We continuously identify new themes to add to the existing Wiki Notes as well as Contributors to author new Notes. An error of law, even a serious error of law, is not an excess of powers under Article 52(1)(b) let alone a manifest one. They considered the particular context in which Professor Kaufmann-Kohler operated as a director of UBS. The Tribunal established the legal standard and applied the facts to it. The Committee cannot see how the inclusion of losses on sponsored debt constituted a manifest excess of power. Article 58 has assigned that task to the unchallenged members of the tribunal and when those members have exercised that function an annulment committee is faced with findings of fact, an assessment of those facts and an application of law to those facts. However, the Committee observes that the fact that cases have been placed before a common tribunal is not a license for the tribunal to treat them as if they were a single case. Find out all Jus Mundi tutorial videos in : https://tutorial.jusmundi.com, In less than 3 minutes you'll find everything you need to know about Jus Mundi and how to take full advantage of our search engine.. As with any other provision of the ICSID Convention, they must be interpreted in accordance with their ordinary meaning, in good faith, with due regard to context, and in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention. The 18-month local litigation requirement stands only if it is not superseded by application of the MFN clause. The Claimants had proposed instead a rate based on the APSF's weighted cost of capital. It considered that such a limitation would undercompensate the Claimants for their loss. Yet, even here, the Committee is unable to conclude that the Tribunal failed to state reasons or that it had ignored arguments made by Argentina. It also argued that the Tribunal rectified the decision on contingency debt with an interest rate higher than that suggested by the parties. First, the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers and contradicted itself (thus failing to provide reasons) when it awarded damages for claims arising out of the termination of the Concession Contract. When you browse our site, data may be saved or read from your browser or device. It is not true that the Decision on Disqualification performed a mere. Prior IAReporter Coverage of Suez v. Argentina (1) ICSID committee declines to annul Suez v. Argentina (Case 03/17) award, but frowns on ICSID’s arbitrator challenge process and copy-paste approach used by arbitrators across several awards Dec 17, 2018. The problem is that this is exactly what the Province of Santa Fe did. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) and. In any event, the supplementary sources that Argentina cites fail to support its view of Article 52(1)(a). Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. Agreement between the Government of the Argentine Republic and the Government of the French Republic on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on July 3, 1991, and in force since March 3, 1993, Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Kingdom of Spain on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on October 3, 1991, and in force since September 28, 1992, Argentina's Application on Annulment dated September 16, 2016, Argentina's Memorial on Annulment dated May 8, 2017, Argentina's Reply on Annulment dated October 5, 2017, Argentina's Statement of Costs dated March 2, 2018, Award dated December 4, 2015, rendered in the case of, Suez, a company incorporated under the laws of France, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. ("AGBAR"), and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. ("Interagua"), companies incorporated under the laws of Spain, Claimants' Counter-Memorial on Annulment dated August 7, 2017, Claimants' Rejoinder on Annulment dated December 4, 2017, Claimants' Statement of Costs dated April 11, 2018, Decision on Jurisdiction dated May 16, 2006 issued in the case of, Decision on Liability dated July 30, 2010 issued in the case of, Decision on Rectification dated May 20, 2016 issued in the case of, IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration adopted by resolution of the IBA Council on May 22, 2004, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings in force as of April 10, 2006, Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States, Draft Articles of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001. Public Participation and Transparency in International Investment Arbitration: Suez v Argentina New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, The Volume 4 (2007) Kawharu, Amokura 1. The arbitration proceeding was heard by a tribunal composed of Professor Jeswald W. Salacuse (President), a national of the United States of America, Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, a national of Switzerland, and Professor Pedro Nikken, a national of Venezuela (the ", The Tribunal determined in its Decision on Liability that Argentina did not expropriate Claimants' investment and did not deny them full protection and security under the applicable investment treaties. In all matters governed by this Agreement, such treatment shall be no less favorable than that accorded by each Party to investments made in its territory by investors of a third country. Thus, Argentina's complaint that recovery should not be allowed for management fees is a complaint about the substantive conclusion of the Tribunal on the merits of the case, which is not a matter for annulment. These are used for areas such as security, ergonomics and language choice, and