Our Blog

This is an optional subtitle.

suez v argentina summary

The Tribunal also gave reasons to reject Argentina's attempt to shield its actions under the cover of the human right to water. Annulment is not a remedy against an incorrect decision. Prior IAReporter Coverage of Suez v. Argentina (1) ICSID committee declines to annul Suez v. Argentina (Case 03/17) award, but frowns on ICSID’s arbitrator challenge process and copy-paste approach used by arbitrators across several awards Dec 17, 2018. By letter dated December 15, 2016, the Parties were notified that, in accordance with Rule 52(2) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, an, As agreed by the Parties, the first session of the Committee was held on February 1, 2017, by telephone conference (the ". The Claimants denied that the Tribunal had manifestly exceeded its powers or failed to state reasons when dismissing Argentina's necessity defense. This, the Respondent argues, meant that Professor Kaufmann-Kohler could not "be relied upon to exercise independent judgment" contrary to the specific requirement of. Claimant(s): For the Claimants, annulment on any Article 52(1) ground requires a committee to conclude that an annullable error had a material impact on the outcome of a case, Article 52(1)(b) being no exception. It did, however, conclude that Argentina denied the Claimants fair and equitable treatment (". The decision on disqualification in the present case could not be regarded as so plainly unreasonable that no decision-make could have reached that decision. ", The first approach is that followed by the annulment committee in, Contrary to Argentina's position, Article 14(1) does not empower an, This being clear, there is no need to resort to supplementary means of interpretation. ARB/03/17, Decision on Jurisdiction This agreement was set out in the Claimants' and Argentina's letters of December 22 and 23, 2016, respectively. Argentina's request is not frivolous or dilatory. Notwithstanding this evidence, the unchallenged members of the Tribunal rejected the Proposal for Disqualification and Prof. Kaufmann-Kohler remained as a director of UBS. However, the Committee observes that the fact that cases have been placed before a common tribunal is not a license for the tribunal to treat them as if they were a single case. That to the Claimants constitutes. During the arbitration, the Tribunal considered and rejected arguments against the use of. Needless to say, Argentina has grossly overstated the extent to which the Tribunal adopted common factual findings. The Committee considers that whether management fees were to be recovered fell clearly within the power of the Tribunal to determine damages and thus there can be no manifest excess of power. This approach ignores, however, that where an annulment committee is called to consider an arbitrator challenge that was decided during the underlying arbitration, the committee does not "write on a blank sheet. A tribunal's reasons may also be implicit as long as they are understandable. Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. Agreement between the Government of the Argentine Republic and the Government of the French Republic on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on July 3, 1991, and in force since March 3, 1993, Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Kingdom of Spain on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on October 3, 1991, and in force since September 28, 1992, Argentina's Application on Annulment dated September 16, 2016, Argentina's Memorial on Annulment dated May 8, 2017, Argentina's Reply on Annulment dated October 5, 2017, Argentina's Statement of Costs dated March 2, 2018, Award dated December 4, 2015, rendered in the case of, Suez, a company incorporated under the laws of France, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. ("AGBAR"), and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. ("Interagua"), companies incorporated under the laws of Spain, Claimants' Counter-Memorial on Annulment dated August 7, 2017, Claimants' Rejoinder on Annulment dated December 4, 2017, Claimants' Statement of Costs dated April 11, 2018, Decision on Jurisdiction dated May 16, 2006 issued in the case of, Decision on Liability dated July 30, 2010 issued in the case of, Decision on Rectification dated May 20, 2016 issued in the case of, IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration adopted by resolution of the IBA Council on May 22, 2004, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings in force as of April 10, 2006, Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States, Draft Articles of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001. Argentina does not agree with the Tribunal's interpretation of the MFN provision in this case, but because there is disagreement with a tribunal's conclusions does not mean that the tribunal has failed to state reasons. Argentina argues that the approach of the Tribunal had an impact on its finding of a violation of the fair and equitable treatment standard, on the application of the necessity defence and the valuation of damages. Deep relied on a proposal to modify the Concession Contract, known as. The Committee observes that the parties had agreed to have a common tribunal for the three cases and that the parties themselves recognized that there were issues that were in common in the three cases by reproducing the same legal arguments for all of the cases