Costs were split

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.

Tribunal endorsed Trans-Global Petroleum v. Jordan standard for review of Rule 41(5) objection, finding that such objection needed to be established clearly and obviously

When upholding a Rule 41(5) objection, the tribunal must be certain that all relevant material has been considered

Dismissal of claims under ICSID Rule 41(5) requires hearing and issuance of award

The tribunal found that ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) allowed for allegations of manifest lack of jurisdictiond: Failure to settle investors’ monetary claims stemming from poultry import transactions triggered ICSID arbitration

Background: Failure to settle investors’ monetary claims stemming from poultry import transactions triggered ICSID arbitration

Tribunal refused to stay the ICSID arbitration due to parallel contract arbitration

Expropriation claim was likewise within tribunal’s jurisdiction, as arbitrators were unprepared to rule out the use of puissance publique on a prima facie basis

FET claims likewise cleared jurisdictional hurdle, as tribunal held alleged change in policy was capable of constituting FET breach; allegedly confidential government documentation was part of the record in light of lack of formal challenge by Pakistan

Importation of FET through MFN satisfied the <em>prima facie</em> test

MFN claims passed the prima facie test; press reports were relevant for jurisdictional test

Prima facie test for making out claims at jurisdictional stage was applied both to factual and legal aspects

Puissance publique test became irrelevant in light of Bayindir’s abandonment of contract claims

There was no conflict between New York Convention and ICSID Convention

Tribunal saw no abuse of process

The “essential basis” of the claim was not purely contractual

Tribunal confirmed conceptual distinction between contract claims and treaty claims

“Salini criteria” were met

There was no lack of financial contribution in light of costs of providing guarantees

Tribunal held that non-financial contribution qualified as an investment under the BIT

Legality requirement related to investment’s validity, rather than to its definition

Notice requirement was not deemed to be jurisdictional in character

Archives