Moldova fails to prove that jurisdictional objections are prima facie serious

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 affirms power to bifurcate proceedings and applies three-prong test, with procedural efficiency and overall fairness in mind

Background: Moldova asks for bifurcation of objections to jurisdiction ratione personae, pointing to alleged lack of substantial business activities on the side of foreign claimant and change of control over domestic claimant

Tribunal’s finding is not altered by claimants’ request for reconsideration

No evidence that Decision 523 made Rotalin’s gas supply operation impossible

No evidence of claimants’ inability to proceed with arbitration if no provisional measure is ordered

Arbitrators do not see sufficient link between rights invoked in provisional measures request and claimants’ request for relief

Provisional measures may be aimed at protecting procedural rights

Tribunal differentiates between rights to be protected with provisional measures and rights that are basis of claimants’ merits claims

Prima facie merits test is low and requires that the claims are not frivolous

Tribunal upholds prima facie jurisdiction, relying on prior ruling; Moldova’s fork-in-the-road argument does not alter arbitrators’ conclusion

Tribunal applies four-prong test, which subsumes other considerations advanced by Moldova

Tribunal’s right to order provisional measures derives from Article 46(1) of ICSID AF Rules

Claimants’ provisional measures request does not amount to amendment of their claims on the merits

Background: Gas distribution investors seek protection against potential revocation of supply license and potential monetary fine

On balance, tribunal conditions interim relief upon claimants placing half of announced fine into escrow account pending final award

Tribunal may only grant measures necessary to protect rights at risk

Denial of interim relief would severely impair claimants’ procedural rights, while Moldova may remedy consequences stemming from granting of some measures

Claimants fail to substantiate risk of harm in relation to enforcement of ANRE’s decision finding Rotaling’s surplus

Tribunal agrees that claimants accepted possibility of monetary fine in principle, but not its quantum

Arbitrators see risk of irreparable harm if monetary fine is enforced against Rotalin’s assets

Tribunal finds sufficient link between underlying dispute and rights whose protection is sought

Provisional measures are fit to protect procedural rights, including right to non-aggravation of dispute and right to fair trial

Tribunal reiterates previous finding that claimants’ claims are not frivolous

ICSID Secretary-General’s screening powers are without prejudice to tribunal’s competence to rule on jurisdiction

Archives