In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Deutsche Telekom AG v. Republic of India, 2025 WL 2810722 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)</span>, the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded a District Court judgment that had granted recognition and enforcement of a nearly USD 100 million arbitral award arising from a Geneva-seated UNCITRAL arbitration. The appellate court instructed the lower court to examine India’s defences concerning the scope of the arbitration agreement under the Germany - India Bilateral Investment Treaty (“<span class="news-text_medium">BIT</span>”) and to consider whether the Swiss Supreme Court’s prior decision upholding the award precluded those issues from being revisited.
The dispute originated from a failed telecommunications venture between Antrix Corporation Ltd (“<span class="news-text_medium">Antrix</span>”), an Indian state-owned space company and Devas Multimedia Private Ltd (“<span class="news-text_medium">Devas</span>”), a privately held Indian company providing satellite-based telecommunications services. Deutsche Telekom AG (“<span class="news-text_medium">DT</span>”), a German investor, had invested approximately USD 100 million in Devas in return for a 20% equity stake. Following Antrix’s termination of the agreement with Devas, DT initiated arbitration proceedings against India under the Germany - India BIT, alleging breaches of India’s obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment.
During the UNCITRAL arbitration, India contended that DT was not a qualifying investor under the BIT, arguing that its investment was made indirectly through a Singapore-based subsidiary and that Devas’ activities constituted pre-investment conduct not protected by the BIT. The tribunal rejected these jurisdictional objections and ruled in DT’s favour on the merits. India then applied to the Swiss Supreme Court to annul the award, asserting a lack of jurisdiction, but the application was dismissed.
DT subsequently sought recognition and enforcement of the award before the US District Court for the District of Columbia. India claimed sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“<span class="news-text_medium">FSIA</span>”), which governs jurisdiction over foreign states in US courts. The District Court determined that the case fell within the FSIA’s arbitration exception, permitting jurisdiction. It further concluded that India’s contention - that DT’s investment did not fall within the scope of the BIT - concerned the scope, not the existence, of the arbitration agreement and therefore did not affect jurisdiction under the FSIA. Treating India’s objections as going to the merits, the District Court deferred to the arbitral tribunal’s findings and granted enforcement.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit agreed that the FSIA arbitration exception applied but found that the District Court erred in deferring to the tribunal on the question of scope. The appellate court held that, in the absence of clear and unmistakable delegation of such authority to the tribunal, it is for the courts - not the arbitrators - to determine whether a dispute falls within the BIT’s coverage. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s decision and remanded the matter for de novo consideration of India’s arguments regarding the BIT’s scope.
The appellate court also directed the District Court to examine whether the Swiss Supreme Court’s refusal to set aside the award has preclusive effect, potentially barring re-litigation of issues already decided in Switzerland - a question the lower court had not previously addressed.
This decision underscores the D.C. Circuit’s insistence that US courts independently assess jurisdictional questions relating to the scope of investment treaty arbitration, even when the arbitration has already been reviewed by the courts of the seat.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case Reference:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Deutsche Telekom AG v. Republic of India, 2025 WL 2810722 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)</span> (Katsas, J.).