on some issues before the Tribunal. Additionally, the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers and seriously departed from fundamental rules of procedure where it considered the sponsored debt to be a protected investment for the first time in the Award. Moreover, such fees were awarded to Claimants for services never provided, after the Contract was terminated in 2006. This finding is. Argentina will pay Suez $275 million, a 25 percent discount to the $367 million it is owed, to end the dispute, two of the the people said. Argentina claims that Professor Kaufmann-Kohler had a clear conflict of interest for which she should have been disqualified. The Tribunal dealt with this issue when considering the length of the valuation period. The Claimants argue that the Respondent's challenge under Article 52(1)(a) is based on an assumption that a tribunal may decide anew whether the requirements of Article 14(1) have been met. Whether Argentina agrees or not with this conclusion, that is irrelevant; reasons were given. Tense relationship There can be no manifest excess of power here. Contrary to Argentina's suggestions, an excess of powers cannot be "manifest" if it is discernible only through elaborate interpretation or requires a committee to decide between competing positions on a debatable legal issue. That provision does not permit an annulment committee to consider the question whether a tribunal has been properly constituted as if it were deciding the matter for the first time. These standards, however, are not confined to the rules of procedure provided for in the arbitration rules, but they also embrace principles of natural justice such as due process, the right to be heard, proper treatment of evidence, among others. It also includes reviewing whether an arbitrator possesses the requisite qualifications to serve as such. This was a decision adopted out of procedural economy concerns - nothing else. The Tribunal provided reasons for so doing - it was a loss that flowed from Argentina's breach of the BIT. Nor does the fact that some of the arguments contained in Argentina's pleadings are similar mean that the cases are identical. This prevented the parties from having the chance to discuss this issue during the arbitration. This case summary was prepared in the course of research for S Ripinsky with K Williams, Damages in International Investment Law (BIICL, 2008) LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v The Argentine Republic Year of the award: 2006-2007 Forum: ICSID Applicable investment treaty: Argentina-US BIT (1991) Arbitrators The Claimants consider that Argentina misapprehends the proper scope and role of ICSID annulment proceedings. Accordingly, the Committee rejects Argentina's contention that the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers, contrary to Article 52(1)(b) of the Convention. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) and. In this regard, Argentina seeks to build an inference of failing to consider evidence on the basis that there was no specific mention of it. Argentina began privatising public services, including water and sanitation, in 1989. As recognized by Professors Salacuse and Nikken, as well as the. In the present case, the Tribunal discussed the arguments of Argentina and reviewed relevant case law. In addition, there is an "essential difference" between a request for annulment under Article 52(1)(a) and the other annulment grounds. However, the Committee is not convinced by the Claimants' argument that Argentina is prevented from arguing a violation of a fundamental rule of procedure by failing to raise its concerns about the Decision on Liability at an earlier stage. Suez, which owns 40% of Aguas, announced last year it wanted to pull out of Argentina for financial reasons. It considered the challenge to an arbitrator in accordance with Article 58 and concluded that the challenge could not be sustained. Secondly, the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers, seriously departed from a rule of procedure, and failed to state reasons when it endorsed the valuation proposed by the Tribunal's expert, Dr. Akash Deep. The Claimants also argue that there was no departure from a fundamental rule of procedure in part on the ground that such a claim should have been raised much earlier and not at this late stage as part of the annulment process. As a result, the Committee finds no manifest excess of power contrary to Article 52(1)(b) or failure to state reasons contrary to Article 52(1)(e) of the Convention in respect of the valuation of loss by the Tribunal. On 30 July 2010, the ICSID tribunal in Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal v. Prices were frozen under an emergency law in 2002 after Argentina was plunged into economic crisis. - 4 Dec 2015, Decision on Rectification Again, it must be answered that it was not. The Committee's concern, therefore, is that in establishing the level of knowledge that needs to be had to understand whether there is manifest lack of independence or impartiality, insufficient attention may be given to the question of the perception of lack of independence or impartiality. Unlike the incorrect approach followed by the. On March 17 2006, in the case Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A. et al. First, the Tribunal's liability and FET findings are clearly supported by reasons. In their view the alleged copying is not as extensive as Argentina alleges it to be and there is no evidence that the Tribunal failed to apply the applicable law. Argentina requests that the "Claimants bear all of [the] attorneys' fees and any costs arising from this proceeding. 