Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Lotus v. Turkmenistan (II), Procedural Order No. 9, December 18, 2025

18 Dec 2025
Lotus Proje Akaryakıt Enerji Madencilik Telekominikasyon İnşaat Sanayi Taah. Ve Tic. A.Ş. v. Turkmenistan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/24/13
Document provided by: ICSID
Procedural Order No. 9
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Procedural Order No. 9
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Procedural Order No. 9
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

The Tribunal issued this Procedural Order to address competing requests for the suspension of the arbitral proceedings. Previously, the Tribunal had ordered the Claimant to post security for costs (SFC) in the amount of USD 2 million, which the Claimant elected to satisfy via an After-the-Event (ATE) insurance policy. Despite the Tribunal's approval of the proposed ATE policy, the Claimant failed to put the policy into effect by the mandated deadline of November 26, 2025.

Parties' Positions

Following the expiration of the SFC deadline, the Claimant requested a three-month suspension of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 54 of the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules, alleging the existence of constructive settlement discussions. The Respondent opposed this request, denying that any settlement negotiations had occurred and emphasizing that only its Ministry of Justice possessed the authority to engage in such discussions. Consequently, the Respondent filed a counter-request for an immediate suspension under ICSID Arbitration Rule 53(6) based on the Claimant's failure to comply with the SFC order.

Tribunal's Analysis and Decision

The Tribunal denied the Claimant's request under Rule 54, noting the clear absence of mutual party agreement required by that provision. Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to exercise its discretionary suspension powers under Rule 54(2). Instead, the Tribunal found it indisputably established that the Claimant had failed to effectuate the ordered SFC. Applying Rule 53(6), the Tribunal granted the Respondent's request and ordered the immediate suspension of the proceedings effective December 18, 2025. The Tribunal vacated all intermediate deadlines and expressly warned that continued failure to post the SFC by March 20, 2026, could result in the discontinuance of the arbitration following consultation with the parties.