Newsletter-21

219 ARBITRATION LAW The Recent Philip Morris v. Uruguay Decision* Prof. Dr. H. Ercument Erdem The Philip Morris v. Uruguay case pending before the Internation- al Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) has been recently decided in favor of Uruguay, the Respondent. This lawsuit, filed by Philip Morris, was decided by the arbitral tribunal that was constituted by Piero Bernardini (Chairman), Gary Born (co-arbitrator appointed by the Claimant), and James Crawford (co-arbitrator ap- pointed by the Respondent), on July 8, 2016. This case is important, not only because it represents the first time that a tobacco company sued a sovereign state before an international forum, but also because it concerns very important issues, such as the limits of the regulations setting forth restrictions in the tobacco industry. The relevant decision shall be analyzed in this article. In General In this case, the Claimants are Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzer- land) (“PMB”), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) (“PMP”), and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) (“Abal”) (jointly referred to as the “Claimants”). PMB and PMP are companies which are both seated in Neuchâtel, Switzerland, while Abal is organized under the laws of Uruguay, and has its registered office in Montevideo, Uruguay, whose shares are directly owned by PMB. The Respondent is the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. The claims are based on the Agreement between the Swiss Con- federation and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, dated 7 October 1988 (“BIT”), which entered into force on 22 April 1991. * Article of July 2016