Costs go the claimants’ way

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.

Alleged breach of right to be heard cannot be established based on tally of references to the evidence in the award

Tribunal did not reverse burden of proof on due diligence, but merely indicated that Spain had failed to counter evidence put forth by the claimants

Spain’s due process complaints are not waived, since alleged shortcomings became apparent with the award

Departure from a fundamental rule of procedure requires impact on the result of the arbitration

Damages analysis meets requirement to state reasons; alleged failure to deal with issues is irrelevant when Spain failed to raise these issues before the tribunal

Majority’s reasoning on the merits met requirement to state reasons; Spain’s cavils merely touched upon content and approach of arbitrators

Tribunal’s applicable law decision does not indicate failure to state reasons

Requirement to state reasons is designed to allow the parties – which know the case through and through – to understand the award

No manifest excess of powers in finding that EU law does not apply to the dispute; Spain’s arguments about primacy of EU law are hard to square with multilateral nature of ECT

Spain’s cavil about interpretation of ECT does not go beyond disagreement with arbitration’s outcome

Tribunal’s refusal to apply Achmea jurisprudence to ECT case is not a manifest excess of powers

Manifest excess of powers standard can only be met if the tribunal erred egregiously

Annulment committees are concerned with legitimacy of arbitral process, rather than substantive correctness

Committee keeps tight lid on the record, as proceedings should not go further than original arbitral record

Committee does not dispense with hearing, given lack of agreement by the parties

Spain is ordered to pay all costs, with the committee opining that the application “considerably exceeded the scope of what can reasonably and properly be raised in annulment proceedings”

Committee sees no general animus by the tribunal against Spain

Decisions to reject belated EC amicus application and request to introduce 2019 EU Member State Declaration do not warrant annulment

Adoption of quantum memorandum submitted in the investors’ post-hearing brief does not amount to a violation of fundamental procedural rules

Treatment of evidence and burden of proof do not violate any fundamental procedural rules

Alleged serious breaches of fundamental rules of procedure need to be seen in context

Committee sees no contradiction between qualifying post-July 2013 measures as a fundamental change, and quantification that indicates limited economic impact of these measures

Tribunal did not fail to state reasons when finding a breach of the investors’ legitimate expectations

Tribunal’s treatment of Spain’s state aid argument did not amount to a failure to state reasons

Archives