ICSID Reports: Volume 6 (International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Reports)

COVER......Page 1 HALF-TITLE......Page 3 TITLE......Page 7 COPYRIGHT......Page 8 CONTENTS......Page 9 INTRODUCTION......Page 13 EDITORIAL NOTE......Page 15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......Page 17 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED IN VOLUME 6......Page 18 TABLE OF CASES REPORTED IN VOLUMES 1–6......Page 20 Annulment......Page 26 Arbitration......Page 27 Arbitrators......Page 29 Costs......Page 30 Expropriation......Page 31 Foreign Investment......Page 32 Jurisdiction......Page 33 NAFTA......Page 37 Provisional Measures......Page 38 State Responsibility......Page 39 Treaties......Page 40 CASES......Page 41 Award. 10 February 1999......Page 43 FIRST PART: THE DECISION OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1998......Page 45 I. The Facts......Page 46 A. The Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal......Page 51 B. The Course of the Proceedings......Page 52 C. The Defendant’s Failure to Set Out His Side of the Case......Page 60 IV. – The Principal Characteristics of the Case......Page 63 A. The Dominant Feature is the Existence of a Bilateral Treaty for the Encouragement and the Protection of Investments......Page 64 B. The Case does not involve a State Contract......Page 66 V. The Jurisdiction of the Centre and of the Tribunal......Page 68 VI. The Admissibility of the Claim......Page 70 A. The Applicable Law......Page 72 B. The Problem as it Relates to Burundian Law......Page 74 C. The Problem as regards International Law......Page 80 VIII. The Tribunal’s Decision......Page 85 PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT IN RELATION TO THE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE OF “ANTOINE GOETZ AND…......Page 86 SPECIAL CONVENTION REGARDING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE AFFIMET COMPANY......Page 87 TITLE III: UNDERTAKINGS OF THE COMPANY......Page 88 TITLE VI: FINAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS......Page 89 Judicial Review, Supplementary Reasons for Judgment, Supreme Court of British Columbia. 31 October 2001......Page 92 Award. 18 September 2000......Page 99 Procedural Matters......Page 100 II. The Award......Page 101 I. Background......Page 102 II. Settlement of the Dispute......Page 103 III. Principles of Interpretation and Implementation of the Agreement......Page 104 I. Miscellaneous......Page 106 Wena Hotels Ltd v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Case No. ARB/98/4)......Page 108 I. The Proceedings......Page 114 II. The Facts......Page 116 III. Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections......Page 118 IV. Objection 1: “The Respondent has not Agreed to Arbitrate with the Claimant as it is, by Virtue of Ownership, to be…......Page 119 A. Article 8(1) of the ippaand Article 25 of the icsid Convention......Page 120 C. The Tribunal’s Analysis......Page 121 V. Objection 2: “The Claimant has made no Investment in Egypt”......Page 124 VI. Objection 3: “There is no Legal Dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent”......Page 125 VIII. Conclusion......Page 127 IX. The Operative Part......Page 128 I. The Proceedings......Page 129 A. UK–Egypt Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments......Page 133 C. Events Leading up to the April 1, 1991 Seizures......Page 134 1. Decision to seize the hotels......Page 137 2. Seizure of the Nile Hotel......Page 139 3. Seizure of the Luxor Hotel......Page 143 E. Events Following the Seizures of the Nile and Luxor Hotels......Page 144 G. Relationship between ehc and Egypt......Page 147 H. Consultancy Agreement between Wena Hotels Ltd and Mr Kamal Kandil......Page 149 III. Liability......Page 150 A. Law Applicable to this Arbitration......Page 151 1. Summary of Wena’s claims......Page 152 2. Article 2(2) of the ippa: “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security”......Page 153 3. Article 5 of the ippa: expropriation without “prompt, adequate and effective” compensation......Page 157 C. Whether Wena’s Claims are Time Barred......Page 160 D. Consultancy Agreement with Mr Kandil......Page 162 IV. Damages......Page 164 V. Conclusion......Page 167 Statement of Professor Don Wallace, Jr......Page 168 Table of Contents......Page 169 A. The Proceeding......Page 170 B. Background of the Dispute and Award......Page 173 C. The Request for Annulment......Page 174 II. Did the Tribunal Manifestly Exceed its Powers?......Page 175 A. Did the Tribunal Manifestly Fail to Apply the Applicable Law?......Page 176 B. Did the Tribunal