Costs go the claimants’ way

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.

Alleged breach of right to be heard cannot be established based on tally of references to the evidence in the award

Tribunal did not reverse burden of proof on due diligence, but merely indicated that Spain had failed to counter evidence put forth by the claimants

Spain’s due process complaints are not waived, since alleged shortcomings became apparent with the award

Departure from a fundamental rule of procedure requires impact on the result of the arbitration

Damages analysis meets requirement to state reasons; alleged failure to deal with issues is irrelevant when Spain failed to raise these issues before the tribunal

Majority’s reasoning on the merits met requirement to state reasons; Spain’s cavils merely touched upon content and approach of arbitrators

Tribunal’s applicable law decision does not indicate failure to state reasons

Requirement to state reasons is designed to allow the parties – which know the case through and through – to understand the award

No manifest excess of powers in finding that EU law does not apply to the dispute; Spain’s arguments about primacy of EU law are hard to square with multilateral nature of ECT

Spain’s cavil about interpretation of ECT does not go beyond disagreement with arbitration’s outcome

Tribunal’s refusal to apply Achmea jurisprudence to ECT case is not a manifest excess of powers

Manifest excess of powers standard can only be met if the tribunal erred egregiously

Annulment committees are concerned with legitimacy of arbitral process, rather than substantive correctness

Committee keeps tight lid on the record, as proceedings should not go further than original arbitral record

Committee does not dispense with hearing, given lack of agreement by the parties

Balance of hardships between the parties struck by provision of partial security

Committee conditions stay upon Spain providing partial financial security for award

Risk of non-recoupment if the award is annulled cannot be excluded

Committee concludes that the application was made in good faith

Committee has discretion in deciding whether the stay should be continued

Committee has the discretion to attach conditions to the stay

Applicant bears burden of proving that stay is warranted

Committee sees no presumption either in favour or against continuing the stay

Background: Spain applies for annulment of 27.7 million EUR award

Archives