Claimants ordered to bear ICSID costs and part of Panama’s legal costs

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.

Lack of (illegitimate) sovereign action leads tribunal to dismiss claims on the merits

Commercial nature of claims and existence of contractual dispute resolution procedures does not constitute bar to jurisdiction

No evidence according to Panamanian law was adduced to prove corruption in the making of investment; tribunal saw no need to determine standard of proof of corruption or address requirement of express provision in BIT

Claimants failed to prove that criminal investigation into claimants and accompanying measures were illegitimate; tribunal finds red flags in claimants’ suspected transaction

Panama acted based on legitimate commercial reasons in terminating the project contracts due to claimants’ non-performance

Claimants’ case hinges on whether Panama acted as a sovereign or commercial party, and whether illegitimate police powers were engaged

Tribunal sees nexus requirement in BIT, but finds that alleged interference with contracts and criminal investigations are sufficiently linked with the investment

Background: Failure of construction projects and bribery investigations leads to ICSID arbitration

Claimant seeks between 500 and 800 million in compensation, plus moral damages

Parties discuss whether treaty’s MFN clause can import FPS standard

Treaty approval requirement has not been complied with, according to the state

State sees insufficient evidence of investment qualifying for BIT protection

Treaty entered into force after majority of acts took place, but claimant considers that jurisdiction exists nonetheless

Azerbaijan raises question mark over attribution to state of acts by members of ruling families

Parties debate factual background, with Mr. Bahari alleging misconduct by Azerbaijan’s ruling family and state alleging fraud on the tribunal

Arbitration tribunal reads TRA’s silence on dual nationality issue as allowing claims by dual nationals against one of their home states, seeing no need to engage with dominant and effective nationality test

Costs are split given good faith and professionalism on both sides

Needs to preserve <em>state quo</em> and prevent aggravation of dispute do not favour claimant’s request for second set of measures

Clarity of requested measures regarding Special Manager is outweighed by lack of proposal of minimally invasive measures

While emphasising Georgia’s regulatory rights, tribunal sees insufficient evidence that survival of Caucasus Online would be jeopardized through activity of Special Manager

Claimant’s formulation of first request is “overly broad and vague”; the tribunal adopts its own formulation

Availability of damages is not dispositive for existence of irreparable harm

First requested measure would preserve <em>status quo</em> without disproportionately affecting Georgia

The tribunal saw a genuine risk of licence revocation

Archives