Concerns of judicial propriety or public policy affecting enforcement should not influence decision on 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.

Bulgaria’s theory based on “bundles” of bilateral rights and obligations does not change the outcome

Analogies based on Mox Plant case do not assist, tribunal says

Tribunal sees no agreement to suspend ECT arbitration under VCLT Article 58

VCLT conflict clause cannot apply where the treaty already contains a conflict clause

Bulgaria’s arguments based on applicable law clause create a “logical paradox”

Conflict clause in ECT Article 16 determines that ECT must prevail over EU law

Tribunal finds prima facie jurisdiction under ECT and ICSID Convention

State’s argument on ab initio effect of CJEU rulings is viewed by tribunal as self-defeating

Costs are reasonable given complexity of the case; discrepancy between parties’ costs can be explained by claimants’ burden of proof

Investors are entitled to be compensated in USD, as they did not assume exchange rate risk

Quantum claims brought in last submission, to which other party could not respond, are inadmissible

Arbitrators decline to speculate on potential share price in but-for scenario, and opt to compensate claimants for trading losses

Neither the treaty nor general international law bar non-beneficial owners from lodging claim for losses

Treaty breach was too remote from alleged losses as to shares in unrelated firms

State fails to prove that merger would have been accepted in but-for scenario, or that intervening causes broke the causal chain

Causation in law requires consideration of directness, foreseeability, and proximity

Proper comparator for national treatment standard suffered to the same extent as the claimants

State interference with merger vote to favour Lee family amounted to MST breach

Threshold for breach of minimum standard of treatment is high, but should not be overstretched

No principle that only sovereign acts can engage state liability; claimants did not assume risk of criminal interference with merger

Exceptions to national treatment claims do not apply since tribunal has no jurisdiction over NPS’s conduct

Public function and goals of the NPS do not mean that every action taken by the fund is governmental in nature

Tribunal majority considers that NPS is not a de facto state organ, seeing no complete dependency on the state

Entity with separate legal personality does not qualify as de jure state organ

Archives