Appointing authority cannot award costs under UNCITRAL Rules

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.

Involvement in “sheer number of cases” under the same treaty increases chances that arbitrator will have to decide issues on which he/she is involved as counsel

Supplementary submission on challenge is timely, as challenge itself was filed within the deadline

Background: Claimant lodges energy-related arbitration, but tribunal’s appointee is challenged over concurrent involvement as counsel in other ECT cases

Background: investor signs a contract to supply heating to Latvian municipality, but is soon caught between rising gas prices and regulated tariffs

Arbitration proceeds to the next stage

Achmea Decision should be considered as domestic law pursuant to Article 27 VCLT

EU law and the BIT may have the same subject matter on the merits, but no conflict exists between EU law and the ICSID Convention for jurisdictional purposes

Arguments based on lex superior and lex specialis conflict rules are dismissed

Tribunal dismisses idea that the mere possibility of a conflict with EU law could lead to a lack of jurisdiction

Interpretation under Article 31(3)(c) VCLT cannot result in removing the BIT’s express arbitration clause

Article 42 ICSID Convention is only applicable to the merits, not to jurisdictional questions

EU principles of primacy and autonomy are not ‘rules’ within the meaning of Article 5 VCLT

EU law is dual in nature – but CJEU decisions must be distinguished from EU Treaties

Lack of safeguards identified in the CJEU’s CETA Opinion does not affect the tribunal’s jurisdiction

CJEU’s Achmea Decision was a constitutional interpretation of EU law, but it did not interpret the BIT in accordance with principles of treaty interpretation

ICSID Convention creates an independent legal order

Background: Banking dispute features multiple procedural developments, intervention by the EC, and questions of EU law both at the jurisdictional and merits stages

Ancillary claim is to be handled by the directors

The insolvency administrator’s right of representation is affirmed for a majority of claims

Seeing no rule on company representation in international law, the tribunal turns to domestic law for guidance

New shareholders cannot be deemed to be PNB’s representatives

Tribunal considers Mr. Behrends’ power of attorney to be revoked

Former council members did not have the power to appoint PNB’s counsel

Arbitrators distinguish CJEU judgment

Archives