What is Locus Standi?

Locus Standi is a platform for the dispute-resolution world. It brings together arbitration, mediation and adjudication events, jobs and internships, and landmark arbitral awards explained in plain English, alongside the qualifications and pathways into the field. It was established in London at LIDW26 by the alumni of Queen Mary University of London.

Can Locus Standi help me understand a dispute?

Yes. Locus Standi offers free dispute help: paste your contract's dispute-resolution clause and a short note on what happened, and it works out the type of dispute, the governing law, your options, the right forum to file in, and drafts a basic document to start from, all in plain English.

What is the agentic AI case officer?

Locus Standi's workspace includes an AI case officer that helps practitioners run their matters: tracking stages and deadlines, raising alerts, organising to-dos and documents, and drafting. It is built for arbitrators, mediators and the institutions that administer disputes.

Where can I find arbitration events and internships?

Locus Standi keeps a live calendar of arbitration, mediation and adjudication events with one-tap calendar export, and a board of arbitration jobs and internships from institutions including the PCA, ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and AIAC.

Horthel Systems BV, Poland Gaming Holding BV and Tesa Beheer BV v. Poland (PCA)

Why it matters

This case clarifies the standard for fair and equitable treatment in the context of regulatory changes in the gambling sector. The tribunal held that Poland's abrupt and discriminatory measures, including excessive taxes and permit non-renewal, violated the BIT. It also addressed indirect shareholding jurisdiction and the use of WIBOR interest rate. The award is a rare example of a successful investor claim against a EU member state's gambling regulation.

Summary

Three Dutch companies (Horthel Systems, Tesa Beheer, Poland Gaming Holding) invested in Poland's low-stake slot machine market through Polish subsidiaries. After the 2003 amendment to the Gambling Act, they obtained permits and operated legally. In 2009, a lobbying scandal led to a new 2010 Gambling Act that drastically increased taxes, banned slot machines outside casinos, and refused permit renewals. The investors claimed this expropriated their investments and violated fair and equitable treatment under the Netherlands-Poland BIT. Poland argued it was a legitimate regulatory measure. The tribunal dismissed Poland's jurisdictional objections, finding that indirect shareholding was protected. On liability, it rejected expropriation but found a breach of fair and equitable treatment because Poland's measures were disproportionate, discriminatory, and violated the investors' legitimate expectations. The tribunal awarded damages based on lost cash flows from 2010-2015, calculated using the discounted cash flow method, with interest at 6-month WIBOR compounded semi-annually. Costs were split per the BIT's default rule.

The detail

Parties: Horthel Systems BV, Poland Gaming Holding BV and Tesa Beheer BV v. Poland

Case number: PCA Case No. 2014-31

Outcome: Poland breached Article 3.1 (fair and equitable treatment) of the Netherlands-Poland BIT; awarded damages of approximately EUR 18 million plus interest.

Quantum: EUR 18,000,000 (approx.)

Applicable law: Netherlands-Poland BIT (1992); UNCITRAL Rules; international law; Polish law (Gambling Acts).

Issues in play: Poland's regulatory measures (2010 Gambling Act) vs. BIT protections of fair and equitable treatment and expropriation; collision between sovereign right to regulate gambling and investor's legitimate expectations.

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.

Back to the awards board