognises as a Saudi investor the government of Saudi Arabia, its financial institutions and other authorities such as the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, public funds and other similar governmental institutions.

 

Answer contributed by

3. What are the distinguishing features of the definition of "investment" in this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

Issue

Distinguishing features in relation to the concept of “investment”

Assets that qualify for protection

Italian BITs generally take a broad approach to the investments protected under the BIT using the expression "every kind of asset”. This was the approach of the 2003 Italian Model BIT. Almost all of Italy’s BITs contain a non-exhaustive list of examples of assets that qualify as investments. The Chad and Uruguay BITs contain exhaustive lists.

The 2020 Model BIT maintains a similar broad approach, but further adds the characteristics of "certain duration, the commitment of capital or other resources, the assumption of risk, or the expectation of gain or profit”. The 2020 Model BIT further provides that alterations of the form in which assets are invested or reinvested do not affect their qualification as investments.

The requirement of compliance of the investment with the host state’s legislation is a feature in many Italian BITs.

Indirect control of assets

The Italy–Hong–Kong BIT expressly includes in the definition of investment assets held or invested directly or indirectly by a protected investor.

The 2020 Model BIT provides that a protected investment is owned or controlled directly or indirectly.

Connected/related activities

Nineteen investment treaties extend their application to all activities connected with an investment (ie, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Croatia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Macedonia, Malawi, Moldova, Paraguay, Peru, Syria, Uganda and Uzbekistan BITs). Almost all of those treaties or the respective protocols contain a non-exhaustive list of such activities, which usually include, inter alia, the organisation, control, operation, maintenance and disposition of companies, agencies offices, the borrowing of funds, the purchase, issuance and sale of equity shares and other securities.

Exclusion of certain assets

The 2020 Model BIT excludes an order or judgment entered in a judicial or administrative action or an arbitral award from the definition of protected investment. It further provides that the term "claims to money” does not include claims to money that arise solely from commercial transactions for the sale of goods or services by a natural person or an enterprise in the territory of a party to a natural person or an enterprise in the territory of the other party, or the extension of credit in relation to such transactions.

Commencement of treaty protection

In line with the 2003 Model BIT, the 2020 Model BIT provides that a covered investment is an investment made before or after the date of entry into force of the BIT. Among other BITs, the BITs with Egypt, Jordan, Nicaragua, Panama and South Africa follow this approach.

The Italy–Pakistan BIT provides that a covered investment is one made after 1 September 1954. The Croatia–Italy BIT provides that investments made before 30 May 1990 are protected if they are existing and operative.

The Italy–Argentina BIT applies to investments made before the entry into force of the BIT, but it does not cover disputes already commenced or resolved before/claims pending before the entry into force of the BIT (a similar provision is also set out in the BITs concluded with Bosnia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico and Paraguay).

Admission/approval of an investment

The Indonesia–Italy BIT only applies to:

  • Italian investments that are approved in the Indonesian territory in accordance with Law No. 1/1967 concerning foreign investments; and
  • Indonesian investments that have been recognised by the Italian authorities to be in conformity with the Italian laws.

Italian investments made (i) before the entry in force of Law No. 1/1967; (ii) after the entry in force of such law but before the entry in force of the BIT; and (iii) not yet officially recognised, can be covered by the treaty protection only after their admission by the host state in conformity with the Law No. 1/1967.

The Protocol of the Italy–Philippines BIT provides that the treaty shall apply, with respect to the Republic of the Philippines, to investments, which are qualified for registration and duly registered with the Central Bank of the Republic of the Philippines and other appropriate government agencies.

The Italy–Iran BIT requires, with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the prior approval by the Organisation for Investment Economic and Technical Assistance of Iran for any investment, reinvestment and their modification.

The 2020 Model BIT covers only post-establishment protection and does not cover the pre-establishment phase or matters of market access.

Answer contributed by

Substantive protections - any unique or distinguishing features?

4. What are the distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

Issue

Distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard

FET standard

Almost all Italian investment treaties provide that each contracting party shall ensure fair and equitable treatment to investments of the investors of the other contracting party. In some treaties, reference is made to "just and fair treatment" (eg, Bosnia and Uzbekistan BITs) or to "equitable" and "reasonable" treatment (eg, China, Korea and Tunisia BITs). In some cases, this obligation covers also the investment’s returns (eg, Hong Kong and Philippines BITs).

