Adem Dogan v. Turkmenistan
ICSID · Investment (ICSID and treaty) · Turkmenistan · 15 Jan 2016
Why it matters
This decision reaffirms the limited scope of ICSID annulment, emphasizing that annulment is not an appeal and that tribunals have broad discretion in evaluating evidence and applying law. It clarifies that an ad hoc committee cannot substitute its own views for those of the tribunal absent a clear excess of powers, serious procedural breach, or failure to state reasons. The case is often cited for the principle that annulment safeguards the integrity, not the outcome, of proceedings.
Summary
The case arises from an investment dispute under the Germany-Turkmenistan BIT. The original Tribunal found Turkmenistan liable for expropriation and violation of fair and equitable treatment, awarding damages. Turkmenistan sought annulment under ICSID Convention Article 52(1)(b), (d), and (e), arguing that the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers by deciding ex aequo et bono, seriously departed from procedural rules, and failed to state reasons. The ad hoc Committee rejected all grounds. It held that the Tribunal applied the proper law (the BIT and international law) and did not act ex aequo et bono. The Committee found no serious procedural departure, noting that the Tribunal considered all evidence and arguments. It also found that the Award stated sufficient reasons, allowing the reader to follow the reasoning from evidence to conclusions. The Committee emphasized that annulment is not an appeal and that errors of fact or law do not justify annulment. The decision upheld the Award and ordered Turkmenistan to pay costs.
The detail
Parties: Adem Dogan v. Turkmenistan
Case number: ICSID Case No. ARB/09/9
Outcome: The ad hoc Committee dismissed Turkmenistan's application for annulment of the Award in its entirety, ordered Turkmenistan to bear all ICSID costs and reimburse Claimant's legal costs, and terminated the stay of enforcement.
Applicable law: ICSID Convention (Article 52); Germany-Turkmenistan BIT (entered into force 19 February 2001); ICSID Arbitration Rules
Issues in play: The case involved the standard for annulment under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, specifically whether the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers, seriously departed from a fundamental rule of procedure, or failed to state reasons. The Committee applied the principle that annulment is a limited remedy, not an appeal, and that the grounds are exhaustive.
Read the full decision at italaw ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.