Colombia is awarded all of its costs, plus interest

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.

Doctrine of estoppel is also not applicable

Colombia did not renounce its right to rely on the limitation period

Notice of dispute cannot interrupt the limitation period – only the request for arbitration has that effect

Tribunal emphasizes that the terms “dispute” and “claim” have different meanings

Alleged lack of legal merit is “manifest” since it merely requires an interpretation of the BIT

Rule 41(5) objection must be clear, certain, and obvious; facts may be reviewed if they are directly relevant to the tribunal’s jurisdiction

Rule 41(5) applies to jurisdictional objections, but Colombia bears the burden of proof

Background: Forced liquidation of financial institution triggers ICSID claim

FPS standard only includes due diligence obligation

No forfeiture of operation rights under domestic law

Colombia gave no binding commitment of regulatory reform

No treaty breach in failing to update tariffs

Debts of state organs not automatically owed by the state

Costs are split

No legitimate expectation that Colombia would assume private debts either

No legitimate expectation can derive from conduct that post-dates the investment

Limitation period does not automatically rule out claims involving pre-cut-off conduct

Background: Parties debate cause of electricity distributor’s liquidation

Process following the law is unlikely to be discriminatory

Forced administration was a valid use of regulatory powers, ruling out expropriation

Not every breach of domestic law amounts to arbitrariness

Standard for arbitrariness still as high as set in ELSI

No arbitrariness given absence of commitment

Archives