Exceed its Powers in Permitting Wena to Assert Claims on Behalf of Other Investors?......Page 181 A. The Proof of the Consultancy Agreement with Mr Kandil......Page 182 B. The Assessment of Damages......Page 183 D. The Absence of Mr Kandil as a Witness......Page 184 A. Preliminary Observations......Page 185 C. The Tribunal’s Determination of the Amount Awarded to Wena......Page 187 D. The Tribunal’s Determination of the Interest Awarded......Page 189 E. Did the Tribunal not Deal with Questions Submitted for its Decision?......Page 190 VI. Decision......Page 192 Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay (Case No. ARB/98/5)......Page 194 I. Introduction......Page 196 II. Considerations on the Objection to Jurisdiction......Page 201 III. Decision......Page 203 A. Procedure Leading to the Decision on Jurisdiction......Page 204 B. Procedure Leading to the Award on the Merits......Page 209 III. Summary of the Facts......Page 211 IV. Considerations......Page 213 V. Decision......Page 220 Mondev International Ltd v. United States of America (Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2)......Page 222 Place of Arbitration......Page 226 Production of Documents......Page 227 Orders......Page 228 PROCEDURAL ORDER OF 13 NOVEMBER 2000......Page 229 PROCEDURAL ORDER OF 25 JANUARY 2001......Page 230 PROCEDURAL ORDER OF 27 FEBRUARY 2001......Page 231 Table of Contents......Page 232 The Parties......Page 233 The Other NAFTA State Parties......Page 234 Procedural History......Page 235 B. The Underlying Dispute......Page 240 C. The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction and the Admissibility of the Claim......Page 242 1. The Arguments of the Parties......Page 243 Mondev’s standing under Articles 1116(1) and 1117(1)......Page 244 Ownership of the claim and the foreclosure of the mortgage......Page 245 (a) The United States objection ratione temporis......Page 246 (b) Mondev’s standing under Articles 1116(1) and 1117(1)......Page 250 (c) The three year time bar (Articles 1116(2) and 1117(2))......Page 253 (d) Ownership of the claim and the issue of the mortgage......Page 254 1. The Interpretation of Article 1105......Page 255 (a) The FTC’s interpretations of 31 July 2001......Page 257 (b) The applicable standard of denial of justice......Page 265 (a) The dismissal of LPA’s contract claim against the City......Page 266 (c) The SJC’s failure to consider whether it retrospectively applied a new rule......Page 268 (d) bra’s statutory immunity......Page 269 E. Conclusion......Page 274 Award......Page 275 Decision on Claimants’ Request for Supplementary Decisions and Rectification. 4 April 2002......Page 276 On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction:......Page 278 As to the merits of the claim:......Page 279 Decision on Claimants’ Request for Supplementary Decisions and Rectification: 4 April 2002......Page 280 A. Institution of Proceedings......Page 281 1) General Description......Page 282 2) Relevant Provisions of the bit Invoked by the Parties......Page 283 C. The First Session of the Tribunal......Page 284 Corporate entities......Page 285 2) The Facts Giving Rise to the Dispute......Page 286 3) Relevant Provisions of Estonian Law......Page 288 Claim 1: the Bank of Estonia is responsible for eib’s losses relating to the purchase of the Koidu branch......Page 291 Claim 2: the Bank of Estonia entered into, and then breached, a settlement agreement......Page 292 Claim 3: the Bank of Estonia attempted to cause eib’s capital to fall below minimum capitalisation requirements......Page 293 Claim 4: the Bank of Estonia’s 18 March 1997 Prescription was illegal......Page 294 Claim 6: the Bank of Estonia revoked eib’s licence on a pretext......Page 295 Claim 8: the Republic of Estonia is responsible for harassment......Page 296 The factual background as described by Respondent......Page 297 Claimants’ initial investment in eib......Page 298 The auction of the Koidu branch......Page 299 Eurocapital Group Company’s qualified shareholding in eib......Page 300 eibstruggled to meet minimum capitalisation requirements......Page 301 The “20,000,000 eek juggle”......Page 302 The 1997 audit of eib......Page 303 The March 1997 Precept (Prescription)......Page 304 The licence revocation......Page 305 Claimants’ Claim 1: the Koidu branch......Page 307 Claimants’ Claim 3: eib’s reduction in capital......Page 308 Claimants’ Claims 6 & 7: the licence revocation......Page 309 Damages and counterclaim......Page 310 3) Claimants’ Response......Page 311 Claimants’ Claim 2: the April 1996 Settlement Agreement......Page 312 Claimants’ Claim 8: harassment......Page 