Despite lack of express provision allowing for withdrawal of parties to annulment application, committee exercises procedural discretion to allow the request

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.

Background: Tribunal majority finds that only one claimant satisfies jurisdictional requirements and order fraction of damages sought; investors request partial annulment

Committee orders Spain to bear all costs

Committee finds no basis to annul decision on costs

Committee sees no failure to state reasons in damages calculation

Failure to state reasons requires outcome determinative impact

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

No manifest excess in findings of jurisdiction despite Achmea, Komstroy and Swedish court decisions

Committee fails to find manifest excess of powers in assumption of jurisdiction over intra-EU claim

Manifest excess of powers standard includes excess of mandate and wrongly accepting jurisdiction

Waiver provision of ICSID Rules only applies to procedural issues, and not to annulment arguments

Committee has limited mandate and cannot annul award on grounds not provided in the annulment application

Background: Withdrawal of benefits from investments in wind and solar power plants leads to 28 million award in favour of claimants; Spain files for annulment

Dissenter would have split costs

Committee orders Spain to bear arbitration and legal costs

Committee dismisses claims of departures from fundamental rules of procedure based on arbitrator’s link to expert, document production, and treatment of amicus request

Mr. Pierola considers that the award should be annulled for failure to provide reasons in damages analysis

Committee majority sees no failure to state reasons in calculation of damages

Mr. Pierola doubts that the tribunal properly verified the certainty and probative value of the damages claimed, but this does not reach the level of a manifest excess of powers

Committee majority sees no manifest excess of powers in decision to rely on the claimant’s expert report, absent a viable alternative offered by Spain

Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision on liability

Tribunal’s non-application of EU law to merits was neither a manifest excess of powers, nor a failure to state reasons

Tribunal did not exceed its powers by upholding jurisdiction over intra-EU dispute

Committee finds it “unrealistic” to require proof that serious departure from a fundamental procedural rule is outcome-determinative

Failure to state reasons includes contradictory reasons

Archives