The 2020 Model BIT introduces important updates compared with earlier formulations of the FET standard. Article 4(2) sets out a list of measures that amount to a breach of the FET, including: (i) denial of justice; (ii) fundamental breach of due process; (iii) manifest arbitrariness; (iv) targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds; or (v) abusive treatment. Article 4(3) provides that, when applying the FET standard, a tribunal shall take into account whether a contracting party made a "specific representation to an investor to induce a covered investment that created a legitimate expectation, upon which the investor relied” upon. Article 6 notes a state’s right to regulate.

International law

Only two investment treaties (ie, Bahrain and Qatar BITs) expressly link the obligation on the contracting parties to ensure fair and equitable treatment with the principles of international law.

Answer contributed by

5. What are the distinguishing features of the protection against expropriation standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “expropriation” standard

Scope of expropriation standard

The 2003 Model BIT adopts a broad notion of what constitutes an expropriation, referring to "measures having an equivalent effect" to nationalisation "de jure and de facto”. The 2003 Model BIT and, in general, Italian BITs set out the requirements of a lawful expropriation as follows: (i) done for a public purpose or national interest; (ii) in exchange for immediate, full and effective compensation; and (iii) on condition that the measures are taken on a non-discriminatory basis and in conformity with all legal provisions and procedures.

The 2020 Model BIT follows the same approach and has added a specific Annex II dealing with expropriation, including specifically the protection against both direct and indirect expropriation. Annex II provides that the determination of whether a measure or a series of measures constitutes an indirect expropriation "requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry”.

Carve outs

Annex II to the 2020 Model BIT provides for scenarios, "except in the rare circumstance when the impact of a measure or series of measures is so severe in light of its purpose that it appears manifestly excessive”, where non-discriminatory measures do not amount to indirect expropriation, namely when designed and applied to protect legitimate objective, such as "public health, social services, public education, safety, environment including climate change, public morals, social or consumer protection, privacy and data protection, or the promotion and protection of cultural diversity”.

The 2020 Model BIT further states that the provision regarding expropriation does not apply to the "issuance of compulsory licences granted in relation to [IP] rights to the extent that such issuance is consistent with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of [IP] in Annex 1C to the WTO Agreements”.

Compensation

Most of the BITs provide that, in THE case of disagreement between the parties on the amount of compensation due to the expropriated investors, each party may have recourse to the dispute settlement mechanism provided in the investment treaty (eg, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Macedonia, Oman, Peru, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka and Uruguay BITs).

Interest rate

The 2003 Model BIT provides that interest shall be calculated on the basis of EURIBOR standards from the date of nationalisation or expropriation to the date of the payment. The Italy–Dominican Republic BIT follows this approach. Among others, the Bangladesh, Bolivia, Guatemala, Malawi and Panama BITs provide for interest calculated on a six-month LIBOR basis.

The 2020 Model BIT provides that the compensation shall include interest at "a normal commercial rate from the date of expropriation until the date of payment".

Right to repurchase

The 2003 Model BIT and several BITs post 1995 envisage the possibility for the owner of the expropriated investment to repurchase its investment if, after the expropriation, the expropriated investment "does not serve the anticipated purpose, wholly or partially".

Answer contributed by

6. What are the distinguishing features of the national treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “national treatment” and/or “most favoured nation” standard

Scope of MFN treatment and carve-outs

Italian BITs contain an MFN clause and expressly state that the provision of MFN and/or national treatment does not apply to the benefits of membership of a customs union, monetary union or free trade area, nor to taxation agreements or taxation legislation.

The 2020 Model BIT provides that the MFN clause cannot be construed to prevent a contracting party from adopting or enforcing measures necessary to (i) protect public morals or public order; (ii) protect human, animal or plant life or health; or (iii) ensure compliance with laws or regulations in certain areas, such as privacy and safety.

Scope of national treatment and carve-outs

The majority of Italian BITs provide a national treatment standard, formulated together with the most favoured nation treatment.

The limitation to the MFN clause in the 2020 Model BIT also applies to national treatment.

Answer contributed by

7. What are the distinguishing features of the obligation to provide protection and security to qualifying investments in this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

 

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “protection and security” standard

Scope

The 2003 Model BIT and several of Italy's BITs do not contain a protection and security guarantee. There is a limited number of Italian BITs containing a protection and security guarantee, including, among others, the BITs concluded with Algeria, Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tanzania and Tunisia. Among these BITs, the formulation varies, including the terms "full protection and security", "adequate protection" and "legal protection”.

