Parties to prepare and publish summaries of their positions on the merits and jurisdiction

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.

Tribunal’s decisions and orders will be published, but not parties’ written submissions and hearing transcripts

Under 2006 Rules, tribunal has discretion to rule on transparency regime

[Updated April 29, 2024: The “elevated” standard for dismissal under Rule 41(5) is not met when argument hinges on contestable treaty interpretation

Costs are split

Tribunal agrees to tax gross-up in relation to host state taxes

Interest is awarded at claimants’ proposed rate, but not compounded, and starting only from the date of the award, in consideration of their “comparative fault”

Ex ante approach to damages may be at odds with reality and lead to overestimations

Respondent’s failure to remedy inequality between claimants and competitor had discriminatory effect that could not be justified

Referring to the claimants’ arguments, tribunal concludes that state’s failure to act was arbitrary

Events pre-dating June 2014 did not suffice to give rise to a dispute, as parties were still engaged in finding a solution

Background: Claimants’ construction of an access channel becomes a liability when competitors start to use it free of charge

Background: Colombia files for annulment, criticizing the tribunal’s treatment of its corruption and illegality objection

Committee applies costs-follow-the-event approach, and orders Colombia to bear costs

Committee sees no fault with the tribunal’s decision on corruption and illegality; burden of proof was correctly placed on Colombia

Tribunal could validly apply legal privilege to exclude documents

Committee rules that the tribunal correctly rejected the documents

Reasons in award should enable a reader to discern how the tribunal reached its answer

Manifest “refers to how readily apparent the excess is, rather than to its gravity”

There is a serious departure if the case’s outcome “could have been different”

The committee’s powers are limited to the award, but an applicant may argue that the award is tainted by a prior procedural decision

Privilege claim upheld; document production impacted by local criminal proceedings

2014 Order is not an independently actionable breach

Parties agree to bifurcate jurisdictional questions; jurisdiction is governed by applicable treaties and international law

The tribunal has no jurisdiction over MFN claims

Archives