A nod to human rights obligations, but ultimate relevance appears minimal

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 dissenting opinion, Mr. Tomuschat considers that the claimants had no legitimate expectation of legal stability when making their hydro investments

Majority finds that the claimants had legitimate expectations that the “fundamental characteristics” of the Special Regime would remain in place with respect to their hydro investments

Arbitrators unanimously find that the claimants had legitimate expectations of legal stability with respect to their PV investments

Majority applies a 40% discount to compensation for PV plants, orders a supplemental report, and grants €33 million plus interest in damages

Tribunal invites the parties to make post-hearing submissions on the ECJ’s Achmea judgment, but it rejects the European Commission’s request to intervene

Achmea judgment does not apply to an arbitration brought under the ECT and the ICSID Convention

Tribunal finds that EU law has no supremacy over the ECT

Tribunal rejects Spain’s corporate personality objection

Tribunal applies ECT’s tax carve-out and declines jurisdiction over tax related measures

The 2013/2014 regulatory changes (but not the 2010 changes) breached the claimants’ legitimate expectations

Loser pays costs and fees, but tribunal assesses reasonable costs in light of size of initial claim

Exchange rate differences

Technical assistance contract found linked to concession contract

Interest set at agreed rate of return

Jurisdictional objections raised in quantum phase

Tribunal rejects Argentina’s quantum-jurisdictional objections

Argentina sought to value each breach separately; risk of double compensation dismissed

State questions use of ex post data in DCF model

“Financial strangulation” of concessionaire underpins FET breach

Primary claim of expropriation upheld; necessity may have applied in 2002, but not in 2009

Archives