In the Italy–UAE BIT, the obligation to provide full protection and security should be consistent with that required under international law. In the Italy–Libya BIT, the protection and security granted should be in accordance with the national legislation, as far as this is compatible with the investment treaty and international law.

In the Italy–Tanzania BIT, investors shall enjoy protection and security as accorded to the residents in each contracting party.

Article 4(4) of the 2020 Model BIT specifies that full protection and security refers to the obligation to ensure the "physical security of investors and covered investments”.

Answer contributed by

8. What are the distinguishing features of the umbrella clauses contained within this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

Issue

Distinguishing features of any “umbrella clause”

Scope

Three Italian BITs (ie, Congo, Hong Kong and Tanzania BITs) contain a clause that provides that "each Contracting Party shall observe any obligation it may have entered into with regard to investments of nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party” (the wording of the clause varies slightly among the three BITs).

Other Italian BITs (ie, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Congo, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Uganda, Ukraine, Yemen and Zambia BITs) contain a provision that derives from the 2003 Model BIT, which states that each contracting party shall: "create and maintain in its territory favourable economic and legal conditions in order to permit investments of investors of the other Contracting Party in accordance with its legislation, including the compliance, and good faith, of all undertakings assumed with regard to each specific investor”.

The 2020 Model BIT expressly provides that: “where a Party has entered into any written commitment with investors of the other Party or with their covered investments, that Party shall not breach the said commitment through the exercise of governmental authority.”

Answer contributed by

9. What are the other most important substantive rights provided to qualifying investors in this country?

Italy

Issue

Other substantive protections

Armed conflict/civil unrest

Most of the Italian BITs contain provisions that require the host state to compensate investors of the other contracting party in certain circumstances in the case of armed conflict or civil unrest.

The 2020 Model BIT provides that investors who suffer losses shall be accorded prompt, adequate and effective restitution or compensation by the other party, if these losses result from: "(i) requisitioning of their covered investment or a part thereof by the latter’s armed forces or authorities; or (ii) destruction of their covered investment or a part thereof by the latter’s armed forces or authorities, which was not required by the necessity of the situation".

Free transfer of payment

Most of the Italian BITs guarantee investors of contracting parties the possibility to freely transfer investments, investment returns and profits, provided that investors have complied with all fiscal tax obligations.

Under the Argentina, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic Mauritania, Mexico, Nicaragua and Yemen BITs, the host state can suspend the obligation should it suffer serious balance difficulties.

The Italy–Dominican Republic BIT allows a contracting party to disregard this free transfer obligation in case of "bankruptcy, insolvency or protection of the rights of creditors; criminal or administrative violation related to definitive sentences; breach of the agreement obligations with the labour legislation of the Party which the investment is assigned; guarantee for execution of final decisions in the contentious suit”. The 2020 Model BIT contains a provision stating that the free transfer of payment clause "shall not be construed as preventing a Party from applying in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner, and not in a way that would constitute a disguised restriction on trade and investment, its laws and regulations” in relation to certain matters, including, among others, bankruptcy, financial reporting, criminal or penal offences, compliance with orders of judgments, and social security public retirement or compulsory saving schemes.

Transparency

The 2020 Model BIT provides an obligation on the contracting state to make publicly available ”its laws and regulations of general application, as well as international agreements which may affect investors of the other Party and their covered investments in its territory, including any measures aimed at protecting the environment and labour conditions or that may be affecting the protection of the environment or labour conditions”.

Non-impairment

Most of the Italian investment treaties include an obligation not to impair the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of investments (eg, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda BITs).

Answer contributed by

10. Do this country’s investment treaties exclude liability through carve-outs, non-precluded measures clauses, or denial of benefits clauses?

Italy

 

Issue

Other substantive protections

Denial of benefits

None of the Italian BITs contain a denial of benefit clause. The 2020 Model BIT has introduced it whereby a contracting state may deny the benefits under the BIT to ”an investor of the other Party or to a covered investment if the denying Party adopts or maintains measures related to the maintenance of international peace and security, including the protection of human rights, which: (i) prohibits transactions with that investor or covered investment, or (ii) would be violated or circumvented if the benefits of this Agreement where accorded to that investor or covered investment, including where the measures prohibit transactions with a natural or juridical person who owns or controls either of them.”

