Costs mostly go Spain’s way, but tribunal applies discount for procedural conduct

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.

Combination of legitimate acts and conduct cannot, without more, amount to an expropriation

Alleged comparators were not in similar circumstances since their situation fell under a different regulatory framework

Even a more generous independent FET standard would not have sufficed to grant the investors’ claims

Spain provided sufficient justification for failure to produce documents, meaning that there is no ground to draw adverse inferences

Conditions for the sale of Banco Popular were not unreasonable

Central Bank’s refusal to grant further liquidity assistance was not arbitrary

Alleged negative statements were in fact either positive or neutral

No discrimination, since Spain’s attitude toward other banks was not comparable

Tribunal sees no obligation on Spain to monitor or stop withdrawals from Banco Popular, to make statements in support of the bank, or to enact short-selling ban

Threshold for MST breach is high, but deference to state’s conduct is not unlimited

Claimants bear burden of proof in relation to facts; standard of proof is of “reasonable certainty”

Lack of clean hands can make claims inadmissible if wrongdoing is sufficiently serious, but Spain fails to evidence allegations

International law provides for protection of dual nationals, to the extent their “predominant” nationality is not that of the respondent state; all claimants are predominantly Mexican

Principle of systemic integration is essential to BIT’s interpretation and points to the rules of diplomatic protection where treaty is silent

BIT is silent on protection of dual nationals holding the nationality of the host state

Alleged composite act cannot amount to a BIT violation if primary obligation did not exist when some of the constituent acts took place

Treaty non-retroactivity means that there is no jurisdiction over investments made after alleged violations took place

Objections on reflective losses and forum selection clause are rejected as belated

Bonds and shares have inherent characteristics of investments: contribution, duration, and risk

Nearly all claimants could prove ownership or control of the shares and bonds

BIT covers indirect investments; reference to Spain’s territory in definitions merely requires the ultimate investment to be located in Spain

Withdrawals of deposits by state entities cannot, prima facie, amount to a treaty breach, but failure to act could

Treaty’s fork-in-the-road clause is not triggered by proceedings that do not involve Spain and its BIT obligations

Domestic proceedings before EU courts do not fall within the scope of the waivers since Spain is not a respondent in these proceedings

Archives