B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) Excerpts of Award dated April 5, 2019 made pursuant to Rule 48(4) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules of 2006 Claimant B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. (Dutch national) Respondent Republic of Croatia (“Croatia”) Tribunal Bernard Hanotiau (President; Belgian), appointed by the co-arbitrators in consultation with the Parties under Article 37(2)(a) of the ICSID Convention Stanimir Alexandrov (Bulgarian), appointed by the Claimant Brigitte Stern (French), appointed by the Respondent Award Award of April 5, 2019 in English (unpublished) Instrument relied on for consent to ICSID arbitration Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Republic of Croatia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which entered into force on 1 June 1999 (the “BIT”) Procedure Applicable Arbitration Rules: ICSID Arbitration Rules in force as of April 2006 Place of Proceedings: Washington, D.C. Procedural Language: English Full procedural details: Available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=AR B/15/5 Factual Background The Claimant operated a company in Croatia which provided postal services. The case concerned allegations that the Croatian Government, through the actions of the Ministry of Transport, the Competition Authority and the postal services regulator, violated the applicable regulatory framework and attempted to re-monopolize the postal services market. According to the Claimant, by failing to properly apply the regulatory framework and by discriminating against the Claimant, Croatia failed to accord the Claimant fair and equitable treatment. Also, the Claimant complained that Croatia’s treatment led to the complete destruction of the value of its investment, and therefore the measures amounted to an indirect expropriation. *** EXCERPTS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) AWARD Members of the Tribunal Professor Bernard Hanotiau, President of the Tribunal Dr. Stanimir Alexandrov, Arbitrator Professor Brigitte Stern, Arbitrator Secretary of the Tribunal Mr. Francisco Abriani Assistant to the Tribunal Ms. Iuliana Iancu Date of dispatch to the Parties: 5 April 2019 EXCERPTS B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) Parties’ representatives Representing B3 Croatian Courier Representing the Republic of Croatia Coöperatief U.A. Ms. Monika Lukacs (party representative) Ms. Zlata Hrvoj-Šipek The Bancroft Group Ms. Željka Šaškor Ms. Melina Rališ Mr. John Willems Ms. Kosjenka Krapac Ms. Noor Davies Mr. Sven Volkmer State Attorney’s Office Mr. Bachir Sayegh Gajeva 30a, Ms. Tara Agoston 10000 Zagreb Republic of Croatia White & Case LLP 19, Place Vendôme and 75001 Paris France Mr. Tim Portwood Mr. Louis-Christophe Delanoy Ms. Marina Weiss Ms. Giulia Carbone Mr. Shane Daly Ms. Julia Benke Bredin Prat 53 Quai d'Orsay 75007 Paris France 2 EXCERPTS B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) TABLE OF CONTENTS* I. THE PARTIES ......................................................................................................................7 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................................7 III. THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF ...................................................................16 IV. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE .................................................16 A. The Croatian legal framework on postal services .......................................................... 16 B. Relevant entities ............................................................................................................. 16 C. The acquisition of […] ................................................................................................... 16 D. The classification of hybrid mail .................................................................................... 16 E. The interpretation of value-added services .................................................................... 16 F. The drafting of the 2012 PSA ........................................................................................... 16 G. […]’s cost accounting separation ................................................................................... 17 H. HAKOM’s regulatory supervision of […]’s prices .......................................................... 17 I. […]’s complaints with the CCA ....................................................................................... 17 J. […]’s attempted acquisition of […] .................................................................................. 17 K. […]’s network access demands ........................................................................................ 17 L. […]’s participation in public tenders under the 2012 PSA ............................................ 17 M. The establishment of […]’s compensation fund ............................................................ 17 N. The complaints before the European Commission ........................................................ 17 O. […]’s financial performance and ultimate bankruptcy ..................................................... 17 V. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK................................................................17 VI. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION ..................................................19 A. Respondent’s position .................................................................................................... 19 1. Objection No. 1: The dispute resolution clause included in Article 9 of the Treaty is inapplicable........................................................................................................................... 19 2. Objection No. 2: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione voluntatis ......................... 20 3. Objection No. 3: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae ........................... 20 4. Objection No. 4: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis over claims pre- dating 1 April 2011 ............................................................................................................... 20 B. Claimant’s position ........................................................................................................ 20 1. Objection No. 1: The dispute resolution clause included in Article 9 of the Treaty remains applicable ................................................................................................................ 20 2. Objection No. 2: The Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione voluntatis ............................ 21 3. Objection No. 3: The Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione materiae .............................. 21 3 EXCERPTS B3 Croatian Courier Coöperatief U.A. v. Republic of Croatia (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/5) 4. Objection No. 4: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis over claims pre- dating 1 April 2011 ............................................................................................................... 21 C. The Tribunal’s analysis .................................................................................................. 21 1. Objection No. 1: Whether the dispute resolution clause included in Article 9 of the Treaty is inapplicable ........................................................................................................... 21 i. The applicable law ...................................................................................................... 22 ii. The first prong of Respondent’s objection: whether Article 9 of the Treaty is inapplicable to the present dispute due to its incompatibility with EU law...................... 23 iii. The second prong of Respondent’s objection: Whether Article 9 is inapplicable to the present dispute by operation of Article 30 of the VCLT ............................................ 31 iv. The third prong of Respondent’s objection: Whether Article 9 is inapplicable to the present dispute by operation of Article 351 TFEU ........................................................... 34 v. Potential issues with enforcement ........................................................................... 36 vi. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 36 2. Objection No. 2: Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction ratione voluntatis and/or ratione personae ................................................................................................................................ 36 3. Objection No. 3: Whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae .............. 40 4. Objection No. 4: Whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis over claims pre-dating 1 April 2011 ............................................................................................. 48 VII. WHETHER CROATIA BREACHED ARTICLE 3(1) OF THE BIT ...........................49 A. Claimant’s position ........................................................................................................ 49 1. Legal standard ............................................................................................................ 49 2. Arbitrary measures ..................................................................................................... 49 i. Extension of […]’s statutory