Саратовская область готовит мировую в суде с подрядчиком строительства скоростного трамвая In response, Claimant has basically transformed its story. As set out in Claimant’s Reply, Claimant now asserts that it was the lawful (or nominal) proprietor from the Yukos

601. Under the Denmark-Russia BIT, as there's no limiting language, it is fairly clear that its arbitration clause in Posting eight presents jurisdiction concerning the safety granted in Posting 4 of that Little bit for expropriation. Therefore, via the MFN clause in Article 3 IPPA, the existing Tribunal does have jurisdiction in that regard also.