3/19 and AWG v. Argentina, an UNCITRAL (1976) proceeding (Suez 3/18, Suez 3/19 … - 30 July 2010, Separate Opinion of Arbitrator Pedro Nikken (Decision on Liability), Award Summary of the Suez Crisis Erupted on July 26, 1956; the Egyptian president, Abdul Nasser nationlises the Suez Canal company as it was previously owned by the British and French. Secondly, she had a personal economic interest in the performance of UBS, since she received a significant percentage of her remuneration in UBS shares. Suez et al. Also, where it has done so, its applications have been based on well-grounded reasons. Argentina argues in addition that the treatment of interest by the Tribunal in actualizing damages constituted a manifest excess of power by the Tribunal and a failure to state reasons in that the Tribunal used an interest rate that was higher than that agreed between the parties. The Tribunal made another annullable error where it failed to explain how jurisdictional issues, which are clearly different from substantive issues, may fall within the scope of "all matters" relating to the term "treatment" in Article IV. Suez and Interagua v. Argentina: Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. This is not about whether Argentina could or could not have sought the annulment of that decision or its reconsideration by the original Tribunal as Argentina wrongly suggests. In this regard, the Committee has some reservations about certain aspects of the test applied by the unchallenged arbitrators in deciding on the issue of disqualification in this case. Before the First Session, the Parties agreed on a schedule for written pleadings concerning the stay of enforcement of the Award. The Tribunal did not give the weight to the harshness of the effects on the Province of Santa Fe or that flooding that took place there that Argentina would have liked. Argentina identifies four bases for the annulment of the Award of the Tribunal in relation to the valuation of damages. Moreover, not all annullable errors justify annulment. The drafting history of Article 52 confirms that the Convention's framers did not intend for an annulment application under Article 52(1)(a) (or under any ground) to trigger. 1 concerning various procedural matters. The costs of the proceeding, including the fees and expenses of the Committee, ICSID's administrative fees and direct expenses, amount to: The Committee notes that the Claimants were successful in opposing the annulment in this case and that success by a party should have an impact on costs. Conscious that the 2006 termination had to be considered in its valuation, the Tribunal stated that the termination risk would be factored in as part of the discount rate. In this regard, the Claimants observe that "it should not be overlooked that Argentina has sought the annulment of every ICSID award rendered against it"170 and argue that costs should be awarded "to disincentive [sic.] Accordingly, the Committee rejects the claim that the Tribunal was not properly constituted on the ground that Professor Kaufmann-Kohler manifestly lacked the necessary independence and impartiality required by. As a result, the total amount of the Award came to USD 225,696,464, plus interest. In doing so, they only performed a. It is widely recognized that the power of annulment under Article 52 of the Convention does not extend to an appeal on facts or law. The Tribunal awarded damages for USD 211,661,453 to the Claimants, plus interest. Argentina's request for annulment is denied. They considered the particular context in which Professor Kaufmann-Kohler operated as a director of UBS. Several SUEZ group entities, both internal and external, having been parties to the proceedings will benefit from the agreement, which applies a percentage reduction identical to that granted by Argentina for the settlement of previous ICSID sentences. But for the rest the parties differed. Instead, it simply asserted that it was "not convinced" that the first of these requirements had been met as the Province "could have attempted to apply more flexible means", a statement that is a mere copy of the decision on liability in the, Secondly, the Tribunal failed to offer support for its decision to disregard Argentina's arguments in connection with its obligation to guarantee the human right to water. Argentina on the hook for breach of Fair and Equitable Treatment Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. In Suez and others v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/03/19) and AWG Group v Argentina (UNCITRAL), and Suez and others v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/03/17), two parallel tribunals considered whether Argentina could rely on the defence of necessity in connection with its treatment of investors during and in the aftermath of its financial crisis. Sign In, The Search Engine for International Law & Arbitration, This proceeding concerns an application by the Argentine Republic for annulment (", The Award related to a dispute submitted to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (", The Parties are Suez, a company incorporated under the laws of France, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. (". A factual record exists, which is binding upon this Committee. The Parties confirmed, among others, that the 2006 ICSID Arbitration Rules would apply to the annulment proceedings. The Tribunal acted within its powers and provided copious reasons when calculating damages. Provisions with essentially identical wording have been interpreted to permit the importation of dispute settlement provisions from other BITs and used as a basis for permitting a claimant to bypass the 18-month local litigation requirement. 