Armenia is ordered to pay 438,000 USD to Mr. Khudyan, including contingency fee

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.

Committee annuls tribunal’s findings on jurisdiction ratione personae over Mr. Khudyan, as well as the costs award in its entirety

Committee rejects Armenia’s allegation that partial annulment would serve no purpose in this case

The manifest excess of powers could have significantly affected the award’s outcome

The fact that the question of whether Mr. Khudyan had retained ASSR citizenship after emigrating to the USA was not subject to detailed discussions before the tribunal is irrelevant

Committee finds that the excess of power was manifest

Tribunal did not otherwise address the critical question of whether Mr. Khudyan was a citizen of the ASSR after he emigrated to the USA, meaning that an excess of powers occurred

Statement that something is “common ground” requires a “positive acceptance” – which did not occur here

Committee focuses on tribunal’s statement that it was “common ground” between the parties that Mr. Khudyan continued to be a citizen of both Soviet Armenia and the USSR between his emigration to the USA and Armenia’s declaration of independence

A tribunal may manifestly exceed its powers by failing to uphold jurisdiction, but only if the decision is clearly “not tenable”; committee has a certain amount of discretion

Manifest excess of powers can in principle only be based on the record that was put before the tribunal; committee thus excludes letter that post-dates the award, but still finds it “disturbing”

Annulment is not an appeal

Application for partial annulment cannot be broadened during the proceedings

Committee decides to continue the award’s stay of enforcement on the condition that Mr. Khudyan must place the monies owed under the costs award into escrow; claimant agrees

Background: One of two original claimants files for partial annulment, challenging the award’s finding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction based on Mr. Khudyan’s nationality

Claimants are to bear the entire cost of the arbitration, plus 75% of Armenia’s legal expenses

Damages would not have been awarded due to lack of causation

No expropriation of work product that belongs to third party

Tribunal sees no expropriation, as it is unconvinced that Rasia’s partners abandoned the projects due to Armenia

Tribunal expresses serious doubt as to the feasibility of the claimants’ projects

Expropriation requires deprivation of protected property rights

Tribunal sees no arbitrariness in Armenia’s behaviour

Tribunal swiftly rejects allegations of bribe solicitation

No FET breach on account of failing to provide stable and consistent environment or “transparent legal framework”

Despite contractual breaches, tribunal sees no frustration of legitimate expectations, since claimants failed to live up to their end of the bargain

Archives