Blog

5 eiser v spain

Managing Editor The Respondent shall bear Claimants’ share of the costs of the arbitration proceeding as well as their legal representation costs and expenses. The public interest element, and the fact that proceedings in investment arbitration are indeed public, call for a greater scrutiny of the independence and impartiality of the arbitrators appointed. The third option, in Art 26(2)(c) with … While independence and impartiality have often been used interchangeably in the context of understanding the duty of the arbitrators, it is well established that the former refers to a more objective standard of ensuring that the arbitrator does not have any personal, financial or professional ties with any of the parties, witnesses, counsel etc., while the latter is more of a subjective standard that is based on the conduct of the arbitrator during the proceedings. The committee rejected this argument and explained that there was nothing on the record to prove that Spain had such knowledge. [7] Under the ICSID Arbitration Rules of 2003, the disclosure duty is grounded in Article 6, the scope of which was expanded through the amendments made in 2006 to make it a continuing obligation on the part of the arbitrator. The committee referred to the standard laid down in Blue Bank International v Bolivia, [3] by Chairman Kim, wherein it was stipulated that in order to determine whether an arbitrator had failed to comply with the standards of independence and impartiality, the standard should be one of whether “a third party would find an evident or obvious appearance of lack of impartiality on reasonable evaluation of the facts in this case”. Horia Ciurtin [2]. October 5, 2017 State liability to foreign energy investors was the subject of an article co-authored by Diora Ziyaeva and published by the International Bar Association's Power Law Committee in September 2017. If not, has the party seeking annulment established that a third party would find evident or obvious lack of impartiality or independence on the part of an arbitrator on a reasonable evaluation of the facts of the case (the Blue Bank standard)? The ICSID committee, by recognising the failure to disclose the conflict as a ground to annul the award, has illustrated the extremely serious implications of double-hatting in an investment arbitration, where it can cast a shadow over a successful award rendered in favour of a party, and ultimately lead to its annulment. On 25 March 2020, five affiliates of Infrared Capital Partners, a UK-based infrastructure and real estate investment manager, applied to the US District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the ICSID award rendered in InfraRed Environmental Infrastructure GP Ltd. et al. [12] Double hatting thus increases the possibility of an occurrence of issue conflict for an arbitrator, as was evident in the case of Telekom Malaysia Berhad v Ghana, [13] and raise justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality and independence. It was soon discovered that during the proceedings themselves, Mr. Alexandrov had been acting as counsel of a reputed law firm in other arbitration proceedings, and had employed the services of the Brattle group as experts. EU Observer, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1227900/undisclosed-expert-ties-prove-fatal-to-icsid-award>, https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/almID/1202462634101/The-Double-Hat-Debate-in-International-Arbitration/?slreturn=20200731133829>, https://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2018/05/30/the-new-draft-dutch-bit-what-does-it-mean-for-investor-mailbox-companies/>, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/03/25/uncitral-working-group-iii-would-an-investment-court-de-politicize-isds/?doing_wp_cron=1598784017.8404219150543212890625>, Unveiling Japan’s Modern BIT Policy: A Review of its Substantive Provisions, RUSSIAN INVESTORS IN AFRICA:HE WHO DOES NOT RISK WILL NEVER DRINK CHAMPAGNE, The Contents of the European Investment Law and Arbitration Review, Vol. For that, the committee adopted the Blue Bank v. Venezuela standard that determines that the relevant legal standard is an objective one “based on a reasonable evaluation of the evidence by a third party” (para. The duty to disclose is a corollary of the independence and impartiality requirement, as it places a positive duty upon the appointed arbitrators to disclose any and all potential and existing conflicts of interest with any of the parties, witnesses, counsel etc. En 2017, le tribunal de l’affaire Eiser c. l’Espagne se prononça en faveur des investisseurs de trois centrales thermiques. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. Amount of damages: US $124,919,200. ARB/13/36 in investment treaty arbitration from Uppsala University, an LL.M. Tuesday 26 September 2017. [5] The distinction was emphasized in Suez v. Argentina (ICSID Case no. Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. [16] Another radical change that the Dutch Model BIT makes is to completely do away with party-appointed arbitrators, and instil the power to appoint arbitrators solely to a competent appointing authority. V 062/2012, Award, January 21, 2016, arguing that the legal framework did not create legitimate expectations that it would remain unchanged (para. One of the hallmarks of the arbitral process is having independent and impartial arbitrators on the tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. In its recent decision in the case of Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energia Solar Luxemburg S.à r.l. ), © Spain, in contrast, … The committee rejected this argument and explained that there was nothing on the record to prove that Spain had such knowledge. The committee concluded that the “improper constitution” of a tribunal under Art. [9] Cosmo Anderson and Sebastian Perry, ‘Undisclosed expert ties prove fatal to ICSID award’ (Global Arbitration Review, 12 June 2020) < https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1227900/undisclosed-expert-ties-prove-fatal-to-icsid-award> accessed 4 July 2020. On June 11, 2020, an ICSID ad hoc committee annulled an award in its entirety on the grounds of serious departure from fundamental rules of procedure. Analysis: Eiser v. Spain annulment committee stresses its role as guardian of the ICSID system, imposes a “high” bar for double hatting, and finds that numerous undisclosed past and present connections between an arbitrator and the claimants’ quantum experts warrants annulment of … As a consequence, it claimed that the value of its investment was reduced significantly. This invigorated call for a reform in the prevailing paradigm has led to a number of recent developments, which also illustrate two extremely different approaches to tackling this predicament. The award is available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/5721 Keywords Energy transition, feed-in tariffs, … 52(1)(a) extends to situations in which an arbitrator is alleged to have lacked impartiality and independence at any time during the arbitration, the committee turned to determining the applicable standard to establish if an arbitral award should be annulled under said article. In the Eiser case, the committee assumed the role of a “guardian of the ICSID system” [9] and held that the bar must be set high when it comes to disclosure requirements given the importance of early disclosure for a fair and just arbitral process. State liability to foreign investors in the renewable energy sector: Eiser v Spain and its implications. The Energy Charter Treaty (1994) Nationality of the parties. Défendeur: Espagne. It illustrates the median approach, which seeks to remedy the concerns of double hatting within the prevailing framework in investment arbitration, while also maintaining the balance between the interests of both the investor and the Responding State party in the arbitral process, especially during appointments. Eiser v. Spain: Reinforcing the Importance of Early Disclosure in Investment Arbitration. 52(1)(b), as a result of an improper award of damages. 5 (2020). Global Arbitration Review She holds an LL.M. Date d'introduction : 23 déc. The Committee also stated that the failure on the part of Mr. Alexandrov to disclose this conflict had severe effects on the proceedings themselves, as it hampered the constitution of an independent tribunal, and also adversely affected Spain’s right to a fair arbitration. The committee declared annulment of the arbitral award and indicated that there was no need to address the other grounds for annulment raised by Spain (para. Statut de l'affaire : Pendante (Annulation) Pays d'origine de l'investisseur : Royaume-Uni, Luxembourg. [6]Noah Rubins and Bernard Lauterberg, ‘Independence, Impartiality and Duty of Disclosure in Investment Arbitration’ in Christina Knahr, Chrishtian Koller et al., Investment and Commercial Arbitration – Similarities and Divergences (Eleven International Publshing, 2010). ARB/98/2 Annulment Proceeding https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw11100.pdf, Keep updated with the ITN newsletter or subscribe to our RSS feed, Investment Treaty News is an online journal published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, ISSN 2519-8467 (English ed.) ARB/13/36). Date of introduction: 23 Dec 2013. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. Borderlex Eiser argued that under Art. This development has come in light of the increasing concern of politicisation of Investor-State arbitrations, and how the appointment of arbitrators to constitute the tribunal accentuate this concern more than any other factor. Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energia Solar Luxembourg S.