January 20, 2025 International Arbitration Chambers New York is pleased to announce that Parvan P. Parvanov, Esq. has successfully argued and obtained a favorable award on jurisdiction in the case of Jak Sukyas v. Romania (PCA Case No. 2020-53). The partial award on jurisdiction, issued on November 6, 2024, marks a significant milestone in this high-profile investor-state dispute. The arbitral tribunal, consisting of Prof. Bernard Hanotiau (Presiding Arbitrator), Prof. Dr. Stephan W. Schill, and Ms. Loretta Malintoppi, ruled on several key jurisdictional issues:
- Joined the objection to jurisdiction ratione materiae under the US-Romania BIT to the merits of the case
- Joined the objection to jurisdiction ratione temporis to the merits
- Joined the objection that the claims have been settled to the merits
This decision allows the case to proceed to the merits phase, where the tribunal will examine the substantive claims related to the alleged failure to restitute assets of Cinegrafia Română (CIRO Films), a film company held by the Sukyas family before its seizure by the communist regime in 1948. The case presented highly complex jurisdictional challenges, involving investments made in Romania dating back to the 1920s and leading up to the expropriation in 1948. Mr. Parvanov’s advocacy showcased sophisticated legal arguments under the residual rights doctrine in public international law, demonstrating the intricate nature of historical investment disputes and their modern-day implications. Mr. Parvanov’s successful advocacy in this complex case further solidifies his reputation as a leading expert in international investment arbitration. The dispute, valued at approximately $2 billion, concerns Romania’s alleged failure to apply its own modern-day laws to remedy victims of takings by the communist regime. It is important to note that Mr. Parvanov and the IA Chambers team no longer represent Mr. Jak Sukyas or Mr. Edward Sukyas in this matter or any related proceedings. The representation concluded following the jurisdictional phase of the arbitration. This case highlights the ongoing challenges in addressing historical injustices and the complexities of investor-state disputes in the post-communist context. The arbitration community will undoubtedly follow the merits phase of this case with great interest, particularly given the sophisticated legal arguments and historical context involved.