Summary

Reproduced from www.worldbank.org/icsid with permission of ICSID.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Foundation of the Claim
B. The Claimants' Case in a Nutshell
C. The Respondent's Case in a Nutshell
D. Chronology of Further Relevant Events

IV. THE PARTIES' CLAIMS AND REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

A. The BIT
B. The Claimants' Allegations of Breach of the BIT
C. Relief Sought by the Claimants
D. The Respondent's Case
E. Relief Sought by the Respondent

V. JURISDICTION

A. Introduction
B. Lack of Jurisdiction ratione temporis
(1) The Claimants' Case
a. The Cut-Off Date
b. Breach Dates
(2) The Respondent's Case
a. The Cut-Off Date
b. Breach Dates
(3) The Tribunal's Analysis
a. The Cut-Off Date
b. Breach Dates
C. Lack of Jurisdiction ratione personae
(1) The Claimants' Case
a. BVG acquired an interest in NRD
b. BVG's `loan' to NRD
(2) The Respondent's Case
(3) The Tribunal's Analysis
a. The 17 May Award
b. Documentary Evidence
c. Witness Evidence
d. Conclusions
D. Lack of Jurisdiction in Respect of Spalena's Claim ratione materiae
(1) Introduction
(2) The Claimants' Case
(3) The Respondent's Case
a. NRD
b. The Concessions
(4) The Tribunal's Analysis
a. The Concessions and Spalena's Loss
E. Lack of Jurisdiction in Respect of Spalena's Claim ratione voluntatis

VI. LIABILITY

A. The Issues
(1) What is the true construction and effect of the Contract?
(2) Did NRD acquire a right to long-term licences under the Contract?
a. Article 2.3: Industrialisation
b. Article 2.5: Evaluation Reports of Reserves
c. Article 2.5 and Article 4: Provision and evaluation of a Feasibility Study
(3) Was the 2010 Application for short-term or long-term licences?
(4) Did Spalena purchase NRD in the legitimate expectation that it would receive long-term licences?
a. The understanding of the mining community in Rwanda
b. Government representatives
(5) After the acquisition of NRD by Spalena did Rwanda give Spalena a legitimate
expectation that NRD would be granted long-term licences?
a. Mr. Bidega
b. Statements by other agents of Rwanda
c. The Military
d. Summary
(6) Did Mr. Benzinge's activities in and after August 2012 involve a breach of Rwanda's obligations under the BIT?
a. August 2012
b. June to August 2014
(7) Did the suspension of mining in the western concession area in September 2012 constitute a breach of Rwanda's obligations under the BIT?
(8) Did the seizures and sales of NRD's property by the Court Bailiff in and after 2013 involve a breach of Rwanda's obligations under the BIT?
(9) Did the denial of the issue of tags constitute a breach of Rwanda's obligations under the BIT?
(10) What rights over the Five Concessions did NRD enjoy and when?
(11) Did Rwanda expropriate any rights of NRD and, if so, when?
a. Mining rights
b. Tangible property
(12) Did Rwanda carry on a campaign of creeping expropriation?
(13) Did Rwanda discriminate against the Claimants in favour of other investors in breach of its obligations under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the BIT?
a. The grant of long-term licences to other investors
b. The requirement to re-apply after the 2014 Law came into force
c. The ultimate grant of licences in respect of the Five Concessions
d. Conclusion
B. Overview of Merits Findings
C. Further Consideration of the Challenge to Jurisdiction ratione temporis
D. Further Consideration of the Challenge to Jurisdiction in Relation to the Claim by Spalena ratione voluntatis

VII. COSTS

A. The Claimants' Costs Submission
B. The Respondent's Costs Submission
C. The Claimants' Reply to the Respondent's Submission on Costs
D. The Respondent's Reply to the Claimants' Submission on Costs
E. The Tribunal's Decision on Costs
F. Interest

VIII. AWARD

I. INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES

This case concerns a dispute submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID" or the "Centre") on the basis of the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, which entered into force on 1 January 2012 (the "BIT" or "Trea ty"), 1 and the Convention on the of Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which entered into force on 14 October 1966 (the "ICSID Convention").

The claimants are Bay View Group LLC ("Bay View" or "BVG") and The Spalena Company LLC ("Spalena"), two limited liability companies organized under the laws of Delaware, United States of America (together, the "Claimants").

The respondent is the Republic of Rwanda ("Rwanda" or the "Respondent").

The Claimants and the Respondent are collectively referred to as the "Parties." The Parties' representatives and their addresses are listed above on page (i).

This dispute relates to the Claimants' alleged investment in the acquisition and operation of mining concessions in Rwanda.

...

VIII. AWARD

For the reasons set forth above, the Tribunal decides as follows:

(1) The claims of BVG are dismissed on the ground that it had no material investment in Rwanda and, in consequence, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

(2) The claims of Spalena are dismissed on the merits.

(3) BVG and Spalena are jointly and severally liable for and are to pay:

(i) Rwanda's costs and expenses in the sum of £1,312,233.10 and US$361,783.72; and

(ii) Interest on this sum at the Sterling Overnight Index Average for GBP from the date of this Award until the date of payment.

(4) All other claims are dismissed.