Discrepancy in costs between the parties means that principle that costs follow the event would be an unreasonable burden for Hungary

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.

While tribunal could have expounded further on its reasoning, the award remains intelligible

Goal of requirement to provide reasons is to keep arbitrariness at bay

Tribunal did not treat parties unequally by ordering production of awards adverse to the state in similar cases

Tribunal was entitled to reject Hungary’s request to reopen the proceedings to introduce new evidence on intra-EU issue

“Principle of consent” is not a fundamental rule of procedure, nor are the formal requirements of the award

Tribunal’s decision to ignore January 2019 Declarations is not a manifest excess of powers, given unclear status of these declarations and lack of impact on intra-EU argument

Tribunal’s decision on intra-EU objection is neither unreasonable nor untenable, as this is an issue on which “sophisticated jurists may have different opinions”

Committee should only review prima facie reasonableness of tenability of decision on jurisdiction to review allegations of manifest excess of powers

Mr. Thomas stresses that, under the ICSID Convention, valid arbitration agreements cannot be varied

BIT contains concept of “dispossession”, capacious enough to allow a finding of breach in this case, Mr. Thomas holds

For Mr. Thomas, shares in company can suffer an indirect expropriation only in specific circumstances

Costs are shared equally given complex issues that split the tribunal

Local subsidiary, though loss-making, retained value that should be deducted from total compensation

But-for analysis should consider measures as a package, and later measures do not amount to restitution

It was irrelevant that the measures profited a charitable foundation, as this did not make the expropriation less unlawful

Measures were de facto discriminatory, even if framed and phrased as general in nature

Hungary’s intent behind the reform was to expel French investors from the food voucher market

Decision by competitor to re-enter the market does not prove that expropriation was merely temporary

Claimant’s shares in its subsidiary are sufficient for its claim of expropriation, majority holds

Intra-EU objection lacks merit since arbitration does not include any consideration of EU law

Tribunal orders production by Hungary of awards adverse to the state

Background: Reform of food voucher system in Hungary leads to treaty claim

Commission’s bid to intervene was rejected as belated

ICSID awards and annulment decisions are not confidential

Archives