Tribunal’s finding that Solar Levy was not a “tax” was justified

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.

No abuse of rights or treaty shopping

Antaris award is inadmissible in set-aside proceedings

Ultimate control does not have to be foreign under the applicable treaties

States can bind themselves through general legislation

Tribunal sees stabilisation provision in legislative framework

“Permanent seat” requirement should be read as “effective seat”

No impairment as Solar Levy was not unreasonable

Claimants’ move to increase investment at the time of the reforms relevant at quantum stage

Claimants invested widely in the Czech Republic’s nascent solar power industry

No forum shopping as dispute was not foreseeable

Summary of the claims

Tribunal follows HICEE precedent but retains jurisdiction over direct investment

Commission declines to ‘pay to play’ as amicus curiae, thus meaning that intra-EU BITs validity is not examined by tribunal

MFN clause can’t bypass limited arbitration provision

Quantum and costs to be decided in next phase

Reciprocity obligation does not prevent application of MFN provision

Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over one claimant under Cyprus-Czechia BIT due to failure to prove that it had effective seat in Cyprus

Rights to arbitrate not necessarily transferred with shares

Solar Levy is not a “taxation measure”, and thus remains under the tribunal’s jurisdiction

No stabilisation commitment for other tax measures

FET standard requires “a measure of regulatory stability”

No decision on distinction between legitimate expectations under EU law and ECT

Archives