Tribunal reveals that, in parallel case, Denmark chose to suspend the solidarity contribution pending the ICSID arbitration

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.

Tribunal orders that Germany shall refrain from demanding payment of the 2022 solidarity contribution

Putting the solidarity contribution for 2022 on hold through provisional measures would not disproportionately affect Germany

Requested measures are urgent, as solidarity contribution for 2022 is due imminently

Provisional measures are necessary to protect the status quo, absent sufficient assurances by Germany

Provisional measures are necessary to protect the claimants’ right of exclusivity under the ICSID Convention

Provisional measures are necessary if party would incur very serious harm without them

Test for prima facie merits case is relatively undemanding, and met in the circumstances

Arbitrators will rule on whether ECT’s tax carve-out applies to the case once jurisdictional challenges have been raised

Arbitrators see need for prima facie jurisdiction and prima facie merits case, despite silence of 2022 Rules on the issue

Tribunal dismisses claimants’ request for temporary restraining order and respondent’s request for waiver of confidentiality of tax documents

Background: Claimants ask for provisional measure aimed at halting enforcement of solidarity contribution

Tribunal declines Germany’s request for an order directing claimants to waive confidentiality of their tax documents

ICSID AF tribunal’s award and decisions stemming will be published, while Denmark and Germany ICSID cases will require parties’ agreement for publication of award

EU arbitration is seated in Geneva; three cases remain separate, but are coordinated

Partial bifurcation is against procedural efficiency if it cannot lead to disposal of arbitration

Tribunal finds that, prima facie, analysis of the merits is necessary to deal with most jurisdictional objections

Mexico files jurisdictional objections together with request for bifurcation

Costs are split

Denmark, Spain and Sweden agree on primacy of EU law, which must thus prevail over the ECT

Spain’s unilateral offer to arbitrate intra-EU disputes is not valid under EU law

CJEU’s Achmea and Komstroy Judgments are applicable to the arbitration

ECT’s object and purpose and supplementary means of interpretation are inconclusive

EU law must be considered for systemic integration purposes

Majority Achmea Declaration qualifies as an authentic interpretation

Archives