International Arbitration

International Arbitration Information by Aceris Law LLC

  • International Arbitration Resources
  • Search Engine
  • Model Request for Arbitration
  • Model Answer to Request for Arbitration
  • Find International Arbitrators
  • Blog
  • Arbitration Laws
  • Arbitration Lawyers
You are here: Home / Arbitration Rules / New Montenegro UNCITRAL Arbitration

New Montenegro UNCITRAL Arbitration

24/12/2016 by International Arbitration

Montenegro UNCITRAL Arbitration A new Montegro UNCITRAL arbitration has begun. The small Balkan state has had a strong track record since joining ICSID in 2012. We have already reported on two recent ICSID cases against Montenegro, both decided in favour of the state. However, it seems like this is not the end of the road.

Russian oligarch Oleg Depariska, in his personal capacity, filed an UNCITRAL claim against Montenegro in November this year. The reason is the decision of an ICSID tribunal from July this year in a case brought by Central European Aluminium Company (“CEAC”), a subsidiary of Deripaska’s En+Group, where the arbitral tribunal ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case since Claimant had failed to prove that the official “seat” or registered office of CEAC was in Cyprus.

Montenegro UNCITRAL Arbitration Filing just a request for annulment of the respective award was not enough for CEAC and Mr. Depariska. He is now hitting back on two fronts, bringing claims in his personal capacity under the Russia-Yugoslavia 1995 BIT, which binds Montenegro by rules of succession concerning the ex-Yugoslavia.

Mr. Depariska alleges that Montenegro unlawfully expropriated his investments in former State-owned aluminum smelting company KAP and a bauxite mining company named Rudnici Boksita. Claimant further invokes breach of the BIT’s fair and equitable treatment provisions.

Montenegro UNCITRAL Arbitration The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a press statement addressing Deripaska’s claim, stated that CEAC has already lost one ICSID arbitration with respect to essentially the same claims and that the State was determined to prove once again that it was always acting in accordance with a 2010 settlement agreement reached between the parties.

A copy of the recent CEAC award dismissing jurisdiction is available below. It remains to be seen if Montenegro will continue to have a successful track record in defending itself before investment tribunals, but one thing is certain – his new Montengro UNCITRAL arbitration suggests that Mr. Deripaska has no intention of giving up easily.

  • Nina A. Jankovic, Aceris Law SARL

Filed Under: Arbitration Rules, ICSID Arbitration, Montenegro Arbitration, UNCITRAL Arbitration

Search Arbitration Information

Arbitrations Involving International Organisations

Before Commencing Arbitration: Six Critical Questions to Ask

How to Commence an ICDR Arbitration: From Filing to Tribunal Appointment

Behind the Curtain: A Step-by-Step Guide to ICC Arbitration

Cross-Cultural Differences and Impact on Arbitration Procedure

When Arbitrators Use AI: LaPaglia v. Valve and the Boundaries of Adjudication

Arbitration in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Importance of Choosing the Right Arbitrator

Arbitration of Share Purchase Agreement Disputes Under English Law

What Are the Recoverable Costs in ICC Arbitration?

Arbitration in the Caribbean

English Arbitration Act 2025: Key Reforms

Translate


Recommended Links

  • International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR)
  • International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
  • International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
  • London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)
  • SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC)
  • Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
  • United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)
  • Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC)

About Us

The international arbitration information on this website is sponsored by the international arbitration law firm Aceris Law LLC.

© 2012-2025 · IA