Issue of Venezuela’s proper representative not part of the annulment proceeding

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.

Venezuela was ordered to bear ICSID costs and Vestey’s costs

Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its dismissal of Venezuela’s identity-of-disputes objection and finding that claimant held compensable property rights

Committee saw no violation of Venezuela’s right to be heard

Committee upheld tribunal’s finding that Vestey held property rights, finding that disagreement on tribunal’s application of Venezuelan law was not a ground for annulment

Committee saw no failure to apply the proper law by the tribunal in dismissing Venezuela’s identity-of-disputes objection as inadmissible

Committee upheld tribunal’s subsidiary decision that the dispute falls within the scope of claimant’s 2005 request for arbitration, seeing no manifest excess of powers

Failure to state reasons includes insufficient, inadequate, or contradictory reasons

Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure requires “genuine prospect of a different result”

Two-step analysis of manifest excess of powers is not mandatory

Review of annullable errors in tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction and application of law does not amount to a retrial or appeal

“Manifest excess of powers” must be both material and obvious

Committee confirmed its power to annul award in part or in full

Annulment is unconcerned with substantive correctness, but committee rejected restrictive interpretation of grounds for annulment

Background: Venezuela filed for annulment of award in long-running arbitration stemming from expropriation of farming venture

Indirect investments covered by broad treaty language

New mining law did not affect rights and obligations under older concession contracts

No costs order, in light of conduct on both sides

Forum selection clause not relevant, since investor is not bringing contractual claims

Full protection and security and national treatment claims also dismissed

Dissenter views local law differently, finding expropriation and FET breach

Allegedly expropriated assets were ‘reversionary’, passing automatically to state upon concession expiry

New investment law also preserves earlier rights; no compensation for non-amortised value

Problems caused by investor’s own ‘obstinacy’ and failure to pursue local remedies, rather than state conduct

Archives