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

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 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

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

Manifest Excess of Powers requires two-step analysis

Committee cannot act as an appellate court

Archives