à.r.l v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. After concluding that review under Art. 4. [8] ICSID Arbitration Rules (2003), Article 6. An agreement by a foreign state to waive its immunity under Pt II has effect to waive that immunity and the waiver may not be withdrawn except in accordance with the terms of the agreement (Immunities Act, s 10(5)). While there have been suggestions as to limit the influence of States, and to include investors to be a part of the process, such as screening, consultations etc., there is no black and white position on this issue as of yet. Feldman, ‘The annulment proceedings and the finality of ICSID arbitral awards’ [1987] 2(1) ICSID Rev. This article was first published on Kluwer Arbitration Blog on 12 July 2020, see here.. This constituted a departure from a fundamental rule procedure as it affected Spain’s right to a fair trial and the right to be heard by an independent and impartial decision-maker. 52(1)(a) of the ICSID Convention an award can only be annulled for failure to comply with the steps necessary to constitute the tribunal at the outset of the proceedings (para. By Sumit Chatterjee (National Law School of India University, Bangalore), An ICSID Committee, chaired by Ricardo Ramirez-Hernandez, recently annulled an arbitral award rendered in favour of a solar power investor in the case of Eiser Infrastructre Ltd. v Republic of Spain. According to Eiser, its decision to invest in Spain was based on RD 661/2007. And. Claimants and Respondent are collectively referred to as the Parties. In this sense, the committee found that the relationship between Alexandrov and Lapuerta created a manifest appearance of bias and, therefore, Alexandrov had an obligation to disclose this relationship (paras 220-228). 30 After the tribunal issued a decision on rectification of the award on 29 January 2019. The committee did not find, as argued by Eiser, that it had the discretion to decide not to annul the award even if the requirements under Art. [1] The primary ground on which the award was annulled was the undisclosed relationship between Stanimir Alexandrov, who was one of the arbitrators on the arbitral tribunal that rendered the award, and one of the experts appointed by the Claimants to make their case. Proposed Brief of the European Commission on behalf of the European Union as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Kingdom of Spain Columbia FDI Perspectives Prof. Loukas Mistelis The committee concluded that the absence of disclosure deprived Spain of the opportunity to challenge Alexandrov during the arbitration proceedings. Found in: Arbitration. First, that the tribunal had been improperly constituted, under Art. [18] Fernando Dias Simoes, ‘UNCITRAL Working Group III: Would an Investment Court De-politicize ISDS’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 25 March 2020) < http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/03/25/uncitral-working-group-iii-would-an-investment-court-de-politicize-isds/?doing_wp_cron=1598784017.8404219150543212890625> accessed 4 July 2020. v. Kingdom of Spain, Abogacia General del Estado Calle Ayala, 5 28001 - Madrid Spain Respondent. 206). SolEs Badajoz v. Spain; 2015. in international commercial arbitration from Stockholm University and a bachelor’s degree in law from the University of Malaga. Hence, the lack of disclosure constituted a serious breach that warranted annulment both under clauses (a) and (d) of paragraph (1) of Art. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. [4]. The tribunal awarded EUR 128 million in damages to Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energia Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l., (collectively, “Eiser”).[1]. Privacy Policy, UNCITRAL tribunal dismisses claims of German aircraft leasing company against the Czech Republic while upholding its jurisdiction over the intra-EU claim, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw11591.pdf, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw11592.pdf, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9050.pdf, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw11100.pdf, International Institute for Sustainable Development. [11] Frederick A Acomb and Nicholas J Jones, ‘Double-Hatting in International Arbitration’ (2017) 43 Litig 15. Rather, these awards can be divided into three different lines of reasoning, which are examined in the paragraphs that follow. 