Committee identifies five factors to be taken into account for the stay decision

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.

Both parties are ordered to submit undertakings to pay

Committee conditions the stay; Pakistan must post security for 25% of the award damages, and TCCA must post security for associated costs

Settlement in parallel Karkey v. Pakistan case is not “determinative” in showing risk of non-compliance

No compelling risk of non-recoupment in light of claimant’s offer to place monies into an escrow account

TCCA will suffer a “degree of prejudice” if the stay is maintained

Hardship for Pakistan resulting from immediate enforcement is real, but not as dire as claimed

Committee sees insufficient proof that Pakistan’s request for a stay was made in bad faith

No presumption for or against a stay; third treaties on rights to life and health are irrelevant

Committee orders Spain to bear annulment and legal costs

Committee exercises procedural economy to dismiss other arguments

No breach of fundamental procedural rules based on principle of congruence

Committee dismisses claims of departure from fundamental rules of procedure and failure to state reasons on evidentiary issues and admission of translations

Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision on legitimate expectations and analysis of the investment

Higher threshold for annulment of damages analysis is not met in this case

Tribunal’s non-application of EU law to merits was not a manifest excess of powers or a failure to state reasons

Tribunal acted within its powers when it assumed jurisdiction over intra-EU dispute

De novo jurisdictional objection cannot be raised for the first time at annulment stage

Tribunal’s analysis of denial of benefits objection did not exhibit any manifest excess of powers and was well reasoned

Non-application of Salini test does not amount to an excess of powers or failure to state reasons

Tribunal did not exceed its powers or fail to state reasons while upholding rationae personae jurisdiction over investors

Failure to state reasons includes contradictory reasons

Committee finds that the distinct possibility of an impact on the dispute’s outcome is enough for a “serious departure from a fundamental procedural rule”

Manifest Excess of Powers requires two-step analysis

Committee applies VCLT and opines that previous decisions should be given “due consideration”

Archives