Human Rights jurisprudence unhelpful to interpret limitation period

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.

FTA provides a variety of criteria for identifying an indirect expropriation, including interference with “unequivocal and reasonable expectations”

Arbitrators send draft award to the parties

Tribunal identifies applicable law, emphasizing iura novit arbiter principle

Denial of fleet increase was contractual in nature

No expropriation of terminals

Frustration of expectations regarding fare evasion and vandalism did not cause the destruction of the companies’ value, thus no expropriation occurred

Cancellation of certain bus routes was contractual in nature

Claimants are ordered to pay a majority of costs, but arbitrators decline to award interest on costs award

Arbitrators ask parties for joint valuation model

Discounts and fines were not imposed in a discriminatory fashion

Failure to implement Master Plan did not violate any reasonable and unequivocal expectations

Chile also breached expectations that the state would combat vandalism

Chile violated the claimants reasonable and unequivocal expectations that the state would make reasonable efforts to combat fare evasion

Claimants were under no obligation to submit waiver for their companies, since they presented claims in their own names

Additional acts do not renew the limitation period for continuing breaches, majority holds

Dissenter considers that limitation period for continuing breaches should only start to run after the breach ceases to occur

Notice of dispute cannot suspend limitation period

Claim for creeping expropriation entails a composite act, and it is not time-barred

Background: Claimants face difficulties in operation of Santiago’s bus transportation system

For the majority, the limitation period for continuing breaches begins to run when the claimants first acquired knowledge of the initial measure

Tribunal sees no obligation to restore the contractual equilibrium under general Chilean law

Claims for unfair and inequitable treatment, discrimination, and failure to provide full protection and security are dismissed summarily

Arbitrators consider that ICSID Convention and ICSID Rules confer broad discretion to the tribunal in evidentiary matters

Tribunal finds that attorney-client privilege and common interest privilege are applicable in ICSID arbitration

Archives