No tax gross-up, and no order for Spain to undertake to hold claimants harmless

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.

Majority awards 50% of costs to claimants, while Spain is made to bear arbitration costs

Claw-back breach is limited to plants specifically mentioned by claimants

Spain should compensate for sums withheld from monies due to the 10 plants

Tribunal cannot reconsider past findings, except in exceptional circumstances

Rates identified in the decision on liability cannot be varied at this stage

Interest in line with 10-year Spanish bonds

Tribunal rejects suggestion of preliminary reference to ECJ and concerns over enforceability

Claimants had no legitimate expectations with respect to investments made prior to 2004

EU law is not directly applicable to the intra-EU jurisdictional objection

ECT does not prohibit intra-EU disputes

Even if EU law was applicable, tribunal would still have jurisdiction

No umbrella clause breach

Tribunal directs parties to reach an agreement on damages

Restitution is “plainly” not appropriate

Tribunal applies tax carve-out and declines jurisdiction over tax -related measures

European Commission submits several amicus briefs

Obligation to repay previously-received incentives amounts to a “total and unreasonable change”

Where facilities do not reach an IRR of 7.398%, the impact of the New Regime was disproportional

No breach of transparency obligation, but reference to standard installation is a “cause for legitimate concern”

Disproportionate measures are also unreasonable

Arbitrators see insufficient due diligence

Tribunal finds no actual reliance on RD 661/2007

Customary international law confirms analysis of intra-EU objection

Absent specific commitments, the ECT only protects against “total and unreasonable” legislative changes

Archives