Tribunal requires Germany to either refrain from initiating further national court proceedings directed against the ICSID arbitration, or notify the claimants and the tribunal well in advance of such actions

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.

In light of respondent’s assurances, tribunal finds that the requested measures are not necessary to prevent irreparable harm – while hinting that Germany’s application to the German courts may be considered at a subsequent stage of the arbitration

Urgency requirement is not met, since claimants only sought provisional measures 18 month into the German Proceedings, once the outcome seemed to turn against them

Claimants’ participation in constitutional challenge to offshore wind act does not violate ICSID’s exclusivity clause

German Proceedings are potentially in breach of ICSID’s exclusive jurisdiction clause

Rejection of Rule 41(5) objection confirms that tribunal has prima facie jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing provisional measures

Provisional measures should not be granted lightly

Background: Claimants ask for provisional measures after a hearing before Germany’s Supreme Court makes it likely that an anti-arbitration declaration will be issued

Tribunal imposes limits on length and scope of submission, and refuses EC’s requests to access case file and attend hearings

EC’s intervention would not interfere with the proceedings, tribunal says

EC has a “significant interest” in the matter

Tribunal deems that the EC’s submission is within the scope of the dispute

Arbitrators consider that EC’s submission would assist the tribunal since EC is an administrative entity separate from Germany

Tribunal sets out four-prong test for admitting <em>amici</em> submissions under ICSID Rules

Mr. Fernandez finds that a hypothetical link with the merits is insufficient to deny bifurcation

Dissenter opines that jurisdictional objections should be bifurcated “as far as possible”

Majority opines that procedural economy favours non-bifurcation – emphasizing that the BGH decision was unlikely to be issued before the end of a bifurcated proceeding

Intra-EU objection and ratione materiae objection are likely intertwined with the merits

Two out of three objections would result in the termination of the proceedings

Objections are not frivolous, but this is insufficient to rule in favour of bifurcation

Majority emphasizes lack of presumption in favour of bifurcation, and identifies five factors to be considered

Tribunal unanimously dismisses request for stay of ICSID arbitration, emphasizing that Germany has failed to identify a legal basis for such an order

Background: Germany asks for bifurcation and suspension of arbitration pending BGH decision on request for anti-arbitration declaration

Archives