Despite lack of express provision allowing for withdrawal of parties to annulment application, committee exercises procedural discretion to allow the request

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.

Background: Tribunal majority finds that only one claimant satisfies jurisdictional requirements and order fraction of damages sought; investors request partial annulment

No evidence that South Korea would not honour the award if its annulment bid failed

Party seeking to annul award cannot insist on enforcing it nonetheless

In matters of stay of enforcement, each party has the burden of proving the positive assertions they make

Parties agree that each side should bear its own costs; ICSID costs are split

Application of Article 33 of the VCLT in interpretation of BIT does not constitute a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure

No failure to state reasons in dismissal of National Treatment Claim

No failure to state reasons in finding that free transfer guarantee only applied to cross-border movement of funds

No failure to state reasons on alleged lacked of proportionality as part of FET analysis, since no such claim was raised in the arbitration

Committee sees no contradiction in dismissal of GTH’s legitimate expectations claim

No need for prior notification of sectors in which exceptions to national treatment obligation apply

Question of whether exclusion of national treatment claim was an issue of jurisdiction, admissibility or the merits does not ground a manifest excess of power

Tribunal’s siding with one party is not a violation of the other party’s right to be heard

Tribunal’s reasons for holding that GHT’s planned acquisition of control over Wind Mobile did not fall under Article II(4)(b) could be followed

Relevance of domestic law should have been raised in the original proceedings

Tribunal properly identified and endeavoured to apply the law applicable to the National Security Review Claims, thus it did not commit a manifest excess of powers

Failure to state reasons standard does not empower the committee to question quality or correctness of tribunal’s reasoning

Establishing a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure requires proof of “distinct possibility” that the departure was outcome-determinative

Erroneous application of law is not an annullable error, but there is a fine line between failure to apply and erroneous application of the law

Tenable interpretation of jurisdictional basis is unlikely to amount to a manifest excess of powers

Establishing manifest excess of power is a two-step process

Annulment must safeguard integrity of the arbitration system

Background: Canada’s regulatory actions trigger ICSID arbitration by Egyptian telecom magnate; claim is dismissed on the merits, and both parties file for annulment

Committee dismisses Maduro government’s request for reconsideration of the representation decision, emphasizing that it had failed to explain how the state’s dual representation affected its procedural rights

Archives