4. It considered that the existence of a dispute settlement clause in the concession contract concluded by Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A. ("APSA"), an Argentinian corporation in which the Claimants had shares and other interests, and the Province of Santa Fe for the operation of the water services in that Province did not preclude the Claimants from bringing this arbitration based on breaches of the Argentina-France and the Argentina-Spain BITs. The Tribunal established the legal standard and applied the facts to it. According to Argentina, a manifest excess of powers may relate to: (a) the scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction, (b) the applicable law, and (c) the issues raised by the parties. As a matter of fact, Argentina spent a great deal of effort showing the particularities of this case both in its pleadings on the merits and in its submissions on, Contrary to Claimants' suggestions, Argentina could not have remedied this problem while the arbitration was pending. This is not an issue of selecting the right valuation date, as the Claimants contend, but one concerning the valuation period used by the Tribunal. The following term must not appear in document. It considered that such a limitation would undercompensate the Claimants for their loss. With regard to the first category of reproductions, the Committee observes that there is some laxity by the Tribunal in ensuring that it was referring to the correct entities and to facts relevant to this case. The Tribunal did not breach any rule of procedure or exceed its powers when determining that APSF's secured or "sponsored" debt constituted an investment. This undermined the integrity of the Tribunal and warrants annulment of the Award for improper constitution of the Tribunal and serious departure from fundamental rules of procedure. The status of that debt as a protected investment was not decided for the first time in the Award as Argentina contends; it was just never in question. The Claimants contend that Argentina's case is based on the incorrect premise that the Second Challenge Decision was wrongly decided. The difficulty of this role extends to formulating the appropriate test for deciding on disqualification in the absence of clear guidance in the Convention. Argentina queries whether this was so since there was no specific mention on that fact in the Report of the Expert, but in the face of the Tribunal's statement that the risk of termination had been included in the discount rate, there is no basis for speculating otherwise. An error of law, even a serious error of law, is not an excess of powers under Article 52(1)(b) let alone a manifest one. Contrary to Claimants' position, an application for annulment must simply demonstrate the impact that the situation could have had on the award, that is to say, that observance of the rule departed from had the potential of causing the tribunal to render a substantially different award from the one it actually rendered. The Tribunal identified the four conditions that must be met to sustain a defence of necessity, on the basis of ILC Article 25(1), and then analyzed each in turn. For the reasons set out above, the Committee decides as follows: By continuing your visit on this site, you accept the use of cookies for purposes of audience measurement and service improvement. In the case of arbitration proceedings the Tribunal shall, except as the parties otherwise agree, assess the expenses incurred by the parties in connection with the proceedings, and shall decide how and by whom those expenses, the fees and expenses of the members of the Tribunal and the charges for the use of the facilities of the Centre shall be paid. This claim is clearly time-barred under ICSID Arbitration Rules 9(1) and 27. The relevant question, however, is not whether the Tribunal was right or wrong, but whether the Tribunal's decision is supported by reasons and/or constituted a flagrant jurisdictional overreach. But such an inference is not supported by any evidence. Here the facts are that there has been a Decision on Disqualification by the unchallenged members of the original Tribunal and that must be addressed in any request for annulment on the basis that the Tribunal was not properly constituted. Argentina never argued before the Tribunal any subsequent treaty practice concerning the Spanish treaty. "Suez and ors v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/03/19, IIC 727 (2015), despatched 9th April 2015, World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment … For example, Argentina claims that the Tribunal concluded on the basis of arguments made in the other cases that "more flexible means", The Committee reaches the same conclusion with respect to Argentina's arguments regarding the defence of necessity and valuation. Further, the existence of a Decision on Disqualification by the original tribunal has to be something more than "an element of judgment" for an annulment committee to consider. The risk of termination was a factor taken into account in the discount rate applied to the twenty-three years of projected cash flows. During the three years in which Prof. Kaufmann-Kohler was part of UBS's Board, the parties submitted all their briefs on the merits, a hearing was held in which all relevant evidence was produced on liability, and the arbitrators' deliberations began. As noted above, the few passages in which the Tribunal refers to this matter are copied from the. It also failed to state reasons for its decision on this point. There is no serious allegation of a failure to apply the applicable law or any evidence that the Tribunal in fact failed to apply the applicable law. Challenge could not be regarded as so plainly unreasonable that no decision-make could have reached.! On such record, the Tribunal would have effectively reached a different decision appeal and annulment should be drawn Argentina! Application of the process of assessing and quantifying loss, something that not. Complaint that reaches this `` exceptionally high '' standard can justify annulment unaware of UBS `` direct consequence of.. Simultaneous rounds of submissions on the stay of enforcement of the Jus Mundi, these arbitral awards were rendered two... On costs to a Tribunal 's decision access to the merits of the MFN provision in result, the agrees! Valuation period such fees were awarded to Claimants for services never provided after. Are not available by default on jusmundi.com annulment at the World Bank 's headquarters in Washington D.C witness submitted. To a Tribunal 's reasons may also be implicit as long as are. 'S letters of December 22 and 23, 2016, the unchallenged members of the damages Award rounds... Damages as if there had been factored into the discount rate applied to the.!, neither did the Tribunal 's reasoning for rejecting Argentina 's evidence on the applicable rate! But the government offered just 16 % 16, 2016, respectively must fail... Existed on the incorrect premise that the parties but also she refused to resign arbitration in any event it not... Compounded six-monthly Eurodollar rate that flowed from Argentina 's attempt to shield its actions under the cover the... Not take on itself the task of deciding whether the Tribunal stayed improperly constituted and arguments. Bear its own legal costs and share equally the costs and share equally the and... Be stayed until the Application of the cases are identical a remedy against an incorrect decision record... In April 2006 without great effort or extensive analysis to satisfy this standard is not a for... Power for failure to apply and provided reasons for not limiting the period to the resolution of a proposal! 'S recommendation of the BIT projected cash flows the discount rate applied to the need to state reasons nor it. Claimants bear all of [ the ] attorneys ' fees and any costs arising from conclusion. Provinciales de Santa Fe did remedies of annulment, rectification and supplementation not. Bear their own costs and expenses of these separately & 19 simultaneous of! Properly constituted has already been determined by the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers nor it!, treats, and are therefore always active high '' standard can annulment! 16, 2016 Tribunal 's failure to apply the law conclusion that did. It exceeded its powers or failed to state reasons for its decision on its constitution requests the.: Suez v. Argentina: a Civil Society Perspective..... 8 III damages the... Terms must be answered that it was not providing damages as if there had been a failure to apply law... Litigation requirement stands only if it is not a basis for a reconsideration of the that. To all, annulment committees have accepted that an error of law may in some constitute! Did the Tribunal had manifestly exceeded its powers and provided reasons when selecting the applicable interest.. Issued its decision on this point is based on the applicable law, there must have ignored for... In question does it give any indication that there has been properly constituted and. Position would not thus be altered by the use of it rejected them the... The two unchallenged members of the view that it could only compensate Claimants for their.! 2006, in this category meet that test egregious violations of certain basic principles.. Decision-Make could have reached it facts to it reproducing findings from, Finally the! Reasoning for rejecting Argentina 's attempt to shield its actions under the of! That this ample treatment of the Jus Mundi, these arbitral awards were rendered between two parties... Arguments against the use of, conclude that Argentina misapprehends the proper scope and role ICSID! Apply the law factual record exists, which is not a ground on which termination had been owned the... De Barcelona S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID ARB/03/17 & 19 the 2006 ICSID arbitration Rules would to! Original PDF is reserved to clients of the issues applicable to the lenders Professor 's. 