313 1) Claimants’ Evidence......Page 314 2) Respondent’s Evidence......Page 316 1) Claimants’ Post-Hearing Memorial......Page 317 “Proof vs. illusion”......Page 318 “Inconsistent reasoning”......Page 319 “Alex Genin’s testimony concerning Eurocapital”......Page 320 “Get out your straightedge”......Page 321 “Damages”......Page 322 “Jurisdiction is absent”......Page 323 “Genin’s story is not credible”......Page 324 “The revocation of eib’s licence was justified”......Page 326 “Claimants have suffered no damages”......Page 327 I. Issues and Analysis......Page 328 1) Jurisdictional Issues......Page 329 2) The Koidu Branch Purchase and its Aftermath......Page 332 3) The Revocation of eib’s Licence......Page 335 5) Respondent’s Counterclaim......Page 341 J. Costs......Page 342 K. Award......Page 343 B. The icsid Convention and Arbitration Rules......Page 344 1) Supplementary Decisions......Page 345 D. Costs......Page 346 Award. 15 March 2002......Page 348 A. Request for Arbitration......Page 350 D. First Session of the Tribunal with the Parties......Page 351 G. Exchange of Post-Hearing Supplemental Written Pleadings......Page 352 (2) Contentions of the Parties......Page 353 (3) Analysis and Findings of the Tribunal......Page 354 (2) Contentions of the Parties......Page 356 (3) Conclusions of the Tribunal......Page 361 III. Decision......Page 363 Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/97/3)......Page 368 Introduction......Page 370 Competence of Members of the Committee to Decide on a Disqualification Proposal......Page 371 The Question of Disqualification......Page 374 Conclusions......Page 379 A. The Annulment Proceedings......Page 380 B. The Tribunal’s Award......Page 382 (1) The Tribunal’s Findings on Jurisdiction......Page 385 (2) The Tribunal’s Findings on the Merits......Page 386 (1) Relevant Provisions of the France–Argentina bit......Page 393 (2) The Role of Annulment Under the icsid Convention......Page 397 (3) The Grounds of Annulment......Page 400 D. Costs......Page 411 E. Decision......Page 412 Decision on the Request for Provisional Measures. 25 September 2001......Page 413 I. On Provisional Measures in the icsid System......Page 417 II. Regarding the Claimants’ request that the Republic of Chile “forswear the execution of Ministerial Decision No. 43”......Page 422 III. On the Other Provisional Measures......Page 431 IV. Regarding the Respondent’s Claim for a Guarantee of the Payment of Costs......Page 434 Decision on Jurisdiction. 23 July 2001......Page 438 Facts......Page 440 Discussion......Page 441 B.—Decision......Page 442 1) The renunciation of the jurisdictional choice in Article 8 of the bilateral Agreement......Page 445 2) Jurisdiction ratione personae......Page 446 3) Jurisdiction ratione materiae......Page 449 Decision on Jurisdiction. 27 September 2001......Page 457 Table of Contents......Page 459 B. The Respondent......Page 460 C. The Highway Concession......Page 461 E. The Transfer of Aucoven’s Shares to Icatech......Page 462 F. The Outset of the Dispute......Page 465 III. The Chronology of the Proceedings......Page 466 A. Venezuela’s Position......Page 467 3. The United States has no significant interest in this matter......Page 468 5. Venezuela has not consented to icsid jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case, i.e. on the basis of a fictional control relationship......Page 469 7. Aucoven cannot benefit from both Mexico’s diplomatic efforts and icsid arbitration......Page 470 2. The definition of foreign control adopted by the parties in Clause 64 is reasonable and must be enforced......Page 471 3. Venezuela has not identified any circumstances that warrant setting aside the parties’ agreement......Page 472 A. The Relevant Texts......Page 473 2. Clause 63 of the Agreement......Page 474 3. Clause 64 of the Agreement......Page 475 2. Article 64 of the Agreement: the parties’ agreement to icsid arbitration......Page 476 5. The requirements of Article 25 of the icsid Convention......Page 478 7. The significance of the intervention by Mexican officials......Page 486 VI. Conclusion......Page 487 VII. Decision on Jurisdiction......Page 488 ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America (Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1)......Page 490 PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 CONCERNING THE PLACE OF ARBITRATION......Page 493 Place of Arbitration Article 16......Page 494 PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 3 CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (4 OCTOBER 2001)......Page 501 General Considerations......Page 502 Category A