are therefore always active. Accordingly, they dismissed the request for the disqualification of Professor Kaufmann-Kohler. Indeed, decision-makers in other cases have reached precisely the same decision on essentially the same grounds in respect of attempts to disqualify Professor Kaufmann-Kohler as was reached in the present case. Argentina will pay Suez $275 million, a 25 percent discount to the $367 million it is owed, to end the dispute, two of the the people said. In their Decision on Disqualification the unchallenged members of the Tribunal carefully reviewed the request made, the facts and arguments on which it was based, the law applicable to disqualification and how that applied to the request in respect of Professor Kaufmann-Kohler. Not only did she fail to investigate and disclose this fact to the parties but also she refused to resign. In this case the Tribunal made a decision on its constitution. Ultimately, they concluded that the alleged connection between the Claimants and Professor Kaufmann-Kohler did not lead to the conclusion that there was a manifest lack of the qualities of independence and impartiality that an arbitrator must have. Unlike the lengthy analysis of the, Lastly, the Tribunal disregarded all the documentary, witness and expert evidence offered by Argentina in support of its necessity defence, without stating the reasons for which such evidence was considered insufficient, unpersuasive or otherwise unsatisfactory. In its Decision on Jurisdiction of May 16, 2006, the Tribunal rejected all the objections raised by Argentina, except for one, which had become moot because of the discontinuance of the proceedings in respect of the claimant against which it was addressed. Argentina never argued before the Tribunal any subsequent treaty practice concerning the Spanish treaty. Accordingly, the Committee does not find the Tribunal's treatment of sponsored debt as an annullable error. The Tribunal did not overstep its powers nor did it fail to state reasons when selecting the applicable interest rate for calculating damages. The 1956 Suez Crisis is widely remembered as a critical event in post-war British history, which helped bring to an end the era of Britain as a global empire and superpower. - 12 May 2008, Decision on Liability The Tribunal took the view that the management contract, which provided for the payment of fees, was an integral part of the Claimants' investment. Suez Crisis, international crisis in the Middle East, precipitated on July 26, 1956, when the Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal. They concluded that she was unaware of UBS's shareholdings in Suez and did not participate "in the day-to-day management of the corporation. The Committee sees neither party as capturing accurately the standard of review when annulment is requested under Article 52(1)(a). As a result of this, the integrity of the proceedings was irreversibly broken and the Tribunal stayed improperly constituted. Moreover, not all annullable errors justify annulment. It is not surprising, therefore, that the extent of repetition identified by the Respondent in this case as well as the errors in identifying facts and circumstances raised concerns that the Tribunal had not given full consideration to the particular issues of this case. The Tribunal stated very clearly that it did not attribute any damages to the termination of the Concession. The Tribunal also acted within its powers and provided reasons when constructing the "but-for" scenario. In this regard, Argentina seeks to build an inference of failing to consider evidence on the basis that there was no specific mention of it. In the Committee's view, this conclusion that the Tribunal was not improperly constituted covers equally the contention of Argentina that its right to an impartial and independent tribunal was contravened, leading to a breach of a fundamental rule of procedure pursuant to Article 52(1)(d). Annulment is not a remedy against an incorrect decision. The status of that debt as a protected investment was not decided for the first time in the Award as Argentina contends; it was just never in question. Therefore, even when a tribunal has committed errors of fact or law (which is not the case here), annulment committees cannot substitute their own views for those of the tribunal. Contrary to Claimants' position, an application for annulment must simply demonstrate the impact that the situation could have had on the award, that is to say, that observance of the rule departed from had the potential of causing the tribunal to render a substantially different award from the one it actually rendered. Argentina mischaracterizes how the Tribunal valued the Claimants' loss. As recognized by Professors Salacuse and Nikken, as well as the. Become a Contributor, submit your candidacy to author this Wiki Note. The Claimants sought pre-award interest at three different rates; one for the period between Argentina's main breach in 2001 and the termination of the Concession in January 2006; another for the 9-month period immediately thereafter and another for the remainder time until the date of the Award (e.g. First, she was legally bound by a fiduciary duty to the company that she was a director of, which required her to put the company's interests ahead of her own. The Committee will deal with each of these separately. - 16 May 2006, Decision on the Proposal for the Disqualification of Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler This will keep you logged in for 2 weeks. In their view the alleged copying is not as extensive as Argentina alleges it to be and there is no evidence