EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic
ICSID · Investment (ICSID and treaty) · Slovak Republic · 18 Aug 2017
Why it matters
This award is significant for its detailed analysis of corporate restructuring and treaty shopping. It clarifies that a dissolved company cannot validly merge to create a new entity for treaty protection, and that claims arising before a treaty's entry into force are outside jurisdiction even if domestic proceedings continue afterward. The case underscores the importance of continuous nationality and temporal scope of BITs.
Summary
The dispute concerned the Gemerská Poloma talc deposit in Slovakia. EuroGas Inc. (a Utah company incorporated in 2005) and Belmont Resources Inc. (Canadian) claimed that Slovakia expropriated their investment in Rozmin s.r.o., a Slovak mining company, through regulatory actions and court decisions. EuroGas claimed to be the continuation of a 1985 company that had been administratively dissolved in 2001. The Tribunal found that EuroGas lacked standing because the 1985 company was dissolved before any alleged merger, and the 2005 company could not inherit treaty rights. For Belmont, the Tribunal held that its claims under the Canada-Slovakia BIT (effective 2012) were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction ratione temporis because the alleged expropriation occurred before 2012, and subsequent domestic court decisions did not create new breaches. The Tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
The detail
Parties: EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic
Case number: ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14
Outcome: The Tribunal declined jurisdiction over both Claimants. Each party bears its own costs; arbitration costs apportioned as borne during proceedings.
Applicable law: US-Slovakia BIT (1992), Canada-Slovakia BIT (2012), ICSID Convention
Issues in play: The case involved issues of corporate succession and standing under investment treaties, specifically whether EuroGas could claim as a continuation of a dissolved predecessor, and whether Belmont's claims were time-barred under the Canada-Slovakia BIT's ratione temporis provision.
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.