Prudential carve-out

The 2020 Model BIT has introduced a provision allowing states to adopt measures for prudential reasons, namely, to protect investors, depositors, policyholders or persons to whom a fiduciary duty is owed by a financial service supplier; or to ensure the integrity and stability of a party’s financial system. However, if such measures do not conform with the BIT, they shall not be used as a means of avoiding the party’s commitments or obligations under the Agreement.

Security exception

The 2020 Model BIT has introduced a security exception whereby a state can take measures when necessary for the protection of its essential security interests, which are set out exhaustively, namely: (i) connected to the production of or traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic and transactions in other goods and materials, services and technology, and to economic activities, carried out directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment; (ii) relating to fissionable and fusionable materials or the materials from which they are derived; or  (iii) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations; or (iv) to prevent a party from taking any action in pursuance of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Answer contributed by

Procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties

11. Are there any relevant issues related to procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

Issue

Procedural rights

Cooling-off period

Almost all Italian BITs provide for a cooling off period, generally of six months. The 2020 Model BIT follows this approach. A few BITs require a shorter cooling-off period of three months (eg, Barbados and Jamaica BITs).

Cooling-off and local courts

The Argentina–Italy BIT requires litigation before local courts for 18 months before international arbitration can be commenced.

According to the provisions of the Italy–Uruguay BIT, investors are to submit their dispute to local courts for 18 months before resorting to international arbitration. Investors can have recourse to international arbitration in case local courts render a decision in violation of international law, or in any case of denial of justice.

Under the Italy–Jamaica BIT, in the case of disputes concerning expropriation and nationalisation (but not other disputes), parties are obliged to first submit their claims to local courts for at least 18 months and then they can have access to arbitration.

UNCITRAL/ICSID arbitration/ad hoc arbitration

Almost all the Italian investment treaties offer arbitration for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and host states, giving the parties a choice between ICSID, UNCITRAL or ad hoc arbitration. Only a few treaties do not include the possibility to submit a dispute to ICSID (eg, Eritrea and Oman BITs).

Answer contributed by

12. What is the approach taken in this country’s investment treaties to standing dispute resolution bodies, bilateral or multilateral?

Italy

The 2020 Model BIT incorporates numerous provisions regarding arbitrators’ independence and arbitration proceedings. It does not include the resolution of ISDS disputes through a standing permanent dispute resolution body. The options available to claimant-investors are ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules, arbitration under the ICC, LCIA or SCC arbitration rules, or arbitration under the arbitration rules of the ICSID Convention.

Answer contributed by

13. What is the status of this country’s investment treaties?

Italy

In 2021, Italy published the new Italian Model BIT, which replaces the 2003 Italian Model BIT.[4] Regulation (EU) No. 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 established transitional arrangements for BITs between EU member states and third countries. According to EU Regulation No. 1219/2012, Italy is under an obligation to notify all Italian investment treaties to the EU Commission and, subsequently, to eliminate all inconsistencies of the Italian investment protection regime with EU Law. Pursuant to EU Regulation No. 1219/2012, EU countries, including Italy, can negotiate BITs with third countries, provided that they are in compliance with EU law and the EU Commission authorises individual EU states to enter into negotiations with third countries.

Answer contributed by

Practicalities of commencing an investment treaty claim against this country

14. To which governmental entity should notice of a dispute against this country under an investment treaty be sent? Is there a particular person or office to whom a dispute notice against this country should be addressed?

Italy

Government entity to which claim notices are sent

Notices of dispute are usually addressed to Avvocatura Generale dello Stato (ie, the office of the Attorney General), the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

 

Answer contributed by

15. Which government department or departments manage investment treaty arbitrations on behalf of this country?

Italy

Government department that manages investment treaty arbitrations

Avvocatura Generale dello Stato manages investment treaty arbitrations and formally represents Italy pursuant to article 9 of Law 3 April 1979, No. 3 whereby the Office of the Attorney General represents and defends the State of Italy before, among others, international tribunals. Avvocatura Generale dello Stato collaborates with the Service for Law Affairs, Diplomatic Disputes and Treaties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy with regard to international investment arbitration.

 

Answer contributed by

16. Are internal or external counsel used, or expected to be used, by the state in investment treaty arbitrations? If external counsel are used, does the state normally go through a formal public procurement process when hiring them?

Italy

Internal/external counsel

Italy, through the office of Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, may instruct external counsel in investment treaty arbitrations, following a procurement process.