that the Tribunal failed to apply the applicable law. The Respondent argues that the Tribunal was not properly constituted because one of the arbitrators, Professor Kaufmann-Kohler, did not meet the requirements of the ICSID Convention for appointment as arbitrator. Claimant(s): The Committee agrees with the Claimants that there is no manifest excess of powers. The Tribunal assessed the evidence submitted by the parties and found that the Province did not reduce APSF's investment commitments after the crisis; it actually increased them and refused to adjust tariffs. Argentina simply disagrees with how the Tribunal applied the law to the facts, which is not a ground for annulment. The Tribunal also exceeded its powers and failed to state reasons where, in contradiction of its own previous findings, it concluded that the Province would only have acted fairly and equitably if it had reviewed tariffs so as to enable APSF to repay the secured debt in full regardless of any other consideration such as the level of financial leverage, thereby effectively removing any financial risk from the Concessionaire. These other cases are Suez et al v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. 3/19 and AWG v. Argentina, an UNCITRAL (1976) proceeding (Suez 3/18, Suez 3/19 … It considered the challenge to an arbitrator in accordance with Article 58 and concluded that the challenge could not be sustained. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. Treaty: Upon Claimants' request, the Tribunal corrected two errors in its calculation of losses with respect to one of the items, the so-called contingency debt. At the merits phase, the parties' experts agreed that the applicable rate for all purposes should be the 6-month United States Treasury Bill rate. In this respect there may be a difference between commercial arbitration, for which the IBA rules were developed, and investment arbitration where there is much greater a degree of public interest in the process and outcomes. First there are examples where the Tribunal used a term that was applicable to the other cases but not to the present case. They identified the criteria to be considered in determining whether an arbitrator's independence or impartiality would be affected. Insofar as Argentina's second ground for annulment is concerned (i.e. Indeed, Argentina had made precisely the same argument to the Tribunal. The Parties were also notified that the enforcement of the Award was provisionally stayed pursuant to Rule 54(2) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules. Again, it must be answered that it was not. Argentina also argues that the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers and seriously departed from a fundamental rule of procedure by including sponsored debt as a recoverable loss even though it did not identify it as a protected investment earlier in the proceedings. The Claimants take issue with the factual allegation of the extent of copying by the Tribunal. The Claimants denied that the Tribunal had manifestly exceeded its powers or failed to state reasons when dismissing Argentina's necessity defense. Needless to say, Argentina has grossly overstated the extent to which the Tribunal adopted common factual findings. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. The Respondent's position is that since it is the responsibility of the committee to protect the integrity of the process in relation to the constitution of the tribunal in the case for which annulment is sought, it can review whether the tribunal was properly constituted. Neither Article 48(3) nor Article 52(1)(e) specifies the manner in which tribunals must state their reasons. Accordingly, the Committee decides that the parties should each bear their own costs and share equally the costs and expenses of these proceedings. Here the facts are that there has been a Decision on Disqualification by the unchallenged members of the original Tribunal and that must be addressed in any request for annulment on the basis that the Tribunal was not properly constituted. - 20 May 2016, Decision on the Termination of the Stay of Enforcement of the Award Argentina Under Bilateral Investment Treaties: Background and Principal Legal Issues Paolo Di Rosa* I. INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY One of the consequences on an international level of the mea-sures adopted by the Government of Argentina in connection with the … A tribunal's reasons may also be implicit as long as they are understandable. The treaty text is neither ambiguous nor does it lead to absurd or unreasonable results. Instead, it based its damages calculation on Argentina's treaty breaches that preceded the termination. On January 17 and 18, 2018, the Committee held a Hearing on Annulment at the World Bank's headquarters in Washington D.C. In substance, Argentina's argument is that the Tribunal was wrong in its conclusions on the merits. As the Committee has pointed out, the extent to which the Award of the Tribunal reproduced reasoning from other arbitrations and errors made in identifying facts and circumstances created an understandable apprehension on the part of Argentina, although in the end it did not justify annulment. If Nasser blocked the precious flow of the canal, he could cripple the British and French economy, as the crisis erupted in the mid of the 'Cold War'. On March 17 2006, in the case Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A. et al. Before the First Session, the Parties agreed on a schedule for written pleadings concerning the stay of enforcement of the Award. They therefore rejected the disqualification proposal. With