In the absence of a legal dispute, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

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.

Since the claimants had objected to the discontinuance, the tribunal decided to issue an award – rather than discontinue the proceedings through a procedural order

Tribunal ruled that the parties had concluded a binding settlement agreement

Settlement agreement could be concluded via e-mail under English law

Parties agree that interpretation of e-mail agreement is governed by English law

Background: Claimants’ witness acknowledged payment of bribes during the hearing; counsel discussed joint settlement agreement in email exchange

Background to Dispute

Committee outlined scope of manifest excess of powers

The tribunal did not exceed its powers by deciding for itself whether or not the claimant was an Italian national

‘Gross or egregious’ misapplication of the law could amount to a failure to apply the proper law

Majority considered that the tribunal had not exceeded its powers by failing to apply the proper law to the evidence submitted by Mr. Soufraki

Failure to State Reasong ground not here to ensure “judicial perfection”

ICSID ad hoc committee considered that annulment review was a “limited exercise”

SGS has protected investment in respondent’s territory

At jurisdictional stage, characterization of claims is left to claimant

Tribunal draws distinction between contract and treaty claims, claiming jurisdiction over the latter

Respondent’s request for stay of proceedings is denied

Claimant’s pursuit of remedies in other fora not a bar to BIT claims

Tribunal recommends stay of contract arbitration and aims to protect claimant from being held in contempt of court

Tribunal is wary of far-reaching effects of umbrella clause, denies that the clause before it is capable of transforming contractual claims into treaty breaches

Tribunal refuses jurisdiction over purely contractual claims, giving precedence to the contractual forum selection clause

BIT waiting period deemed non-mandatory

Claimant’s request to disqualify respondent-appointed arbitrator is rejected

Contested “special duty to protect” is not enough to annul the award

No need to exhaust domestic remedies

Archives