BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Miodrag Jevtić, Gecić Law
Aggarwal & Gupta v Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNCITRAL, India-BiH BIT) This arbitration was brought by Indian and US nation - als over a failed acquisition in the insurance sector. The claimants alleged discriminatory treatment and expropriation. The tribunal, seated under UNCITRAL rules, rejected all claims in 2020, finding no breach of the BIT. Bosnia and Herzegovina prevailed in this case, avoiding liability. Mittal v Bosnia and Herzegovina (ICSID Case) Indian businessman Pramod Mittal initiated ICSID proceedings claiming expropriation and unfair treat - ment concerning his investment in a metallurgical coke plant (GIKIL) in Lukavac. Filed in 2021, the case remains pending. Reports suggest the claim could reach EUR370 million. This case has attracted signifi - cant public attention due to Mittal’s global profile and prior legal entanglements in Bosnia and Herzegovina. HEP d.d. Zagreb v Bosnia and Herzegovina (Energy Charter Treaty) Croatian utility company HEP submitted a notice of dispute under the Energy Charter Treaty concerning its stake in the Gacko coal-fired power plant. Although formal arbitration has not commenced, the company has estimated its claims at around EUR100 million. Negotiations remain ongoing, and Bosnia and Herze - govina has repeatedly sought to delay escalation to formal proceedings. Vjetropark Trusina (Kermas Energija) v Bosnia and Herzegovina (ICSID Case) Filed in 2023, this case involves an Austrian inves - tor’s claims regarding a failed wind power concession. The claimant alleges denial of justice and regulatory obstruction, with damages estimated at over EUR100 million. The proceedings are in the preliminary stages. Judicial Attitudes and Enforcement Challenges Domestic court decisions continue to shape the per - ception and practical use of arbitration in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Courts have historically demonstrated ambivalence towards arbitration, especially in enforc - ing foreign arbitral awards. A notable precedent is the 2003 I nkometal AG v KHK Lukavac case, in which a Tuzla court denied enforcement of an ICC award involving an industrial lease, citing exclusive domes -
tion-aware public administration. This, in turn, could help attract more sustainable and dispute-conscious foreign investment, while at the same time increasing the state’s ability to manage potential future claims efficiently and with a higher rate of success. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s role in investor-state arbi - tration has highlighted its vulnerabilities and potential. As legal practice in this domain matures, the lessons learned must be institutionalised, through legislative reform, education and co-ordinated defence strategy, so that the country can transition from a reactive to a proactive actor in the evolving landscape of interna - tional investment law. Below is an overview of the key investor-state cases involving Bosnia and Herzegovina. Goljevšček (Viaduct) v Bosnia and Herzegovina (ICSID ARB/16/36) In what has become a landmark case, Slovenian investors brought claims against Bosnia and Herzego - vina under the Austria-BiH BIT, citing the obstruction of their hydroelectric projects on the Vrbas River. The ICSID tribunal issued a EUR50 million award in April 2022, finding that Bosnia and Herzegovina had violat - ed fair and equitable treatment obligations. The state’s request for annulment was rejected by an ICSID ad hoc committee in May 2024, thereby upholding the award. This case marks the first successful conclu - sion and enforcement of ICSID arbitration against Bosnia and Herzegovina. The decision has triggered enforcement proceedings targeting the state’s foreign assets in Belgium and Luxembourg and has placed significant pressure on domestic courts to comply with international obligations. EGS d.o.o. v Bosnia and Herzegovina (ICSID Case) This ongoing case involves a Slovenian energy com - pany seeking approximately EUR750 million in dam - ages over investment disruptions in a thermal power plant project. The claim is based on alleged violations of the Austria-BiH BIT. While the case remains pend - ing, it underscores the potential financial exposure facing Bosnia and Herzegovina in the energy sector.
69 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook