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

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

Assessment of arguments supported bifurcation of quantum issues

Tribunal finds that it is competent to bifurcate proceedings based on its case management powers

Costs are allocated equally between the parties

Liability for claim leads to damages of 14.5 million EUR

Tribunal majority sees clear causal link between the privatization agency’s conduct and BD Agro’s bankruptcy

Mr. Kohen opines that the privatization agreement’s termination was justified and did not amount to an FET breach

Tribunal majority finds violation of FET standard

Tribunal majority finds that FET standard is linked to the customary international law standard of MST

Actions of the privatisation agency are an exercise of sovereign power

The privatization agency’s acts are attributable to Serbia under ILC Article 5

Privatization agency does not qualify as a state organ

Abuse of process claim is rejected, as there is no evidence that claimants internationalised a domestic claim

Claims were not barred by the BIT’s three-year limitation period

Tribunal majority stresses treaty non-retroactivity, but finds no retroactivity in this case

Tribunal majority adds that, in any case, Serbia’s illegality objection would fail

Mr. Kohen opines that a presumption in favour of a legality requirement exists

Tribunal majority finds it inappropriate to read an implicit legality requirement into the BIT

Tribunal relies on its power to review jurisdiction ex officio to examine belated illegality objection

Tribunal rejects jurisdiction over claims to money

Dissenter opines that the majority’s position renders Serbia’s restrictions on the foreign ownership of shares meaningless

Archives