Existence of dissent to the award suggests that annulment application was not frivolous, but Spain is nevertheless made to bear most of claimant’s costs

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.

Tribunal did not contradict itself when reviewing CJEU’s decisions

Tribunal did address potential application of EU state aid rules

Spain’s intra-EU objection is unpersuasive, meaning that tribunal did not manifestly err when upholding jurisdiction

In assessing manifest character of alleged excess of powers, committee cannot ignore mass of previous decisions by tribunals and committees that dismissed Spain’s intra-EU objection

Principle of finality of arbitral awards means that committee is limited in finding that tribunal exceeded its powers or failed to state reasons

Parties are allowed to file new expert reports in annulment proceedings

Committee applies its discretion and awards arbitration costs, plus 85% of legal costs to claimant

No breach of procedural rules in rejecting EC’s application to join as amicus curiae

Tribunal had discretion to reject evidence

Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure requires two-step analysis

Tribunal provided sufficient reasoning for its decision on the non-application of EU law

Failure to state reasons standard needs to be interpreted in light of principle of finality of ICSID awards

Tribunal’s refusal to apply Achmea jurisprudence to ECT case does not amount to a manifest excess of powers

Manifest excess of powers standard can only be met if the tribunal erred egregiously; consistent case-law may be an indication that the standard is not met

Background: Spain applies for annulment of intra-EU renewable energy award

In the absence of reasons to confirm the stay, committee finds no need to rule on request for security

Committee finds potential conflict with EU law irrelevant to decision on stay

BayWa is likely to suffer harm if stay is continued

Spain fails to prove actual risk of non-recoupment

Committee finds merits of application irrelevant to the decision on the award’s continued stay

Risk of non-recoupment and balancing of potential harm to the parties are relevant circumstances

Committee holds that stay is an exceptional remedy since ICSID awards are final and binding

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

Archives