EU law is not part of the applicable law on the merits, but tribunal may consider EC state aid decision as a relevant fact

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.

No violation of FREIF’s legitimate expectations since the wind farms’ revenues exceed the reasonable return of 7%

Tribunal offers table summarizing previous decisions

Spain is awarded all costs, plus (non-negative) interest

Relying on FREIF’s due diligence, the tribunal finds that the claimant could only expect a reasonable return

Tribunal sees no impairment of FREIF’s investment

New Regulatory Regime does not violate transparency obligation

Neither RD 1614/2010, nor RAIPRE registration give rise to umbrella clause breaches

Fork-in-the-road provision has not been triggered through claims brought before local courts by FREIF’s subsidiaries

Background: Investor in wind power plants initiates SCC arbitration

Triple identity test is applicable to the ECT’s fork-in-the-road provision

Tribunal dismisses Spain’s intra-EU objection based on the ECT’s text, EU law, and the CJEU’s Achmea decision; Brexit supports finding of jurisdiction

Proceedings are held in both English and Spanish; Spain requests resignation of non-Spanish speaking Chair and raises concerns over non-Spanish speaking tribunal secretary

TVPEE is a bona fide taxation measure, falling under the ECT’s tax carve-out

Tribunal examines several objections to admissibility and dismisses FPS claim

Tribunal sets out its approach to CAFTA’s environmental provisions

U.S. submits non-disputing party brief

Arbitrators find that the permit suspensions did not violate CAFTA

Claimants are ordered to reimburse Costa Rica’s part of the arbitration costs, but each party bears its own legal costs

Tribunal admits the possibility of a counterclaim under CAFTA, but finds that Costa Rica has not sufficiently substantiated its counterclaim

Tribunal considers that claimants lacked diligence in identifying their properties, and declines jurisdiction over properties sold before initiation of the arbitration proceedings

Tribunal considers that “dominant and effective nationality” requirement only applies where an investor holds the nationality of the host State

Arbitrators consider it unnecessary to address the parties’ submissions on damages

Arbitrators reject jurisdictional objections based on ownership structure and unpaid taxes

Tribunal holds that local criminal proceedings were in accordance with local laws, and that no denial of justice took place

Archives