[Updated, October 11, 2024: Court of appeal did not err in finding that tribunal’s analysis pertained to the merits, and that no breach of due process tainted the arbitral proceedings]

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.

Facts do not evidence exceptional circumstances needed to discontinue cassation appeals

Cyprus and Gabon prevail in set-aside proceedings before the Paris Court of Appeal; investors lodge cassation appeals, but fail to make costs payments

Committee orders costs to lie where they fall

Failure to state reasons gives committee ability to question reasons behind weighing of evidence

No departure from fundamental procedural rules in decision on compensation, or in rejecting jurisdictional objections

Fact-specific enquiry leads to conclusion of no breach of fundamental procedural rules through introduction of legal and factual exhibits

The same conduct can entail manifest excess of powers and a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure

Tribunal well within its mandate to not make a ruling on an unclear objection

No manifest excess of powers in declining to apply EU law

Tribunal’s reasoning on alleged conflict between BIT and EU law is not “egregiously or grossly erroneous”

Manifest Excess of powers standard requires more than a cursory look at the award

ICSID provides exclusive grounds for annulment and only permits limited review of decisions

Background: Greece applies for annulment, criticizing the tribunal’s treatment of jurisdiction, merits, and damages

Background: claimants’ investment in Laiki is wiped out after bank is dissolved

No denial of justice, as contradiction between awards is not established

No breach of adversarial principle, as tribunal did not rely on information unknown to the claimant

Tribunal’s finding that question was beyond its “jurisdiction” does not mean that it failed to exercise arbitral competence

Narrow reading of same subject-matter would bring chaos to international law

EU law is part of the applicable law

EU treaties and BITs do not share the same subject matter as BITs provide for international arbitration proceedings

EU law does not apply to the tribunal’s jurisdiction

Joint proceedings are different from consolidated proceedings

Majority examines three previous cases on mass claims

Joint declarations are an “authentic interpretation”

Archives