52(1)(a) did not prevent the committee from reviewing whether the procedural steps to constitute the tribunal had been appropriately followed at the beginning of the arbitration, as review under Art.52(1)(a) encompasses situations where an arbitrator is alleged to have lacked impartiality and independence at any time during the arbitration. The Eiser case also demonstrated that the wide nexus of connections that a lawyer has, and people he/she engages with in order to represent their clients, leads to a number of potential conflicts, as was observed here with the expert of the Brattle group, retained by the Claimants. Third, the Eiser Parties argue that Spain disagrees with the Tribunal's factual findings, something that is not relevant to any annulment standard in annulment proceedings. An annulment decision rendered in favor of Spain last June has been creating headlines in international arbitration. Duarte Henriques The Draft Code flags the issue of double-hatting in Article 6, [20] which aims at a “limit on multiple roles” for adjudicators. To examine the alleged lack of independence, the committee applied the three-step tests following the approach in EDF v. Argentina annulment decision: Eiser argued that Spain had waived its right to object to the connections between Alexandrov and Brattle because Spain should have known about it since they were public domain before the arbitral award was rendered. [6] The disclosure is also a safeguard to ensure that the arbitrator is secured from any future challenges on his/her independence or impartiality by one of the parties on the grounds which have been disclosed. Eiser argued that Spain had waived its right to object to the connections between Alexandrov and Brattle because Spain should have known about it since they were public domain before the arbitral award was rendered. ITA Law 31 Tethyan Copper Company Pty Ltd v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Federal Court of Australia NSD1749/2019, commenced 17 October 2019). Not only does the decision come at a crucial time, given the prevailing debate around double hatting, it also comes as a telling warning for lawyers who serve on tribunals in their roles as arbitrators to recognize and adhere to the duty of being independent and impartial throughout the proceedings. [11] Role confusion is also linked to another related concern with double hatting, which is the problem of issue conflict. 256). Horia Ciurtin, Editors Yet it argued that Spain’s subsequent decision to replace the regulatory framework adopted in 2007 with a framework based on different assumptions violated its legitimate expectations protected under the ECT. Decision on the Kingdom of Spain’s (“Spain”) Application for Annulment dated 11 June 2020 (the “Decision”).1 The Decision concerned the award rendered on 4 May 2017 in Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. State liability to foreign investors in the renewable energy sector: Eiser v. Spain and its implications . [19]. involved in the arbitration. Transnational Dispute Management Meriam Al-Rashid Dentons, New York [email protected]. Additionally, the committee found nothing upon examination of the award that could signal that Lapuerta’s damages report had no material effect on the reasoning or findings in the award since Lapuerta’s model for damages was adopted in its entirety by the arbitral tribunal. The award relates to a dispute registered at ICSID under the ECT. The need for reform to combat the predicament of double hatting has been all the more pronounced as a result of the prevailing no-man’s land with respect to ethical standards that prevail in arbitration proceedings, not just for legal counsels, but also for arbitrators. Although Spain requested the annulment of the arbitral award on multiple grounds, the committee examined only the relationship between Alexandrov and Brattle and the extent to which his connections amounted to an improper constitution of the tribunal and to a serious departure from fundamental rules of the arbitral procedure. 2013. Spain had made their case for annulment of the award on two broad grounds. 52. After the arbitral tribunal chaired by John Cook, and comprising of Stanimir Alexandrov and Campbell McLachlan, had decided the dispute between UK-based infrastructure firm Eiser Infrastructure Ltd. and the Republic of Spain in favour of the former, and ordered Spain to pay €128 million, Spain filed an application to annul the award, and to deliberate upon the same, a three-member committee comprising of Chairman Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández, Dominique Hascher and Teresa Cheng was constituted. Not only does a disclosure aid the parties in raising a timely challenge to the appointment of the arbitrator if it deems so necessary, it also waives the right of the party from raising such challenge at a later date, or post the rendering of the award, in cases where they fail to make such a challenge within the stipulated time period. [17] UNCITRAL Working Group III: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform 2020. ICSID—Spain sees award to renewables investors set aside (Eiser v Spain) News. Notes: The ad hoc committee was composed of Prof. Ricardo Ramírez Hernández (president), Makhdoom Ali Khan (member) and Judge Dominique Hascher (member). This dispute relates to measures implemented by Respondent modifying the regulatory and The committee found that Alexandrov’s failure to disclose could have had a material effect on the award. The Respondent is the Kingdom of Spain ( Spain or Respondent ). Nikos Lavranos 178). [1] See Arbitral Award, ICSID Case No. Read more here.) 190). ARB/13/36, available at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9050.pdf, [3] ICSID Case No. