Despite lack of express provision allowing for withdrawal of parties to annulment application, committee exercises procedural discretion to allow the request

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.

Background: Tribunal majority finds that only one claimant satisfies jurisdictional requirements and order fraction of damages sought; investors request partial annulment

Ms. Haridi opines that no breach in Luxembourgish control over claimants occurred

Dissenter opines that no abuse of process is established in circumstances where claimants enjoyed treaty protection at time of alleged breach, and evidence regarding economic purpose of restructuring is ambivalent

Tribunal majority orders claimants to bear 90% of costs

Beauvallon’s acquisition of the claimants aimed at acquiring a previously-crystallized ICSID claim, rather than developing an economic activity in Serbia

Dispute was foreseeable when Beauvallon acquired the claimants in January 2019

Tribunal majority finds that claimants were not under actual control of any Luxembourg entity between October 2018 and January 2019

Claimants bear burden of proving actual control

Control is only established if the relevant entity disposes of legal means to exercise control

Abuse of process is not limited to scenarios in which the restructuring/acquisition creates access to BIT protection where none existed at the time of the alleged breach

Bankruptcy proceedings prompt request for provisional measures and decision on representation; tribunal decides to hear abuse of process objection in bifurcated phase

Claimants are without a Luxembourgish parent company for three months between some of the contested acts and the filing of the arbitration

Background: Urban development project is thwarted by claims of third party, leading to cancellation of lease agreement

Costs should be split, since both parties benefit from supplementary decision

Serbia’s argument that interest should start running 120 days after the date of the award contradicts international law principle of full reparation

Award was clear that interest should accrue from date of breach, but tribunal nevertheless agrees to issue supplementary decision

Serbia is awarded full costs, plus interest

Creeping expropriation claim is rejected

Decisions on transfer of Kornikom’s shares in Rudnik Kovin to the state complied with domestic law and the Privatization Agreement

Privatization Agency was also justified in terminating the Privatization Agreement due to a breach of social program obligations

Privatization Agency validly found that claimant had breached the business continuity obligation, due to illiquidity of Rudnik Kovin

Termination of Privatization Agreement was neither discriminatory, nor prompted by collusion between government and local businessman

Contract breach may only amount to treaty breach if it involves the exercise of the state’s sovereign power

Claim that state-owned thermal power plants discriminated against the claimant is not made out on the facts, and, in any event, claimant failed to prove that this conduct is attributable to the state

Archives