Other grounds for challenge are dismissed

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.

Payment of the award is ultimately imputable to Romania, making it state aid

Commission was entitled to find that payment of award amounts to state aid

Since ICSID tribunal does not form part of EU judicial system, Romania simply has no obligation under the ICSID Convention in this case

Impossibility to enforce the award in the EU does not entail inadmissibility of the investors’ plea for relief from the Commission’s injunction

Background: Battle for enforcement of ICSID award takes a detour through EU courts

District court did not abuse its discretion when giving full faith and credit to ICSID award

No relief from judgment based on fact that EU General Court state aid ruling was overturned by CJEU

Appeal court finds that confirmation judgment is not void, since lower court rightly applied FSIA’s arbitration exception to dispute that arose before Romania’s accession to the EU

Background: ICSID award leads to multiple court proceedings

February 2020 Judgment also violated EU state aid rules

UK court should have submitted preliminary question to the CJEU, in light of sufficient evidence raising doubt regarding interpretation of Article 351(1) TFEU

By failing to suspend the case until a final ruling from EU courts, UK court infringed duty of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU

UK infringed Article 351(1) by adopting broad interpretation that excluded application of EU law in cases concerning enforcement of ICSID awards

Article 351(1) TFEU can only be relied on if rights of non-EU state are involved in the case at hand

Court has jurisdiction over alleged violations of EU law that occurred during transition period of UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement

Requests for interpretation can consider post-award facts and allegations of lack of compliance, dissenter reasons

Romania should have sought an interpretation at a much earlier juncture, minority arbitrator says

No ground to shift costs on account of claimants’ alleged post-award misconduct

Romania’s requests for interpretation were not aimed at a genuine clarification of the award

Third and fourth requests for interpretation are inadmissible since they pertain to facts that occurred after the award was rendered

State’s first and second requests for interpretation are inadmissible, since they merely seek tribunal’s opinion on enforcement under ICSID Convention, a matter that was not discussed in the award

Majority considers that tribunal cannot interpret anything that was not addressed in the underlying award

No evidence that standstill obligation has actually been breached following the Supreme Court’s green light to enforce the award

UK Supreme Court should have sought guidance from the CJEU on contested issue of EU law

Archives