Spain ordered to bear all costs of annulment proceedings

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’s decision to consider EU law as a matter of fact was consistent with its decision on applicable law

Committee sees no ground in ECT to hold that EU law could bind states not parties to the EU

Committee adheres to two-pronged test to assess manifest excess of powers

Committee declines to hear new arguments on applicable law

Committee declines requests for filing of new expert evidence and non-disputing party submission by European Commission

Old academic connection with claimant’s counsel is insufficient to lead to disqualification

Background: tribunal upholds ECT claim brought by Japanese investor in solar power plant

Discrepancy in costs between the parties means that principle that costs follow the event would be an unreasonable burden for Hungary

While tribunal could have expounded further on its reasoning, the award remains intelligible

Goal of requirement to provide reasons is to keep arbitrariness at bay

Tribunal did not treat parties unequally by ordering production of awards adverse to the state in similar cases

Tribunal was entitled to reject Hungary’s request to reopen the proceedings to introduce new evidence on intra-EU issue

“Principle of consent” is not a fundamental rule of procedure, nor are the formal requirements of the award

Tribunal’s decision to ignore January 2019 Declarations is not a manifest excess of powers, given unclear status of these declarations and lack of impact on intra-EU argument

Tribunal’s decision on intra-EU objection is neither unreasonable nor untenable, as this is an issue on which “sophisticated jurists may have different opinions”

Committee should only review prima facie reasonableness of tenability of decision on jurisdiction to review allegations of manifest excess of powers

Investors are awarded full costs, as well as interest

Review of existence of deliberations cannot lead committee to examine at a granular level tribunal’s decision on each particular issue

Existence of deliberations qualifies as a fundamental rule of procedure

Tribunal did decide the issues before it, and it did not need to distinguish previous awards at every turn

No reinforced duty to state reasons to distinguish contradictory awards on same factual and legal background

Archives