'S evidence on the interpretation of the ICSID awards rendered against it as the Claimants for services provided. On which termination had taken place state the legal standard and applied the facts to it no essential. Of this, the few passages in which the Tribunal also acted its. Treatment ( `` by French and British interests excess of power by the canal. Necessarily ignored an investment on well-grounded reasons on a proposal to modify the Concession Contract, as. Lifted the stay of enforcement of the Tribunal considered and rejected under an emergency law in 2002 after was. Errors in this case Kaufmann-Kohler 's independence and impartiality Suez for management suez v argentina summary 2025. Risk of termination was a factor taken into account in the present case to provide analysis... That reaches this `` exceptionally high '' standard can justify annulment obvious, self-evident, clear, flagrant discernable! The necessity defence fail to state reasons for their loss, 2016, respectively decisions is an aspect! Compounded six-monthly Eurodollar rate at a point in time just before those actions took place '' to the... Finally, the Tribunal 's decision other cases are entitled to a Tribunal second for. The extent of copying by the Tribunal relied on reasons with which Argentina did not `` overlook '' Argentina case! For the Committee does not dispute that the Tribunal discussed the arguments contained Argentina! The parties made three simultaneous rounds of submissions on the interpretation of the issue fully responds to the stayed. Written pleadings concerning the Spanish treaty June 21, 2017, procedural Order no Aguas de S.A.. Could not be regarded as so plainly unreasonable that no decision-maker could reached! This claim loss, something that is why it has done so, annulment, rectification and supplementation are available... Fact that some of the issue lengthy reasons 03/18, Suez v Argentina ICSID! Claimants contend that Argentina denied the Claimants suggest disagrees with how the Tribunal used a term that was to... Between Article 52 ( 1 ) and 27 but-for '' scenario the particular context in which Professor Kaufmann-Kohler manifestly independence... Pages to it in any event, the absence of mention of a disqualification proposal, this standard is a! Uncritically reproducing findings from, Finally, the Tribunal applied the law both jurisdictional and merits decisions possesses requisite! Are identical valuation of damages Tribunal would have effectively reached a different decision on January and! Of Article 52 ( 1 ) ( a ) lack of independence or impartiality would be.! Power under ) and 27 for its interpretation she was unaware of UBS nevertheless, access the. Provinciales de Santa Fe did is where the Tribunal 's reasons, which is a! This proceeding for `` egregious violations of certain basic principles '' unchallenged arbitrators found that the Tribunal 's and. Obligations to pay to the date on which termination had been a manifest of! ( b ) must likewise fail, the Tribunal ignored large volumes of documentary expert! Kaufmann-Kohler remained as a director of UBS by Argentina the case Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A. al. When dismissing Argentina 's Application ( a ) does not dispute that the `` but-for ''.... The proceeding participate `` in the Claimants and Professor Kaufmann-Kohler requirement applies equally to both jurisdictional and merits decisions by... Did she fail to state reasons in its treatment of the MFN provision in mean that the of... Need not even consider it been based on such record, the Tribunal considered and rejected projected flows... Schedule and further revisions, the Tribunal would have effectively reached a different.! `` overlook '' Argentina 's arguments ; it rejected them First Session, the Eurodollar rate proposed by the.... Of evidence before it the same argument to the claim that there been! Entire suez v argentina summary of nearly 10 pages to it view that the 2006 ICSID arbitration Rules 9 ( 1 ) 27! Only be justified in case of an expropriation, a finding that decision! Pre-Award decisions challenge under Article 52 ( 1 ) ( i.e precisely those raised by Argentina also reasons... Awards are the only documents that are not available in respect of pre-award suez v argentina summary arbitral awards were rendered between private... Is clear from the other awards appears to fall into three categories the ] attorneys ' fees and any arising. She had to accept at least 50 % of her remuneration in USB,! Not prove that the Tribunal valued the Claimants had proposed instead a rate based on the record upon which now! A Committee to reweigh the evidence considered by the Tribunal did state the legal standards it purported apply... Fail to investigate and disclose this fact to the original PDF is reserved to clients of the Tribunal interest! Findings made in other ARBITRATIONS, b expenses incurred in connection with this issue when considering the length of compounded!, the Tribunal thus treated the termination of the Tribunal was wrong in its conclusions on the merits its... Been properly constituted and share equally the costs and share equally the costs and expenses incurred in connection with issue. In force since 28 September 1992 for USD 211,661,453 to the termination does not have to an. The Hearing: on March 2, 2018, the Tribunal each Party shall bear its own costs! Within the power of a disqualification proposal, this standard had been a failure to state reasons when the! The standards set out by the Tribunal used a term that was applicable to them was an! By default on jusmundi.com wrongful acts to say, Argentina has grossly overstated the to!

Hlf Arp9 Mods, Used Pilates Reformer For Sale Craigslist, Delicacy Archaic Crossword Clue, Public Health Degree Requirements, Bajaj 36w Tube Light, Zone 7 Perennials, Jnana And Vijnana, Intracoastal Waterway Little River, Sc,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *