Tribunal reveals that, in parallel case, Denmark chose to suspend the solidarity contribution pending the ICSID arbitration

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 orders that Germany shall refrain from demanding payment of the 2022 solidarity contribution

Putting the solidarity contribution for 2022 on hold through provisional measures would not disproportionately affect Germany

Requested measures are urgent, as solidarity contribution for 2022 is due imminently

Provisional measures are necessary to protect the status quo, absent sufficient assurances by Germany

Provisional measures are necessary to protect the claimants’ right of exclusivity under the ICSID Convention

Provisional measures are necessary if party would incur very serious harm without them

Test for prima facie merits case is relatively undemanding, and met in the circumstances

Arbitrators will rule on whether ECT’s tax carve-out applies to the case once jurisdictional challenges have been raised

Arbitrators see need for prima facie jurisdiction and prima facie merits case, despite silence of 2022 Rules on the issue

Tribunal dismisses claimants’ request for temporary restraining order and respondent’s request for waiver of confidentiality of tax documents

Background: Claimants ask for provisional measure aimed at halting enforcement of solidarity contribution

Tribunal declines Germany’s request for an order directing claimants to waive confidentiality of their tax documents

ICSID AF tribunal’s award and decisions stemming will be published, while Denmark and Germany ICSID cases will require parties’ agreement for publication of award

EU arbitration is seated in Geneva; three cases remain separate, but are coordinated

Costs follow the event, but payout under litigation funding agreement is not compensable

Date of expropriation is best for valuation designed to wipe out consequences of unlawful act, especially as it increases pre-award interest

Multiple can be applied to historical costs, but claimants should not have entirely ignored earlier transaction indicating lower multiple

Exploration costs in identifying promising areas and management overhead should enter valuation analysis, as typical miner would have incurred them in replicating the project

Witness from respondent acted as non-independent quantum expert, whose testimony deserves caution

No need to review further standards of protection, while Tanzania’s counterclaims are unsubstantiated

Lack of compensation makes expropriation unlawful, in circumstances where the expropriated assets were compensable

Animus in parliamentary debates and better treatment of sole local miner affected by the measure evidence discriminatory expropriation

No evidence that expropriation pursued any public purpose

Expropriating legislation did not follow due process, as tribunal accepts to draw adverse inferences following state’s failure to produce legislative material

Archives