Delay in rectifying interference also figures in FET & Umbrella analysis

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.

On their own, Moldova’s tax policies did not constitute an indirect expropriation; the tribunal highlighted the state’s regulatory powers

No proof that claimant’s losses were caused by the respondent’s measures

Claimant was ordered to pay costs of arbitration and part of the respondent’s legal costs

Tribunal sees no specific obligation not to change tax and customs framework

At the merits stage, the claimant sought to amend its claim and join its parent company

Claimant complied with the BIT’s waiting period

Tribunal swiftly rejected several jurisdictional objections

Moldova’s elimination of customs and VAT exemptions prompted BIT claim

Claimant’s notice of arbitration was not defective

Iura novit curia principle imposes a duty on the tribunal to respect due process

Not all ambiguous words are equally important

Extinctive prescription defence fails on facts

Conflicting precedents can still offer guidance to the tribunal

Majority arbitrators find expropriation claims unsubstantiated in law and facts

Costs lie where they fall

No jurisdiction under contract since Kazakhstan is not a signatory

MFN clause can import FET, FPS standard and umbrella clause from other BITs

Swiss and Kazakh law also offer no route for jurisdiction under the Association Agreement

For the majority, an umbrella clause does not operate when the state is not a party to contract

No expropriation when there is nothing to expropriate, according to the majority

Archives