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. Désolé, cet article est seulement disponible en Anglais Américain. v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. Was the right to raise this matter waived because Spain had not raised it sufficiently promptly? ARB/00/6), where he was challenging an argument that was being relied on by Ghana in the present case. [7] M.B. 52(1)(d) of the ICSID Rules. 29 Eiser Infrastructure Ltd v Kingdom of Spain [2020] FCA 157 [145]-[173]. Nikos Lavranos The committee rejected this approach, concluding that for the purpose of determining whether the tribunal is properly constituted, Art. ISSN 2519-8823 (French ed.) 52(1)(a). [5] With respect to investment treaty arbitration, the requirement of independence and impartiality assumes much accentuated significance, as a result of the public interest element, and the political and economic ramifications of the decision on the Respondent State. Lapuerta acted as an expert on economic analysis and financial valuation in the Eiser v. Spain arbitration, See Arbitral Award, ICSID Case No. Spain) or that changes would not be “total and unreasonable” (Eiser v. Spain; similarly Foresight v. Spain; Novenergia II v. Spain; NextEra v. Spain). Chris Wilford. 52(1)(a) should be interpreted in light of the context, object, and purpose of the treaty, which empowered the committee to examine whether “the members of the tribunal were and remained (and were seen to be/remain) impartial and independent throughout the proceedings” (para. ARB/13/36 (Published in 2018 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from the 2010s and on this website on October 18, 2018. Sophie Nappert also Isolux Netherlands, BV v. The influence that Alexandrov exercised on being a part of the tribunal, and the failure to provide Spain with an opportunity to challenge his appointment on the ground of this relationship, was invoked by Spain to claim a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure under Art. The 28 arbitral awards from Charanne v. Spain to The PV Investors v. Spain did not give a uniform answer to this question. Eiser and Energía Solar v. Spain Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. 2. ARB/13/36 Type of case: Investor-State. It also noted that “a clear and unequivocal waiver” is needed to surrender a right so fundamental that it goes to the very foundation of the proper constitution of the tribunal. 77. Having considered the first ground sufficient to annul the award rendered by the tribunal, the committee did not delve into the intricacies of the second ground raised by Spain. Turning to the second step, the committee had to determine whether the standard for disqualification had been met. Case Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex; C-145/04: Judgment (OJ) 18/11/2006: Spain v United Kingdom Spain maintains that the ad hoc Committee in Eiser merely followed the decision of the ad hoc Committee in Total v. Argentina on key issues and in doing so, deviated from the standard practice of ICSID ad hoc Committees. Tethyan Copper Company Pty Ltd v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Federal Court of Australia NSD1749/2019, commenced 17 October 2019). After the arbitral tribunal chaired by John Cook, and comprising of Stanimir Alexandrov and Campbell McLachlan, had decided the dispute between UK-based infrastructure firm Eiser Infrastructure Ltd. and the Republic of Spain in favour of the former, and ordered Spain to pay €128 million, Spain filed an application to annul the award, and to deliberate upon the same, a three-member committee … 52(1)(d) of the ICSID Rules. Archive • 15.06.2020 • . On the award rendered on May 4, 2017, by a panel of three arbitrators composed of Prof. John R. Crook, Stanimir A. Alexandrov, and Prof. Campbell McLachlan, the tribunal ordered Spain to pay damages to the claimants for breach of the FET standard under ECT Article 10(1). Docket for EISER INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v. KINGDOM OF SPAIN, 1:18-cv-01686 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to … 52(1)(a), as a result of the undisclosed relationship between the nominated arbitrator of the Claimant, Stanimir Alexandrov, and one of the experts of the Brattle group that was appointed by the Claimants, Carlos Lapuerta. The Underlying Arbitration involved Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. The committee also noted that given the fact that it is in the very nature of deliberations that arbitrators exchange opinions before issuing the award “it would be unsafe to hold that Alexandrov’s views and his analysis could not have had any material bearing