NEWSLETTER-2017

196 NEWSLETTER 2017 Romania. The wording of the clause is as follows: “ Each party shall observe any obligation it may have entered into with regard to invest- ments .” The Claimant affirmed that by failing to comply with its con- tractual obligation to renegotiate the debts of a state-owned company obtained by the investor, Romania had breached the umbrella clause 4 . The Tribunal concluded that breach of contract at the municipal level created violation of the investment treaty between the states, and gave rise to the international responsibility of the host State . 5 This reasoning and award was in line with the award of SGS v. Philippines 6 . As a further approach, in Eureko v. Poland 7 , the Tribunal con- cluded that breach of contract by Poland could be evaluated as breach of the BIT’s umbrella clause that has the commitment to observe any obligations it may have entered into in relation to the Claimant’s investments, even if other standards of the BIT signed between the Netherlands and Poland were not infringed upon 8 . Accordingly, the tribunals, placing emphasis on the full effect of the umbrella clauses, had escalated the level of breach of contract to breach of the invest- ment treaty 9 . 4 Dolzer / Schreuer, p. 169. 5 Dikran M. Zenginkuzucu, “ The Effect of the Umbrella Clauses on the Jurisdic- tion of ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, ” Journal of International Trade and Arbitration Law, Vol:2, Issue:1, Istanbul, 2013, p.179-180; Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, par. 53; 6 SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, the De- cision on the Jurisdiction , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, available at: https://icsid. worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB /02/6; Zenginku- zucu, p. 175-176. 7 Eureko v. Poland , Partial Award, available at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/de- fault/files/case-documents/ita0308_0.pdf. 8 Eureko v. Poland , par. 250. 9 For further caselaw giving effect to umbrella clauses, please see; AMTO v. Ukraine, Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A v. Republic of Ecuator, LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, Plama Consor- tium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria.