Claimants’ initial appointee was challenged over links with counsel

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.

Claimant’s request for a security for costs related to the EC’s intervention is rejected, but the tribunal reserves its right to rule on the costs allocation at a subsequent stage

EC is not allowed to participate at the hearing

EC is only granted access to redacted jurisdictional pleadings

Tribunal limits the scope of the EC’s written submission to reduce the additional burden placed on the claimant

While the EC’s intervention would result in additional costs that are more likely to affect the claimant, this does not amount to an undue burden

EC’s duty to ensure application of EU law reflects a significant interest in the proceedings

Tribunal finds that the EC’s application only concerns the intra-EU jurisdictional objection, which is within the scope of the dispute

While the EC’s position may be aligned with that of Romania, it may provide insight that is unknown or was not advanced by the respondent

Tribunal has discretion to impose conditions on the form of an amicus participation

ICSID Secretariat discovers the EC’s application belatedly, after it lands in spam folder; parties agree to expedite the decision

Tribunal also sees no MST breach

Claimant had no legitimate expectations that no activities would be required before conclusion of a PPA

Tribunal finds that Kenyan law governs the merits phase, but international law may apply through local law

Background: WalAm initiates contract-based arbitration after Kenya declares forfeiture of its geothermal license

Arbitrators dismiss Kenya’s allegation that the license was void ab initio

Claimant raises concern about planned advisory function of Mr. Munyantwali’s partner, but has no objection to advisory activities of affiliated legal institute

WalAm claims corporate dual nationality for purposes of registration and jurisdiction

Security for costs application is dismissed

Still-unpublished jurisdictional decision dismissed ratione personae and ratione temporis objections

Tribunal sees no indication that forfeiture was carried out in bad faith

Forfeiture can be ordered for lack of “physical acts” carried out on the land

Tribunal summarily dismisses initial grounds invoked in support of an alleged unlawfulness of the license revocation

Forfeiture notice was not ultra vires

Customary international law prohibition of unlawful expropriation does not apply, but the claim would, in any case, fail on the merits

Archives