In its September 25, 2008 decision in Czech Republic v. Pren Nreka, the Paris Court of Appeal held notably that in ad hoc arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), the notion of “investment” must be interpreted in accordance with the terms of the BIT and is not subject to objective criteria or tests external to the BIT, while giving an extremely broad reading to language in a BIT defining an “investment” as “any kind of asset invested in connection with economic activities.” As discussed in the commentary below, this should revive the debate as to whether, in investment arbitration, a common and unified definition of the notion of “investment” should be applicable worldwide and before any arbitral tribunal.
Journal of International Arbitration