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

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.

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

Effect of contested measures is key when assessing claim of indirect expropriation

Umbrella clause only protects against sovereign interference by the state

Tribunal identifies non-impairment and non-discrimination protections

FPS protection is limited to protection from physical harm, under both BITs

Tribunal majority finds that FET standard is the same in both BITs, despite the fact that only the Canada BIT refers to the MST

Composite act requires clear link between series of events; BITs do not create composite obligations

Claimants submit three different claims

Tribunal rejects objections based on limitations period and non-retroactivity of treaties for alternative claims

Canada BIT’s waiver requirement is satisfied since it was “substantively complied with” when arbitration was filed

Claimants were not required to submit separate notices of dispute for subsequent facts that do not change character of the claims

Tribunal finds that UK BIT requires economic definition of investment to be met

CJEU’s Achmea Judgment does not bar claims by Jersey-incorporated investor, since EU law only applied in a limited fashion to the Bailiwick while the UK was an EU member state

Arbitrators identify applicable law, stressing that Romanian law may be relevant to identify parties’ rights and obligations and that prior arbitral decisions are not binding

Archives