Committee orders Spain to bear costs of the proceedings, plus half of InfraRed’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.

No violation of impartiality or improper shifting of burden of proof

No violation of Spain’s right to be heard

Committee finds that a “serious departure from a fundamental procedural rule” requires a material impact on the outcome of the award

No manifest excess of powers or failure to state reasons in damages analysis

No failure to state reasons in the evaluation and treatment of evidence

No failure to provide reasons for disregarding EU law, misapplication of the ECT, or characterisation of representations made by Spain as “legally cognizable facts”

No lack of reasoning in the determination by the tribunal that the CSP plants’ installed capacity did not exceed 50 MW

Failure to state reasons requires a clear line of reasoning that can be followed

Tribunal’s non-application of EU law and failure to apply EU state-aid rules was not a manifest excess of powers

Tribunal was within its powers to assume jurisdiction over intra-EU dispute

Committee emphasizes that Spain had not raised clean hands argument during the proceedings and, in any case, failed to credibly prove these allegations

Manifest Excess of Powers requires two-step analysis

Committee emphasizes limited scope of annulment and non-binding nature of previous decisions

Background: Spain files for annulment, criticizing the tribunal’s treatment of jurisdiction, merits and the majority’s approach towards quantification of damages

Committee sets out conditions for stay, requiring commitment from investors’ parent companies

Committee opts for conditional lifting of stay

The committee balances potential harm to parties, but finds that Spain is unwilling to offer assurances

Danger of non-recoupment is a “circumstance” that may require continuing the stay, but post-award interest would not cover harm caused to investors

Committee does not deem Spain’s application dilatory; no presumption in favour or against enforcement

Committee chimes in on applicable legal standard and sidesteps discussion on EU law

Annulment is proceeding in parallel to revision bid by Spain

Challenges dismissed on timeliness are just as much res judicata as challenges dismissed on the merits

Debate with “vigour” and “passion” did not damage integrity of the proceedings

Costs lie where they fall

Archives