The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations: Need for Limits

  • Valeriia POIEDYNOK Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Oleksandra KOLOHOIDA Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Iryna LUKACH Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine


The article deals with the doctrine of legitimate expectations, which requires public authorities to respect reasonable expectations they have created with individuals, in particular, if such expectations have become the basis for investment. The jurisprudence of investment treaty tribunals and the European Court of Justice on the issue is examined. The approach of the latter is found to be preferable because of the clear limits imposed on the application of the doctrine. The options of the doctrine’s reception by Ukrainian law are considered.


[1] Bonnitcha, J. 2011. The problem of moral hazard and its implications for the protection of 'legitimate expectations' under the fair and equitable treatment standard. Available at:
[2] Case 78/77 Johann Lührs v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1978] ECR 169. European Court Reports 1978 -00169
[3] Case C-104/97 P Atlanta AG and others v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union [1999] ECR I-6983. European Court Reports 1999 I-06983
[4] Case T-126/97 Sonasa - Sociedade Nacional de Segurança Ldª v Commission of the European Communities [1999] ECR II-2793. European Court Reports 1999 II-02793
[5] Case T-290/97 Mehibas Dordtselaan v Commission [2000] ECR II-15. European Court reports 2000 II-00015.
[6] Case T-70/99 Alpharma v Council [2002] ECR II-3495. European Court Reports 2002 II-03495
[7] Case T-81/95 Interhotel v Commission [1997] ECR II-1265. OJ: JOC_1997_271_R_0015_01
[8] CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL. Partial Award, 13 September 2001. Available at:
[9] Geiets, V., and Semynozhenko, V. 2006. Spetsialni ekonomichni zony: chorni diry chy tochky ekonomichnogo zrostannia? (Special economic zones: black holes or points of economic growth?) Dzerkalo tyzhnia, 64: 63-66
[10] Groussot, X. 2006. General Principles of Community Law. Groningen: Europa Law
[11] International Thunderbird Gaming v United Mexican States, Arbitral Award, 26 January 2006. Available at:
[12] MCI Power Group L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007. Available at:
[13] MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award, 25 May 2004. Available at:
[14] Schill, S. W. 2009.The multilateralization of international investment law. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
[15] Separate opinion in the arbitration under Chapter XI of the NAFTA and the UNCITRAL Arbitration rules: Thunderbird v. Mexico. Available at:
[16] Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003. Available at:
[17] Werner Schneider, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of Walter Bau Ag (In Liquidation) v. The Kingdom of Thailand, UNCITRAL (formerly Walter Bau AG (in liquidation) v. The Kingdom of Thailand), Award, 1 July 2009. Available at:
[18] Yost, C. (n.d.). A case review and analysis of the legitimate expectations principle as it applies within the fair and equitable treatment standard. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1364996
[19] Zeyl, T. 2011. Charting the wrong course: the doctrine of legitimate expectations in investment treaty law. Alberta Law Review, 49 (1). 203–235.
How to Cite
POIEDYNOK, Valeriia; KOLOHOIDA, Oleksandra; LUKACH, Iryna. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations: Need for Limits. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 5, p. 1604-1609, feb. 2018. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 22 may 2024.