Costs ordered mostly against investor, with discount grounded in considerations of access to justice

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.

Remaining claims, including alleged breaches of legal security and expropriation, are swiftly dismissed; tribunal rejects ideas of legal security “positive obligations” and temporary expropriation

8 billion EUR fine is “shockingly disproportionate”, but the Hungarian court system self-corrected, amidst claimant’s own “intransigence”

Local court’s regular application of treaty-compliant law cannot constitute denial of justice

Claimant must take local bankruptcy law as he finds it; no legitimate expectation of change rather than stability

Jurisdictional objections regarding standing and ownership of investment are dismissed

Tribunal criticises claimant’s “persistent” failure to meet deadlines and submit evidence

Background: Trademark infringement and insolvency disputes underpin treaty claim

Hungary ordered to bear ICSID costs and claimants’ costs

Committee found sufficient reasons by tribunal in rejecting Hungary’s qualification of the dispute and mitigation arguments

Committee found tribunal’s analysis of treaty conflict “perfectly clear”

Committee saw no failure to apply the law in tribunal’s refusal to reduce quantum of claimants’ losses

Committee found no manifest excess of powers in tribunal’s decision to uphold jurisdiction notwithstanding Achmea Decision and subsequent 2019 Declaration

Manifest excess of powers must be both self-evident and substantively serious

Annulment safeguards overall integrity and legitimacy of arbitral process and is not designed to correct mere error in the award

Background: Hungary filed for annulment of intra-EU farming award

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

Archives