Remaining measures cannot be granted given insufficient showing of claimant’s likelihood of success on the merits, and of irreparable harm

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.

Security for claim cannot be granted given absence of a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, while state’s financial situation and behaviour offer no particular cause for concern

Requests for security for claim require high chances of success on the merits, and should take into account opposing party’s financial situation and behaviour

Request for escrow amounts to a request for security for claim

Background: shareholder dispute follows from nationalisation of oil assets

Committee orders Spain to bear arbitration costs and 75% of claimant’s legal fees

Tribunal’s reasoning on denial of benefits and determination of liability was clear

Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision on the non-application of EU law

Assessment of damages does not meet the threshold for manifest excess of powers or failure to state reasons

Tribunal’s refusal to find an implicit disconnection clause was not a manifest excess of powers

Tribunal was within its powers to assume jurisdiction over intra-EU dispute

Tribunal’s analysis of intra-EU jurisdictional objection followed Vattenfall decision

Failure to state reasons gives committee limited ability to question tribunal’s decision

Manifest excess of powers requires two-step analysis

No review of award on the merits

Background: Spain files for annulment, criticizing the tribunal’s treatment of jurisdiction, merits, and damages

Tribunal disavows responsibility for ensuring coherence or development of arbitral jurisprudence

On facts of case, assets lack hallmarks of protected “investments”

“Every kind of asset” may be narrower than it seems

Committee refuses to order security on award

Based on a factual analysis, committee concludes that there is a real risk of non-recoupment of the damages awarded in case of annulment

Applicant who provides reasonable assurances that the award will be complied with if the annulment bid fails should be entitled to a stay

Committee applies balance of hardships approach

Applicant bears the burden of proving that a stay is warranted

Committee sets out legal standard applicable to decision on stay of enforcement

Archives