 

Answer contributed by

Practicalities of enforcing an investment treaty claim against this country

17. Has the country signed and ratified the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965)? Please identify any legislation implementing the Washington Convention.

Italy

Washington Convention implementing legislation

Yes, adopted by Law No. 1093 of 10 May 1970 "Ratification and Execution of the Convention on the Settlement of Disputes on Investments Between States and Nationals of Other States, adopted in Washington on 18 March 1965" (published in the Official Gazette No. 8 of 12 January 1971).

 

Answer contributed by

18. Has the country signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (the New York Convention)? Please identify any legislation implementing the New York Convention.

Italy

New York Convention implementing legislation

Yes, adopted by Law No. 62 of 19 May 1958 "Adhesion to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards, Adopted in New York on 10 June 1958 and its execution" (Published in the Official Gazette No. 46 of 21 February 1968).

Answer contributed by

19. Does the country have legislation governing non-ICSID investment arbitrations seated within its territory?

Italy

Legislation governing non-ICSID arbitrations

TItaly does not have a specific non-ICSID investment arbitration legislation. Articles 806-840 of the Code of Civil Procedure enacted by Royal Decree of 28 October 1940 No. 1443 regulate international arbitrations seated in Italy. In December 2021, the Italian Parliament passed a new bill (Law No. 206 of 26 November 2021) to delegate the government to update the rules on civil proceedings, including the provisions of the code of civil procedure on arbitration. 

Answer contributed by

20. Does the state have a history of voluntary compliance with adverse investment treaty awards; or have additional proceedings been necessary to enforce these against the state?

Italy

Compliance with adverse awards

Italy, as an ICSID State member, recognises an award rendered pursuant to article 54(1) of the Washington Convention. In 2019, Italy lost in two SCC cases, namely CEF Energia BV v Italian Republic and Greentech v Italy. Italy commenced proceedings before the Svea Court of Appeal to try to set aside both awards.[5]

Answer contributed by

21. Describe the national government’s attitude towards investment treaty arbitration

Italy

Attitude of government towards investment treaty arbitration

Italy’s generally favourable attitude towards investment treaty arbitration is reflected in the fact that it has signed more than 90 BITs. On 30 December 2014, Italy notified the government of the Portuguese Republic, the ECT depository pursuant to article 49 ECT, of its decision to withdraw from the ECT. Pursuant to article 47(3) of the ECT, Italy’s withdrawal took effect upon the expiry of one year after the date of notification, in January 2016. The provisions of the Treaty will continue to apply to investments made in Italy before such date for a further 20 years.

Answer contributed by

22. To what extent have local courts been supportive and respectful of investment treaty arbitration, including the enforcement of awards?

Italy

Attitude of local courts towards investment treaty arbitration

Based on publicly available information, to date there have been no investment treaty awards sought to be enforced against Italy in Italian local courts. In cases of investment treaty awards to be enforced in Italy, but not involving Italy as respondent state, Italian courts (in Rome and Milan) have demonstrated an arbitration-friendly approach.[1]



[1] See eg, J Ballantyne, Italian court allows enforcement against Kazakhstan, Global Arbitration Review, 6 March 2019; C de Stefano, Il Primo lodo ICSID riconosciuto in Italia, Rivista dell'Arbitrato 3(2019), p. 540.

Answer contributed by

National legislation protecting inward investments

23. Is there any national legislation that protects inward foreign investment enacted in this country? Describe the content.

Italy

Italy does not have a specific law providing for protection for foreign investments, as some national legislation does enact laws on foreign investment. There are, however, provisions on investment screening (golden power legislation) established by Law Decree No. 21 of 15 March 2012.

Answer contributed by

National legislation protecting outgoing foreign investment

24. Does the country have an investment guarantee scheme or offer political risk insurance that protects local investors when investing abroad? If so, what are the qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and the means by which an investor can invoke the protections?

Italy

Relevant guarantee scheme

Qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and practical considerations

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA Convention)

Under the MIGA Convention, investors are protected against the risks of transfer restriction, expropriation, war and civil disturbance, breach of contract and not complying with financial obligations. Italy ratified the MIGA Convention in 1985.

SACE

SACE (standing for Special Section for the Insurance of Credit for Exports) was created in 1977 and is now part of the Cassa Deposito Prestiti Group. SACE provides Italian companies and their subsidiaries planning to make foreign direct investments with, among others, insurance packages by way of future dividends, revenues from the sale of the investment and interests on shareholder’s loans, as well as access to equity solutions and medium or long-term finance, and insurance against political risk.

