Qatar eventually cured initial non-compliance with production order

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.

While state did not act in bad faith or fail to comply with earlier provisional measures order, clarification is in needed to ensure compliance

Qatar did not fail to comply with document production request, but is ordered to conduct a new thorough investigation of responsive documents

Tribunal majority finds that both objections are intertwined with the merits, and declines bifurcation request

Parties agree on test for bifurcation, but disagree on its application to the case

Background: Qatar raises two objections to jurisdiction and asks for bifurcation in bitterly-fought dispute

Tribunal finds disclosure requests to be overly broad and unspecific, and only grants two out of eleven requests

Tribunal decides that it has broad powers to determine disclosure of third-party funder information under 2022 Rules, but only when such disclosure is necessary

Tribunal recommends undertakings proposed by Qatar

Undertakings proposed by Qatar make measures neither necessary nor proportionate

Legal standard for granting provisional measures requires existence of right deserving protection, urgency, necessity, and proportionality

Background: Dispute over criminal proceedings and death sentence leads to request for provisional measures, while Qatar requests further details on third-party funding arrangement

Majority considers that documents evidencing claimant’s business activities are not sufficiently material or specific at this stage of the proceedings

Fundamental documents regarding background of case should be produced in an anticipatory manner

Background: Franco-Algerian businessman seeks to recover assets following his arrest and detention in Qatar

Reference to older rules by ICSID Secretariat does not tie the parties

2022 Version of the ICSID Rules are applicable, as date of RfA is relevant date

Background: Slovakia’s failure to follow through on promise to cover losses from privatization of Czechoslovakia’s foreign trade bank

BIT can only confirm or restrict the ICSID Convention’s definition of investment, not expand it

Tribunal had the power to rule on provisional measures pending a decision on jurisdictional objections

Protections under ICSID Convention and BIT only afforded to legal and bona fide investments

No protection afforded to nationals of the host state or to economic transactions undertaken with the sole purpose of accessing international protection of foreign investments; upstream structuring is, however, accepted

Acquisition of the Czech companies at a nominal price constitutes, prima facie, an investment

Tribunal rejected requests for provisional measures

Tribunal upheld jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione voluntatis and ratione temporis

Archives