Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No.

ARB/08/9)
Summary
The case of Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v. Argentine Republic (formerly Giordano
Alpi and others v. Argentine Republic) was an international arbitration case brought before
the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The case concerned a
dispute between several Italian investors and the government of Argentina over measures
taken by Argentina in the aftermath of its 2001 financial crisis, which resulted in the
devaluation of the Argentine peso and significant economic instability.
The claimants argued that Argentina's measures, including freezing bank accounts and
converting dollar-denominated debts into pesos, violated their rights under the Argentina-
Italy bilateral investment treaty (BIT) and various international law principles, including fair
and equitable treatment, full protection and security, and expropriation. The claimants sought
compensation for their losses, which they alleged amounted to over €14 million.
In its decision, the ICSID tribunal held that Argentina had breached its obligations under the
BIT and international law by imposing the measures in question. The tribunal awarded the
claimants over €13 million in damages, plus interest and costs.
In its decision, the ICSID tribunal held that Argentina had breached its obligations under the
BIT and international law by imposing the measures in question. The tribunal awarded the
claimants over €13 million in damages, plus interest and costs.
The case is significant because it was one of several high-profile investment disputes brought
against Argentina in the aftermath of its financial crisis, which led to a wave of measures by
the Argentine government that were seen as negatively affecting foreign investors. The case
also highlights the growing use of investment treaties and international arbitration as a means
for investors to protect their investments in foreign countries.

Relevant portions of the decision relating to interpretation “in accordance with laws”
Finally, the Respondent has pointed to a further requirement contained in the chapeau of Art.
1(1) of the Argentina-Italy BIT, namely that the investment in question must be “accordance
with the laws and regulations” of the host State, in order for an investment to fall within the
scope of application ratione materiae of the BIT
In addition, this result also makes sense in the light of the object and purpose of this
provision. The Tribunal would agree with the submission of the Claimants that the provisions
of the host State’s law contemplated by the “in accordance with the laws and regulations”
clause essentially relate to “the rules of public law or administrative law of the host State
that forbid certain types of investments or require that these be made respecting certain
principles aimed at protecting the interests of the host State”. Hence, economic operations
shall notably be excluded from the purview of protected investments when they are not
compatible with the ordre public of the host State.
In conclusion, the question of jurisdiction ratione materiae in respect of the “in accordance
with the laws and regulations” clause must be solved on the sole basis of Art. 1(1) of the BIT,
i.e. by reference to Argentine law, and not by relying upon Art. 8(7) of the BIT. Accordingly,
as there is no indication whatsoever that provisions of Argentine law have been violated by
the bonds/security entitlements pertinent to the present case, the Tribunal must conclude that
also this requirement of jurisdiction ratione materiae is fulfilled.
Given that the “in accordance with the law and regulations” clause serves to protect the host
State’s ordre public, the Tribunal cannot see how such violations of Italian law, even if
proved to have taken place, could negatively affect the qualification of the investments at
stake as being in accordance with the laws and regulations of the host State.