Other grounds for challenge are dismissed

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.

Payment of the award is ultimately imputable to Romania, making it state aid

Commission was entitled to find that payment of award amounts to state aid

Since ICSID tribunal does not form part of EU judicial system, Romania simply has no obligation under the ICSID Convention in this case

Impossibility to enforce the award in the EU does not entail inadmissibility of the investors’ plea for relief from the Commission’s injunction

Background: Battle for enforcement of ICSID award takes a detour through EU courts

Romania bears full arbitration costs and 60% of claimants’ fees

Tribunal looks to treaty text to award interest at market rate, rejecting risk-free rate and actual borrowing costs

In “but-for” scenario, claimants would not have needed to incur broker fees to sell their GCs

No support in actual scenario for discounted energy sales due to “bundling”; dissenter argues for deferred sales

Using producers’ energy forecasts to limit compensation was not an ECT breach, and associated losses are not compensable

Tribunal issues detailed guidance on joint damages model

Background: Tribunal finds liability on narrower grounds than assumed by claimants’ quantum model, orders further proceedings failing agreement by parties on damages

Dissenter considers that rejection of the Special Law thwarted the project and amounted to FET breach

Mr. Grigera Naon finds that Romania’s government favored political objectives over the environmental permitting process

Dissenter opines that cumulative or continuing conduct may amount to FET breach even if no conspiracy or coordinated planning exists

Majority awards costs to Romania

In any case, tribunal majority would have dismissed claimants’ arguments based on lack of causation

Second alternative claim based on post-2013 events, including UNESCO classification, is rejected

First alternative claim is dismissed, with arbitrators stressing that there was no discrimination

Arbitrators see no composite act and reject claimants’ principal claim

Majority sees no mishandling of Bucium license applications

Submission and rejection of Draft Law regarding the project are not tainted by abuse of power, according to majority arbitrators

Tribunal majority finds no impropriety in EIA process and related technical elements

Tribunal sees no improper link between delays in permitting process and state’s attempt to renegotiate financial aspects of mining project

Archives