on the opinions of his fellow arbitrators” ( paras. Spain put forward several arguments for annulment of the award. (the ‘Eiser parties’) on one side, and the Kingdom of Spain (‘Spain’) on the other. Eiser and Energía Solar v. Spain Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. [4] Cf. 180). Second, they claimed that the tribunal had failed to provide reasons, under Art. Orçun Çetinkaya 179 In any case, the Eiser Parties consider that the Tribunal looked at the economic impact of Spain's measures on the Eiser Parties' investments to determine that the Disputed Measures were disproportionate and clearly stated the … Case report by: Francisco Zuluaga Ospina**, Editor Diego Luis Alonso Massa*** Summary: In a decision rendered on May 4, 2017, the International Centre for Settlement of After Teresa Chang stepped down from the committee, she was swiftly replaced on the committee by Makhdoom Ali Khan. v. Spain and requiring Spain to pay over €28.2 million for violating the ECT. Regulatory Challenges Arising from Sovereign Wealth Funds and National Security: Exacerbate Great Power Competition between China and the United States? Investment Arbitration Reporter The Draft Code came into being due to growing concerns about the numerous ethical and practical predicaments in investment arbitration proceedings, due to the different professional relations and roles of the appointed arbitrators. Award Name and Date: Eiser Infrastructure Limited & Energia Solar Luxembourg S.À R.I. v.Kingdom of Spain – Award – ICSID Case No. It argued that, for the case at hand, “manifest appearance of bias” arose from a long-standing relationship between Alexandrov and the Brattle Group (“Brattle”), in particular Brattle’s employee, Carlos Lapuerta,[2] and from Alexandrov’s failure to disclose his relationship with Brattle and this particular employee (Brattle is a company that provides expert testimonies and quantum of damages in international arbitration proceedings). 52 were met (para. 63). 52(1)(a) of the ICSID Rules to hold that the tribunal had been improperly constituted. EFILA Paper Regarding the Proposed Gerard Meijer (“Eiser”) bring this action to enforce an … The ECT, to which Spain is a signatory, in Art 26(2), gives an Investor party to a dispute with a Contracting Party three options for the resolution of disputes. [14]. Arbitrators must be extremely wary of such conflicts, and comply with the best practice of early and prompt disclosure to the best of their abilities. Furthermore, in four of these proceedings, the impugned expert, Mr. Lapuerta, had been the testifying expert on behalf of the Brattle group. (English) Eiser v. Spain. Eiser Infrastructure Ltd v Kingdom of Spain [2020] FCA 157 [145]-[173]. [15] It also mentions that no arbitrator should have acted as a counsel in any investment arbitration proceeding in the previous five years. First Line of Reasoning – All State Measures Frustrated Legitimate Expectations. The failure of Mr. Alexandrov to make a timely disclosure of the conflict resulted not only in declining Spain the opportunity to challenge his position on the tribunal, but also in influencing the decision of the other members of the tribunal with his continued presence on the tribunal, which in the eyes of the committee, would raise a reasonable suspicion of bias to any independent observer. This publication covers legal and technical issues in a general way. [14] In Telekom Malaysia Berhad v Ghana (UNCITRAL Arbitration at the PCA, The Hague), Ghana challenged the presence of the arbitrator nominated by the Claimants, Prof. Emmanuel Galliard, on the ground that he was acting as counsel for Morocco in the annulment proceedings of the award rendered in RFCC v Morocco (ICSID Case No. v Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. 504); cf. International Court System, EFILA Response Paper to the Criticism against ISDS, EFILA Final Response to the EU Commission's Consultation, Kluwer Arbitration Blog SolEs Badajoz v. Spain SolEs Badajoz GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. Pratyush Nath Upreti [2] ICSID Rules, Article 52, “(1) Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary-General on one or more of the following grounds: (a) that the Tribunal was not properly constituted; (b) that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers; (c) that there was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal; (d) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; or (e) that the award has failed to state the reasons on which it is based.”.

Crc 2-26 Model Railroad, Accident Hebron Ave Glastonbury Ct, Ryan Field Transfer Station Hours, Fla Program Facebook, Glastonbury Ct Directions, Panera Bagel Pack, Homewood At Frederick Coronavirus, Apply For Virginia Rent And Mortgage Relief Program, Airpods Pro Strap, Bubbles Character Trailer Park, Apply For Virginia Rent And Mortgage Relief Program, Evolve D Dry Herb Pen Not Charging,