Dissenter considers that committee could not second-guess approach of the tribunal on the merits

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.

No failure to state reasons, despite punctual lack of clarity, when dismissing claim of denial of justice

While tribunal could have further engaged with allegations of corruption, this is not a reviewable issue

Tribunal failed to answer question it set out to review, leaving the inquiry open – and resulting in a contradiction and failure to state reasons

By failing to review implementation of CMC Order, tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers

Committee clarifies applicable standards for the relevant annulment grounds

Background: Tribunal dismisses on the merits claims related to issues beyond its jurisdiction

Discrepancy in costs between the parties means that principle that costs follow the event would be an unreasonable burden for Hungary

While tribunal could have expounded further on its reasoning, the award remains intelligible

Goal of requirement to provide reasons is to keep arbitrariness at bay

Tribunal did not treat parties unequally by ordering production of awards adverse to the state in similar cases

Tribunal was entitled to reject Hungary’s request to reopen the proceedings to introduce new evidence on intra-EU issue

“Principle of consent” is not a fundamental rule of procedure, nor are the formal requirements of the award

Tribunal’s decision to ignore January 2019 Declarations is not a manifest excess of powers, given unclear status of these declarations and lack of impact on intra-EU argument

Tribunal’s decision on intra-EU objection is neither unreasonable nor untenable, as this is an issue on which “sophisticated jurists may have different opinions”

Committee should only review prima facie reasonableness of tenability of decision on jurisdiction to review allegations of manifest excess of powers

Investors are awarded full costs, as well as interest

Review of existence of deliberations cannot lead committee to examine at a granular level tribunal’s decision on each particular issue

Existence of deliberations qualifies as a fundamental rule of procedure

Tribunal did decide the issues before it, and it did not need to distinguish previous awards at every turn

No reinforced duty to state reasons to distinguish contradictory awards on same factual and legal background

Committee notes tension between Italy’s position that the state never consented to arbitrate dispute, and its argument that consent was removed at a later point

Archives