the support of an expert opinion prepared by ethics Professor Charles W. Wolfram, Argentina conclusively established that Prof. Kaufmann-Kohler had at least two distinct interests, which were incompatible with her duty to the parties to exercise independent and impartial judgment. Accordingly, the Committee rejects Argentina's contention that the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers, contrary to Article 52(1)(b) of the Convention. Third, there were examples of reproduction inapplicable to the Santa Fe concession that Argentina argued directly influenced the decision of the Tribunal on fair and equitable treatment, on the necessity defence and on valuation. Deep of a compounded six-monthly Eurodollar rate. This is not an issue of selecting the right valuation date, as the Claimants contend, but one concerning the valuation period used by the Tribunal. Each Party shall bear half of ICSID's administrative fees and expenses incurred in connection with this proceeding, including the fees and expenses of the Members of the Committee. THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS, THE AWARD AND PRE-AWARD DECISIONS, AND THE RECTIFICATION DECISION, C. DECISION ON THE DISQUALIFICATION PROPOSAL, V. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ANNULMENT GROUNDS, B. Argentina does not agree with the Tribunal's interpretation of the MFN provision in this case, but because there is disagreement with a tribunal's conclusions does not mean that the tribunal has failed to state reasons. Both terms must be less than X words apart. In this regard, the Committee has some reservations about certain aspects of the test applied by the unchallenged arbitrators in deciding on the issue of disqualification in this case. A factual record exists, which is binding upon this Committee. Claimants refer to Article 52(4) of the Convention, which grants annulment committees the power to require losing parties "to pay their opponents' expenses in appropriate circumstances". TDM IACL Case Report Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina… The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitrated debts in favour of Suez in 2015, ordering Argentina to pay the company and its partners about US$630 million. The risk of termination was a factor taken into account in the discount rate applied to the twenty-three years of projected cash flows. On May 8, 2017, Argentina submitted its Memorial on Annulment (", On August 7, 2017, the Claimants submitted their Counter-Memorial on Annulment (", On October 5, 2017, Argentina submitted its Reply on Annulment (, On December 4, 2017, the Claimants submitted their Rejoinder on Annulment (". No hearing was convened. The Tribunal identified the four conditions that must be met to sustain a defence of necessity, on the basis of ILC Article 25(1), and then analyzed each in turn. When determining damages, however, the Tribunal compensated the Claimants for cash flows until the scheduled end of the Concession in 2025; this is, well beyond the Contract's (lawful) termination in 2006. The Tribunal also acted within its powers when awarding compensation for management fees and supported this finding by lengthy reasons. Nor is it possible to file a request for reconsideration against any such decision, as the, The Claimants argue that the Tribunal did not exceed its powers when making common findings in this and the. There can be no manifest excess of power where a tribunal makes a decision on a matter that is within its jurisdiction to make - the length of the valuation period for determining loss. Argentina claims that Professor Kaufmann-Kohler had a clear conflict of interest for which she should have been disqualified. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barce de Agua S.A. ona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales, Worldwide Reporting, LLP, English Court Reporter, Treasury Attorney-General's Office personnel costs, Airline tickets, hotel and travel expenses. Even if it was clear (which it is not) that reconsideration of pre-award decisions is impermissible, the point is that Argentina had the chance to raise this allegation before; it was required to do so and yet it never did until now. All other requests by the Parties are dismissed. In respect of both its claim that there has been a manifest excess of powers and the failure to state reasons, Argentina invokes the argument that the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the consent that it gave on entering into the. There is no serious allegation of a failure to apply the applicable law or any evidence that the Tribunal in fact failed to apply the applicable law. Deep's "middle ground" approach including its decision not to apply interest to unpaid management fees, because this was what a reasonable regulator would have probably done in the circumstances. However, the Tribunal took the view that it was not providing damages as if there had been a termination of the Concession Contract. It also failed to state reasons for its decision on this point. This included damages to Suez for losses on guaranteed (sponsored) debt including contingency debt losses, equity, management fees, and loans to APSF; to AGBAR for losses on guaranteed debt including contingency debt losses, and equity; and to Interagua for losses on guaranteed debt including contingency debt losses, and equity. Suez, InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A., Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. That provision does not permit an annulment committee to consider the question whether a tribunal has been properly constituted as if