Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05ANKARA3396
2005-06-15 12:03:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Ankara
Cable title:  

2005 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES/EXPROPRIATION

Tags:  EINV KIDE TU 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

151203Z Jun 05
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 003396 

SIPDIS

DEPT PASS USTR FOR LISA ERRION
DEPT FOR EB/IFD/OIA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV KIDE TU
SUBJECT: 2005 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES/EXPROPRIATION
CLAIMS

REF: STATE 70014

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 003396

SIPDIS

DEPT PASS USTR FOR LISA ERRION
DEPT FOR EB/IFD/OIA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EINV KIDE TU
SUBJECT: 2005 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES/EXPROPRIATION
CLAIMS

REF: STATE 70014


1. Claimant data:

Claimants A are U.S. citizens Victor and Kristy Bedoian.
They filed a Privacy Act Waiver in 2001 allowing information
to be shared with family, friends, members of Congress, the
press, the general public and the following individuals:
Sally or Pat Killoran, William Wolfe, Michael or Stacy
Shelton. Victor Bedoian reported that he "technically8 had
a 95 percent share in the company involved in the dispute
over the hotel property. However, there are six other
partners in the venture.

Claimant B is PSEG Global/North American Coal, which has a
contract for a coal-fired power plant that has not been
implemented.

Claimants C are U.S. research-based pharmaceuticals companies.

Claimant D is Toreador Resources Corporation.

Claimant E is Toreador Resources Corporation.

Claimant F is Motorola.


2. Begin text of 2005 report:

The United States is aware of (6) claims of U.S. persons
against the Government of Turkey.


1. a. Claimants A

b. 2001

c. In early 2005, a Van court dismissed a civil case
initiated by Claimants A, in which Claimants A sought to
annul the transfer of title to a hotel which they claim was
sold without their knowledge or consent. In 2004,
administrative courts decided against Claimants A in their
suit to obtain a residence permit and an operating permit for
the hotel. Claimants A are appealing the decision in the
civil case in the Turkish courts, and are appealing the
permit decisions in a case filed with the European Court of
Human Rights. They have filed a complaint against the judge
in the civil case, alleging that the judge ignored relevant
evidence and that the judge was biased and may have been
bribed. Claimants A had purchased and renovated a hotel and
restaurant in Van for approximately USD 750,000 in 2001, but
had been unable to operate it due to persistent police
harassment and obstruction by local government authorities.
Claimant has been denied a residency permit, which was used
as the basis for denying operating permits for his hotel and
restaurant.


2. a. Claimant B

b. 2000 - 2001

c. In 2001, the Turkish Government cancelled 46 contracted
(but not built) power projects based on the
build-operate-transfer (BOT) and transfer-of-operating-rights

(TOR) models. Only PSEG pursued arbitration. Turkey's
constitutional court ruled in 2002 that the Turkish
Government would have to either honor the contracts or
compensate the companies involved. In line with the
Constitutional Court ruling, the Ministry of Energy and the
Treasury Undersecretariat released on May 24, 2002 a joint
statement indicating that the GOT would seek as soon as
possible a negotiated settlement with those BOT/TOR companies
that have signed contracts. To date, the Government has not
commenced negotiations with the companies or provided
compensation. Claimant filed an international arbitration
case with the International Center for the Settlement of
Investment Disputes (ICSID) at Washington D.C under the
bilateral investment treaty against the GOT in April 2002,
claiming USD 300 million compensation for actual expenses and
estimated profit loss since 1995. Claimant received a
tribunal decision for the jurisdictional phase in June 2004.
The hearing for determining monetary damage is scheduled for
April 2006 (sustentative-merit phase).


3. a. Claimants C

b. 2000

c. In January 2005, the Turkish Ministry of Health issued a
regulation providing limited data exclusivity protection for
confidential and costly pharmaceutical test data. However,

SIPDIS
the regulation falls short of WTO Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) requirements by
allowing generic copies to rely on the innovators, test data
on applications filed between 2000 and 2004, and by limiting
protection to pharmaceuticals with valid patents in Turkey.
In its Special 301 submission, the Pharmaceuticals Research
and Manufacturers Association claimed that 70
TRIPS-infringing copy products have been approved between
2000 and 2004, and that an additional 200 are in the Health
Ministry review process. PhRMA claims that lack of data
exclusivity cost its members in Turkey about USD 146 million
in sales annually.


4. a. Claimant D

b. 1997

c. Since 1997, the Turkish Government has not allowed
repatriation of profits (up to the amount of investment) by
oil companies under Article 116 of the 1954 Petroleum Law,
which protected foreign investors from the impact of lira
depreciation. Two foreign petroleum companies, including
Claimant D, obtained a Danistay (Council of State) decision
upholding Article 116, which had been challenged by Turkish
Government auditors in the Court of Public Accounts.
However, the Danistay decision was reversed on appeal (by the
Treasury),and the companies have asked for a reconsideration
of this reversal, which is the last judicial recourse in
Turkey. The Claimant has submitted its case to the European
Court of Human Rights. Claimant is hoping that the pending
new Petroleum law will include a provision for honoring past
commitments.


5. a. Claimant E

b. 2004

c. Claimant E maintains that the Ministry of Energy
Petroleum Affairs and TPAO (the state oil company) illegally
canceled Claimant,s application for a Black Sea exploration
license, in the zone adjacent to Claimant,s recent natural
gas discovery. Claimant alleges that TPAO was illegally
awarded the license after relinquishing for non-performance
of drilling obligations. Claimant has taken the case to
Turkey,s Danistay (Council of State),seeking to gain the
license for which it applied and claiming discriminatory
treatment, and therefore a &taking8 of the rights that
would have been bestowed under the license. Claimant claims
that the Danistay is stalling on a decision pending enactment
of a new petroleum Law.


6. a. Claimant F

b. 2001

c. Claimant lent nearly USD 2 billion to Telsim Mobil
Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri, a private firm. In 2001, Telsim
defaulted on the loan. In 2004, the Turkish State Deposit
Insurance Fund (TMSF) seized Telsim to recoup debts owed by
its owners, Claimant won judgments against Telsim,s owners
in U.S. and U.K. courts in 2003. Telsim launched several
arbitration cases at the Zurich Chamber of Commerce in 2002,
prior to the Turkish Government,s seizure of the company.
Claimant filed a demand for arbitration against the Turkish
Government at ICSID in Washington in October 2004.
EDELMAN