DECLARATION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
Judicial expropriation  Criteria for establishing expropriation involving conduct of domestic court  Decisions of other international courts and tribunals  Court should have offered more comprehensive reasoning and justification.
1. I make this declaration to indicate what are, in my view, shortcomings in the Court’s reasoning on Iran’s expropriation claim under Article IV (2) of the Treaty of Amity. The passages in the Judgment concerning judicial expropriation in my view require greater depth of analysis.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE YUSUF

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
[Original English text]
Objection to jurisdiction raised by the United States of America  Bank Markazi as a “company” for the purposes of the 1955 Treaty of Amity  Judgment of 13 February 2019  Nature of the activity.
1. I agree with all the decisions in this case, with the exception of the first one, whereby the Court upheld

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Interpretation of Article III, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity  Meaning of the phrase “shall have their juridical status recognized”  Viewed in light of object and purpose of Treaty and against historical background, the recognition of “juridical status” in question concerns the legal personality and legal capacity of companies  Provision not equivalent to a warranty that companies shall have their corporate form respected in any circumstances.

30 MARCH 2023
JUDGMENT
CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
___________
CERTAINS ACTIFS IRANIENS (RÉPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D’IRAN c. ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE)
30 MARS 2023
ARRÊT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-20
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21-32
II. QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY 33-73
A. Objection to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae: question whether Bank Markazi is a “company” within the meaning of the Treaty of Amity 34-54