Tribunal hearing taximeter arbitration submits post-hearing questions to parties

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 hearing Coeur Mining v. Mexico arbitration rules on confidentiality, as hearing draws closer

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

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

Upon expiration of confidentiality agreement over USMCA negotiating documents, tribunal leaves issue of confidentiality to the parties

Tribunal clarifies scope of document production requests

Background: Claimant seeks access to USMCA negotiation documents to assess ratione temporis scope of NAFTA legacy provision

Expert reports filed with NDP submission does not allow for cross-examination, thus posing risk of disruption of the proceedings and breach of due process

Tribunal expresses sympathy towards legal experts’ submissions on “novel or complex questions”

Tribunal sees no rule against submission on evidence on legal matters

While parties can pursue their case, they should not prejudice the rights of others

No ground to suspend the proceedings pending criminal investigations, as tribunal recalls that the RoC’s allegations of corruption are uncorroborated

The state waited too long before filing for revision despite knowing of the allegations

Alleged conflict of interest cannot be established on the basis of stretched links allegedly tying Mr. Derains to Iran, Hezbollah, and ultimately Commisimpex

Allegations of corruption are based on hearsay

Revision request should be lodged within a reasonable timeframe, after the party “reasonably suspect” the existence of the fraud

Award can be revised or retracted in case of procedural fraud or corruption of one of the arbitrators, but tribunal needs to be convinced of allegations

No ground to postpone evidentiary hearing for new counsels to accustom themselves with the case

Request for security for costs is dismissed on grounds that it risks impairing the procedural calendar

Revision tribunal declines to prevent the state from introducing arbitral documents in parallel court proceedings

Archives