Claimants are ordered to bear costs of arbitration, but reimbursement of legal fees is limited to “reasonable” amounts; provisional measures are lifted

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.

In the absence of manifest injustice, mere assumption of lack of access to an independent and impartial tribunal cannot substitute consent to arbitrate

Lack of offer to arbitrate or arbitration clause excludes any jurisdiction over the claims

Application of effet utile principle cannot run against the clear meaning of a provision

Object and purpose of the treaty do not create a presumption in favour of consent to arbitration

Existence of substantive obligations in the treaty does not necessarily entail a possibility to resort to investor-state arbitration

Majority considers that the expression “recourse may be had” is “unusual” in arbitration agreements

Ordinary meaning excludes investor-state disputes from the scope of Article XV

Arbitrators zero in on jurisdictional objection regarding the interpretation of Article XV of the Framework Agreement

Tribunal orders urgent provisional measures; condition on provisional measures is subsequently lifted, as claimants prove impossibility to provide bank guarantee

Tribunal decides on Venezuela’s representation, ruling in favour of Maduro’s government

Background: Claimants seek payment of outstanding debts and additional costs under construction contracts

Costs are corrected

Ex-post valuation is adopted, but should be adjusted for imperfect foresight

Russian mandatory laws do not bar arbitration as they do not apply to the dispute

Most claims are time-barred under Swedish law

Obligation to render enforceable award does not mean award should be enforceable in respondent’s home state

Tribunal orders disclosure of funder and funding arrangement

Dispute centers on central bank’s effort to oust Kompozit and others as shareholders of a local bank

2010 EA rules apply to 1998 BIT

Cooling off period not applicable since respondent did not engage with offer to negotiate

Arbitrator sees prima facie indication that applicant is protected investor with a protected investment

Some orders are warranted, others are not

Significant or substantial prejudice test vs. irreparable harm test?

Proportionality

Archives