Tribunal finds that the claimants have pleaded a “sufficient case” that they have a claim based on facts occurring after the cut-off date, and it joins the ratione temporis objection with the merits

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.

Most of Rwanda’s costs to be borne by the claimants

Alleged collusion with local partner is unsubstantiated

Administrative shortcomings do not reach the level of a minimum standard of treatment breach

No discrimination since different treatment is justified

No expropriation given lack of expropriable rights

Claimant’s expectation to be granted long-term licence was not reasonable

Local entity was not entitled to long-term exploitation licence

Failure to mention one claimant in notice of intent is a matter of form, not substance

Failure to explicitly claim on behalf of local entity is not relevant for jurisdictional purposes

Investment in local company meets all six criteria

Lack of investment ratione materiae means that BVG lacks standing

Objection ratione temporis requires factual findings on the merits

Tribunal declines to disqualify expert witness

Background: mining investor fails to secure long-term exploitation licences

Claimants argue that the tribunal has jurisdiction <em>ratione voluntatis </em>with respect to Spalena, even though the notice of dispute did not mention Spalena as a potential claimant

Claimants argue that the tribunal has jurisdiction <em>ratione personae</em> with respect to BVG, since BVG made indirect and direct investments in Rwanda

Claimants argue that Rwanda’s actions amount to a creeping violation of the BIT, which crystallized less than three years before the claims were brought to arbitration

Claimants submit that the relevant facts did not pre-date the BIT’s entry into force

Licenses that are revocable at will do not qualify as investments

BIT does not allow claims for derivative losses

Notice of dispute must name each claimant individually – but negotiation is not legally required

For expropriation claims, limitation period runs from the date when state interference is sufficient to constitute a taking

Conduct pre-dating the BIT’s entry into force cannot be part of the breach

Non-discrimination claim requires a fact-specific analysis

Archives