 

Answer contributed by

Awards

25. Please provide a list of any available arbitration awards or cases initiated involving this country’s investment treaties.

Italy

Awards

Commenced by Italian investors against foreign states

  • Albaniabeg Ambient Sh.p.k, M. Angelo Novelli and Costruzioni S.r.l. v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/26), Decision of the ad hoc Committee, 6 May 2022
  • Impresa Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A. v Kingdom of Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/14), Order of Discontinuance of the Proceedings, 17 May 2021
  • Albaniabeg Ambient Sh.p.k, M. Angelo Novelli and Costruzioni S.r.l. v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/26), Award, 20 March 2020
  • Consutel Group S.P.A. in liquidazione v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (PCA Case No. 2017-33), Award, 3 February 2020
  • Impresa Grassetto S. p. A., in liquidation v Republic of Slovenia (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/10), Order of Discontinuance, 29 January 2020
  • Sunlodges Ltd and Sunlodges (T) Limited v The United Republic of Tanzania (PCA Case No. 2018-09) Award, 20 December 2019
  • CMC Muratori Cementisti CMC Di Ravenna SOC. Coop., CMC MuratoriCementisti CMC Di Ravenna SOC. Coop. A.R.L. Maputo Branch and CMC Africa Austral, LDA v. Republic of Mozambique (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/23), Award, 24 October 2019
  • Hydro S.r.l. and others v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/28), Award, 24 April 2019
  • Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25), Award, 18 April 2017
  • Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25), Decision on the Rectification of the Award, 13 July 2017
  • Abaclat and others (formerly Giovanna A. Beccara and others) v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5), Consent Award under ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1), 29 December 2016
  • ASA International S.p.A. v Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/23), Order of Discontinuance, 3 August 2016
  • Enel Green Power S.p.A. v Republic of El Salvador (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/18), Award, 14 September 2015
  • Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9), Order of discontinuance of the proceedings, 28 May 2015
  • Giovanni Alemanni and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8), Decision on Jurisdiction and admissibility, 17 November 2014
  • Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17), Decision of the ad hoc Committee, 24 January 2014
  • Burimi SRL and Eagle Games SH.A v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/18), Award, 29 May 2013
  • Luigiterzo Bosca v Republic of Lithuania (PCA Case No. 2011-05), Award, 17 May 2013
  • Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanese Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12), Order of Discontinuance of the ad hoc Committee, 15 February 2013
  • Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9), Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013
  • Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanese Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12), Award, 7 June 2012
  • Cesare Galdabini S.p.A. v Russian Federation (ad hoc, 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), Award, 1 May 2011
  • Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17), Award, 21 June 2011
  • Astaldi S.p.A. v Republic of Honduras (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/32), Decision of the ad hoc Committee, 15 June 2011
  • Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/14), Order of Discontinuance, 27 October 2010
  • Astaldi S.p.A. v Republic of Honduras (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/32), Award, 17 September 2010
  • 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
  • Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and others v Republic of South Africa (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/1), Award, 4 August 2010
  • Saipem S.p.A. v People's Republic of Bangladesh (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7), Award, 30 June 2009
  • Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15), Order of Discontinuance of the ad hoc Committee, 26 June 2010
  • Ares International S.r.l. and MetalGeo S.r.l. v Georgia (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/23), Decision on the Rectification of the Award, 8 July 2008
  • Ares International S.r.l. and MetalGeo S.r.l. v Georgia (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/23), Award, 28 February 2008
  • Saipem S.p.A. v People's Republic of Bangladesh (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7), Award, 30 June 2009
  • Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15), Award, 1 June 2009
  • LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi, S.p.A. v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3), Award, 12 November 2008
  • Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v United Arab Emirates (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7), Decision of the ad hoc Committee, 5 June 2007
  • Alstom Power Italia SpA and Alstom SpA v Republic of Mongolia (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/10), Order of Discontinuance, 13 March 2006
  • Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/13), Award, 31 January 2006
  • Consortium R.F.C.C. v Kingdom of Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6), Decision of the ad hoc Committee, 18 January 2006
  • Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I. - DIPENTA v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/8), 10 January 2005
  • Impregilo S.p.A. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3), Order of Discontinuance, 26 September 2005
  • Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v United Arab Emirates (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7), Award, 7 July 2004
  • Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v Kingdom of Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4), Order of Discontinuance, 4 February 2004
  • Consortium R.F.C.C. v Kingdom of Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6), Award, 22 December 2003
  • Impregilo S.p.A. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/2), Order of Discontinuance, 11 June 2002
  • Astaldi S.p.A. & Columbus Latinoamericana de Construcciones S.A. v Republic of Honduras (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/8), Award, 19 October 2000
  • S.A.R.L. Benvenuti & Bonfant v People's Republic of the Congo (ICSID Case No. ARB/77/2), Award, 8 August 1980
  • AGIP S.p.A. v People's Republic of the Congo (ICSID Case No. ARB/77/1), Award, 20 November 1979
  • Adriano Gardella S.p.A. v Côte d'Ivoire (ICSID Case No. ARB/74/1), Award, 29 August 1977