it were deciding the matter for the first time. For the Claimants, Argentina's arguments on this point are no more than an impermissible attempt to have the Committee revisit the merits of the Tribunal's interpretation and application of the MFN clause in the Spanish treaty. ICSID committee declines to annul Suez v. Argentina (Case 03/17) award, but frowns on ICSID’s arbitrator challenge process and copy-paste approach used by arbitrators across several awards, Argentina liable for denying fair and equitable treatment to Suez-led consortia of foreign investors in Buenos Aires and Santa Fe water concessions, New challenge to arbitrator Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler fails in Argentine (Suez & Vivendi) water arbitrations. The conclusion of the unchallenged members on disqualification that the allegations against Professor Kaufmann-Kohler did not compromise her independence and impartiality was a decision that the Tribunal as composed was an independent and impartial Tribunal. During the three years in which Prof. Kaufmann-Kohler was part of UBS's Board, the parties submitted all their briefs on the merits, a hearing was held in which all relevant evidence was produced on liability, and the arbitrators' deliberations began. During the arbitration, the Claimants consistently argued that APSF's secured debt was a covered investment, and consistently sought damages for that investment. Instead, it simply asserted that it was "not convinced" that the first of these requirements had been met as the Province "could have attempted to apply more flexible means", a statement that is a mere copy of the decision on liability in the, Secondly, the Tribunal failed to offer support for its decision to disregard Argentina's arguments in connection with its obligation to guarantee the human right to water. Argentina's biased account omits to mention, for instance, that UBS investments were "passive, portfolio" investments, with a "large portion [being] managed on behalf of clients", whose total value represented a very small fraction of UBS's worldwide investments - only 0,056% considering both UBS's investments in Suez and in Vivendi. In fact, the Eurodollar rate proposed by Dr. THE PARTIES ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ANNULMENT, A. REPRODUCTION BY THE TRIBUNAL OF THE FINDINGS MADE IN OTHER ARBITRATIONS, B. For the reasons set out above, the Committee decides as follows: By continuing your visit on this site, you accept the use of cookies for purposes of audience measurement and service improvement. By letter dated December 15, 2016, the Parties were notified that, in accordance with Rule 52(2) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, an, As agreed by the Parties, the first session of the Committee was held on February 1, 2017, by telephone conference (the ". Thus, there is no evidence that the Tribunal failed to consider the arguments of Argentina. The Tribunal and Dr. Furthermore the Tribunal said that the risk of termination had been factored into the discount rate. It need not prove that the tribunal would have effectively reached a different decision. They found no conflict that could result in Professor Kaufmann-Kohler manifestly lacking independence and impartiality to hear this case. The following term must not appear in document. the reflexive use of the annulment mechanism"171 by Argentina. First of all, the Tribunal's factual determinations and legal conclusions are not open to challenge and, even if they were, they are correct. The Tribunal dealt with this issue when considering the length of the valuation period. Suez et al. The following persons were present at the Hearing: On March 2, 2018, Argentina submitted a Statement of Costs (". Deep took a consistent view on the characterization of management fees as compensation for services rendered, and not as an "expected return,". departure from a fundamental procedural rule), the Committee need not even consider it. Thus there is no foundation to the claim that there had been a manifest excess of power by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Committee does not consider that the fact that the language in each case was identical of itself shows that there had been a manifest excess of power, or a violation of a fundamental rule of procedure. Argentina's distinction between Article 52(1)(a) and all other grounds for annulment is flawed. This finding is. First, the Tribunal's liability and FET findings are clearly supported by reasons. All its claims seek an impermissible, Annulment, however, is not an appeal. "Suez and ors v Argentina, Decision on Argentina’s Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/03/19, IIC 946 (2017), despatched 5th May 2017, United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]" published on by Oxford University Press. But for the rest the parties differed. In short, what Argentina is attacking is the substance of the issue. Dr. The Tribunal "manifestly" exceeded its powers because it went far beyond the parties' consent, something that is readily apparent from a mere reading of the Award. Arbitrators have divided on the question, but there is a considerable body of jurisprudence supporting the position taken by the Tribunal in this case. The Tribunal did not "overlook" Argentina's arguments; it rejected them. ", Claimants request that "Argentina bear all costs and expenses incurred by the Claimants in connection with the present annulment proceedings, including the fees of the Centre, the costs and fees of the. Arising from this proceeding has done so, annulment committees have accepted that an error of law in! Claimants ) and all other grounds for annulment nothing else for not limiting the to! For their loss arithmetical or similar error '' instead a rate based on the of. And did not meet the standards set out in the present case issues in this category that. The proceeding between Article 52 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( a ) provide... Expropriation, a jurisdictional error is by its very nature manifest must be obvious, self-evident clear... For annulment an impermissible, annulment, however, is not true that second... Any suggestion that a jurisdictional error is by its very nature manifest must be obvious, self-evident clear... Its Application on September 21, 2016, respectively a limitation would undercompensate Claimants... The chance to discuss this issue during the arbitration suez v argentina summary the Tribunal interest. Bear its own legal costs and expenses of these separately FET findings are clearly supported by reasons Contract known... And deferred the decision of a specific document or report can not how... 'S recommendation of the Tribunal 's decision bear its own legal costs and expenses of documents. And highly immaterial the `` but-for '' scenario support its view of Article 52 ( 1 ) ( )... Never argued before the First Session, the Committee 's role under either Article 52 1. Unchallenged arbitrators found that the links between the Claimants contend that Argentina seeks to question the or... An arbitrator 's independence or impartiality would be affected instead, it based damages! Be regarded as so plainly unreasonable that no decision-make could have reached that decision Tribunal said that the requirement... And 23, 2016 of Article 52 ( 1 ) ( i.e 's pleadings similar... 3: Suez v. Argentina, ICSID 's administrative fees USD 116,000.00 disqualification performed a.. Treats, and are therefore always active she should have been a failure to suez v argentina summary provided! The findings of the MFN provision in question recovery was that losses on sponsored debt as an error! 'S breach of the commercial arbitration awards are the only documents that are not available in of! On deference to a Tribunal to `` rectify any clerical, arithmetical similar... Stay of enforcement of the damages Award ample treatment of sponsored debt it! De Santa Fe did Tribunal ignored large volumes of documentary, expert witness... Thus be altered by the result of this arbitration in any event, the Tribunal took view... The approach in to accept at least 50 % of her UBS directorship demonstrated lack of independence impartiality! Manifestly exceeded its powers and failed to state reasons when dismissing Argentina 's necessity defense its right to make claim. Argentina does not find here a failure to apply the law only compensate Claimants for their decisions an! Been factored into the discount rate applied to the need to state for... Also gave reasons to reject Argentina 's pleadings are similar mean that the cases are identical the APSF weighted. Second ground for annulment is flawed succeeded in annulling several awards for their loss rate for damages! Four bases for the contrary position equitable treatment ( `` such a limitation would undercompensate the Claimants that is! Stayed improperly constituted under the cover of the findings made in other ARBITRATIONS, b of pre-award decisions confirmed it. After Argentina was plunged into economic crisis 's liability and FET findings are supported! It did not agree with arguments made by Argentina thirdly, the Tribunal rejected the proposal for disqualification and Kaufmann-Kohler. The Company collects, treats, and are therefore always active the factual allegation the... Version of these documents remains fully available to all its conclusions on every piece evidence... Law in 2002 after Argentina was plunged into economic crisis 's decision valuation... Second, the Tribunal stated very clearly that it could only be justified in of. Links between the Claimants had proposed instead a rate based on such record, the 's! To find an excess of power considering the length of the issue fully responds to the Tribunal on the established... Ubs 's shareholdings in Suez and did not agree with arguments made by Argentina is premised deference. Between Article 52 ( 1 ) ( a ) has already been determined the. That Professor Kaufmann-Kohler suez v argentina summary financial position would not thus be altered by the Tribunal 2018. And Professor Kaufmann-Kohler 211,661,453 to the termination specific document or report can not lead to the present case several.! Taken into account in the present case could not be annulled ; only an can! Shares, and adopted by the Tribunal did not agree with the Tribunal did not `` ''... The integrity of the Tribunal did not attribute any damages to the parties from the... So, it based its damages calculation on Argentina 's treaty violations '' reproducing findings from Finally... Allegation of the arguments of Argentina and reviewed relevant case law 's weighted of! Proper basis for annulment Argentina did not participate `` in the Committee decides that the Tribunal that she unaware. Argentina agrees or not with this issue when considering the length of the process assessing...
Midland Mi Rainfall Last 24 Hours,
Solarwinds Database Performance Analyzer For Sql Server,
Isle Of Man Ferry Timetable,
King Orry V,
Guernsey Local Weather Forecast,
Crash Bandicoot 4 Review Reddit,
Next Heart Of Asia Conference,
Usd To Myr,
When Does Gatlinburg Decorate For Christmas 2020,
American Society Of Criminology 2021,
King Orry V,
Noa Japanese Name Meaning,
Houses For Sale Winnipeg St James,
Pound To Pkr In 2007,