Committee applies costs-follow-the-event approach, and orders Spain to bear all costs

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 the tribunal failed to provide a detailed explanation for damages deduction, there is no duty to provide a point-by-point justification for quantum findings

Committee finds no failure to state reasons in the arbitrators’ finding of an ECT breach, emphasizing that misunderstanding the parties’ positions is not a ground for annulment

Tribunal has stated clear reasons for declining to apply EU law to its jurisdictional decision

Awards may only be annulled for a failure to state reasons when they present gaps so large that the reasoning is impossible to follow

Tribunal’s refusal to admit Achmea Decision and EC Decision 7384 into the record was not a serious departure from the right to be heard

Annulment for serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure merely requires proof that the outcome “might have been substantially different”

Committee sees no manifest excess of powers in the tribunal’s failure to account for earlier measures in calculating future cash flows, finding that this issue was not raised in the arbitration

Rejection of intra-EU objection, supported by many previous decisions, was not a manifest excess of powers; Committee declines to consider post-award developments

Manifest excess of powers standard requires an error that is readily apparent, without a need for extensive analysis

Ad hoc Committee twice rejects intervention by EU Commission

Background: Spain files for annulment of intra-EU renewables award

No prejudice to the claimants

Spain’s conflict of legal obligations should not penalise the claimants

Possible difficulties in recouping a paid award are inherent in annulment process

Stays will be granted only in uncommon circumstances

No breach of FPS standard, but impairment of investment

No fork-in-the-road in the BIT

Libyan dairy factory is expropriated shortly after construction, and investor fails to obtain compensation from domestic courts

ICC Rules – and rights and obligations under them – are incorporated in the arbitration agreement, thus leading tribunal to issue interim award ordering Libya to bear its share of advance on costs

Breaches are the proximate cause of investor’s underperformance

No compound interest on sums awarded, while Libya is ordered to bear most of Olin’s costs

Damages also discounted on account of civil war

DCF method is adopted, but future losses too speculative given Libya’s turmoil

“Fraud” is unproven; no treaty-shopping when investment made before BIT’s signature

Archives