As reported by centralasia.newsThe court of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) rejected absolutely all claims of Sehil Construction Company (Turkey) against the state of Turkmenistan, with reference to the press service of Squire Patton Boggs law firm.
Turkmenistan won a lawsuit against Sehil Company (Turkey), which filed a claim to the ICSID for $500 million in 2012. The direct plaintiffs were Muhammet Chap, the majority shareholder of the holding company, and delegates of Sehil Company. The interests of the state of Turkmenistan were represented by New York lawyers Squire Patton Boggs
The lawsuit focused on 32 construction sites on Turkmen territory, including a metallurgical plant, waste processing plants, water treatment facilities, administrative buildings and schools.
According to the claimants, Turkmenistan has not completely fulfilled its obligations. Also, according to the plaintiffs, the Turkish side performed work not agreed upon in the documents and did not receive additional compensation. The plaintiffs also claimed that they paid unjustified penalties for delays in the performance of construction work and were subjected to unauthorized inspections by the tax authorities. Sehil's representatives noted that the contracts were terminated in accordance with a number of decisions by Turkmen courts.
In turn, the Turkmen side argued that the cancellation of contracts and the imposition of fines was justified by the failure to fulfill contractual obligations on the part of Sehil: the facilities were not fully completed and also contained a number of defects established by the examination.
Accordingly, the ICSID ruling rejected the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and ruled that the courts, prosecutors, and tax authorities of Turkmenistan had operated within the state legal framework and under international legal norms.
The tribunal found that the bulk of the plaintiffs' applications were sent to the Turkmen courts. In addition, the claims of the plaintiffs regarding threats to them by the defendants were found to be unfounded and not corresponding to the real state of affairs. It was also ruled that the state of Turkmenistan did not contribute to the bankruptcy of the holding company and the investors' losses.
The arbitration panel decided that the court costs and fees for the entire period of litigation would be borne by the plaintiffs.
Sources: squirepattonboggs.com and centralasia.news