Tanzania’s conduct was an expropriation and a breach of the FET standard

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Investors’ claims are not estopped due to letter to government that was a “cry for help” to salvage the project

Alleged breaches of international law would have been insufficiently serious to prosper as a preliminary objection

Negotiation requirement places obligations on both parties

Governmental origins of underlying project does not mean that assets do not qualify as investment

New jurisdictional arguments raised at the hearing should be deemed belated if they amount to entirely new objections

State’s counterclaim is stayed absent payment of dedicated advance on costs

Background: Biofuel venture collapses after Tanzania cancels land titles

Fact that Spain raised a “substantiated request for consideration” is taken into account in the allocation of costs

Annulment proceedings are not the appropriate venue to rectify computational errors

Committee sees no serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure in the admission and treatment of evidence

Committee sets high bar for serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure, and sees no waiver based on Rule 27 of 2006 ICSID Arbitration Rules

Computational mistake does not amount to failure to state reasons

Appreciation of valuation method cannot be challenged in annulment proceedings

Committee finds lack of reasoning on “reasonableness” of the Disputed Measures, but sees no difference in outcome based on finding of disproportionality

Committee sees no relevance in specificity of the energy plants

Reasoning is to be ascertained despite possible drafting or presentation shortfalls

Spain fails to prove that lack of reasoning on relevant investment date was outcome-determinative

Despite extensive reliance on past awards, Committee sees no lack of reasoning

No failure to state reasons on the applicability of EU law, despite no explicit references by the majority in its considerations on the merits

Failure to state reasons must be outcome-determinative, otherwise the ground constitutes an abuse of process

Decision not to apply EU law to the merits does not constitute a manifest excess of powers

Committee agrees with tribunal on lack of intra-EU disconnection clause

The EU and its member states cannot be considered as a single entity under the ECT

The tribunal correctly assessed its jurisdiction based on Article 26 of the ECT, instead of EU law

Archives