Documents......Page 504 Category C Documents......Page 505 Category F Documents......Page 506 Category I Documents......Page 507 Privileged Documents......Page 508 Table of Contents......Page 510 Notice of Intent and Notice of Arbitration......Page 511 First Session of the Tribunal with the Parties: Procedural Order No. 1......Page 512 Place of Arbitration: Procedural Order No. 2......Page 513 Motion for Production of Documents: Procedural Order No. 3......Page 517 Exchange of Pleadings on Competence and Liability......Page 521 II. Background of the Dispute: Basic Facts......Page 522 III. The United States Measures at Stake......Page 527 IV. The Principal Claims and Submissions of the Parties......Page 529 (a) Article 1102: the national treatment obligation......Page 530 (b) Article 1105: the minimum standard of treatment obligation......Page 532 (c) Article 1103: most-favored-nation treatment obligation......Page 534 (d) Article 1106: the obligation not to impose or enforce performance requirements......Page 536 (e) Non-applicability of exceptions to Articles 1102, 1103 and 1106: effect of Article 1108(7) and (8)—procurement by a party......Page 537 (a) Concerning Article 1102: the national treatment obligation, and Article 1106: the obligation not to impose or enforce performance requirements......Page 539 (b) Concerning Article 1105(1): minimum standard of treatment of foreign investors and their investments and the ftc Interpretation of 31 July 2001......Page 542 (c) Concerning Article 1103: most-favored-nation treatment......Page 543 (a) The disputing parties’ post-hearing submissions on Article 1105(1)......Page 544 (b) The submissions of the other nafta parties pursuant to Article 1128 of nafta......Page 548 1. Jurisdiction to Consider the Investor’s Claim concerning nafta Article 1103......Page 550 2. Jurisdiction to Consider the Investor’s Claims Concerning Certain Federal-aid Construction Projects Other than the Springfield Interchange Project......Page 553 (a) Preliminary interpretive considerations......Page 555 (b) Appraising the Investor’s Articles 1102 and 1106 claims and the exception in Article 1108(7)(a) and (8)(b)......Page 557 (a) General Considerations......Page 566 (b) Appraising the Investor’s claim based on Article 1105(1) as interpreted by the ftc Interpretation of 31 July 2001......Page 571 5. Article 1103: Most-Favored-Nation Treatment and the US–Albania and US–Estonia Bilateral Investment Treaties......Page 573 VI. Award......Page 576 Waste Management Inc. v. United Mexican States (No. 2) (Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3)......Page 578 Applicable Provisions with Respect to the Place of Arbitration......Page 581 The Views of the Parties as to Venue......Page 582 Assessment of the Relevant Considerations......Page 584 The Adequacy of the Proper Law of the Arbitration......Page 585 The Neutrality of the Place of Arbitration......Page 587 Conclusion......Page 588 Introduction......Page 589 The Decision of the First Tribunal......Page 591 The Positions of the Parties......Page 593 The Present Tribunal’s Conclusions......Page 594 Does Article 1121 Allow only a Single Claim for Arbitration?......Page 595 The Principle of Res Judicata......Page 599 Abuse of Process on the Part of the Claimant......Page 602 Decision......Page 603 ANNEX......Page 605 A. Access to Documents......Page 607 Closing Provision......Page 608 A......Page 609 B......Page 627 C......Page 630 D......Page 642 E......Page 650 F......Page 660 G......Page 665 H......Page 666 I......Page 667 J......Page 679 L......Page 684 M......Page 685 N......Page 686 P......Page 698 R......Page 704 S......Page 706 T......Page 719 U......Page 722 V......Page 726 W......Page 727 Z......Page 729 The ICSID Reports provides the only comprehensive collection of the decisions of arbitral tribunals and ad hoc committees established under the auspices of the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. These decisions make an important contribution to the highly specialised jurisprudence on international investment. The series also includes arbitration under the Additional Facility to the ICSID Convention which has increased in recent years, most notably in relation to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Volume 6 includes the annulment decisions of 5 February 2002 in Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt and of 3 July 2002 in Compania de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic; it also includes the award of 11 September 2002 in Mondev International Ltd v. USA as well as the award of 9 January 2003 in ADF Group Inc. v. USA.