Commenced by foreign investors against Italy

  • Silver Ridge Power BV v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/37), Award, 26 February 2021
  • Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3), Decision of the Annulment Ad Hoc committee, 13 April 2020
  • Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50), Award, 4 September 2020
  • SunReserve Luxco Holdings SRL v Italy, SCC Case No. 132/2016, Award, 25 March 2020
  • Belenergia S.A. v. Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/40), Award, 6 August 2019
  • CEF Energia BV v Italian Republic, SCC Case No. 2015/158, Award, 16 January 2019
  • Greentech Energy Systems A/S, NovEnergia II Energy & Environment (SCA) SICAR, and NovEnergia II Italian Portfolio SA v. The Italian Republic, SCC Case No. V 2015/09, Award, 23 December 2018
  • Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3), Award, 27 December 2016

State-state arbitration under BITs

  • Final Award, 15 January 2008

Pending proceedings

Commenced by Italian investors against foreign states

  • Enel S.p.A. v Republic of Türkiye (ICSID Case No. ARB/21/61)
  • HeidelbergCement AG and others v Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/21/50)
  • Gesenu S.p.A. v Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/45)
  • Fin.Doc S.r.l. and others v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/35)
  • Campos de Pesé, S.A. v Republic of Panama (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/19)
  • Webuild S.p.A. (formerly Salini Impregilo S.p.A.) v Republic of Panama (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/10)
  • Valeria Italia v Republic of Albania (PCA Case No. 2018-49)
  • Rizzani de Eccher S.p.A., Obrascón Huarte Lain S.A. and Trevi S.p.A. v State of Kuwait (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/8)
  • Webuild S.p.A. (formerly Salini Impregilo S.p.A.) v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/39)
  • Hydro S.r.l. and others v Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/28) (Annulment Committee pending)
  • Commenced by foreign investors against Italy:
  • Encavis and others v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/39)
  • Hamburg Commercial Bank AG v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/3)
  • Veolia Propreté SAS v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/20)
  • Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd, and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14)
  • VC Holding II S.a.r.l. and others v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/39)
  • ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH, ESPF Nr. 2 Austria Beteiligungs GmbH, and InfraClass Energie 5 GmbH & Co. KG v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5)

Answer contributed by

Reading List

26. Please provide a list of any articles or books that discuss this country’s investment treaties.

Italy

Article/book

MC Malaguti, The New Italian Model BIT Between Current and Future Trends, The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law 1(2021) 113-131

P Bertoli, Tutela degli Investimenti Esteri e Rilancio dell'Economia Italiana, Diritto Del Commercio Internazionale 1(2020), pp. 2-29

J Ballantyne, Italian court allows enforcement against Kazakhstan, Global Arbitration Review, 6 March 2019

C de Stefano, Il Primo lodo ICSID riconosciuto in Italia, Rivista dell'Arbitrato 3(2019), p. 540

F Ortino, Italy, Chapter 8, in C Brown (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press 2013), pp. 321–346

[1] A copy of the 2003 Italian Model BIT is available at http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2819 (last accessed 7 July 2022).

[2] Hussein Nauman Soufraki v United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Award, 7 July 2004, ¶ 52.

[3] Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 April 2007, ¶ 198.

[4] A copy of the 2020 Model BIT is available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/6390/download (last accessed 7 July 2022).

[5] CEF Energia BV v Italian Republic, SCC Case No. 2015/158; see also Greentech Energy Systems A/S, NovEnergia II Energy & Environment (SCA) SICAR, and NovEnergia II Italian Portfolio SA v The Italian Republic, SCC Case No. V 2015/095.

Answer contributed by

Unlock unlimited access to all Global Arbitration Review content