Moral Damages In Investor-State Arbitration After Emergofin

In Emergofin B.V. and Velbay Holdings Ltd. v. Ukraine, the Tribunal rejected the claim for moral damages from the outset. It did not treat moral damages as only a question of evidence or valuation; the Tribunal went further and held that the claim fell outside its jurisdiction or, alternatively, was inadmissible.¹

The Award incorporates the Tribunal’s earlier Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, in which the Tribunal addressed the claim for moral damages. In this case, the Claimants’ claim for moral damages was based on alleged reputational harm to themselves and their representatives, as well as physical and psychological harm allegedly suffered by their representatives.²