(2) The Tribunal upon the request of a party made within 45 days after the date on which the award was rendered may after notice to the other party decide any question which it had omitted to decide in the award, and shall rectify any clerical, arithmetical or similar error in the award. Its decision shall become part of the award and shall be notified to the parties in the same manner as the award. The periods of time provided for under paragraph (2) of Article 51 and paragraph (2) of Article 52 shall run from the date on which the decision was rendered.
(i) The Committee erred in affirming that there was no dispute between the parties concerning CGE’s control of CAA at the time the arbitration proceedings were commenced (paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Decision);
(ii) The Committee erred in stating that the Respondent acknowledged that there exists no presumption either in favor of or against annulment of an arbitral award (paragraph 62 of the Decision);
(iii) The Committee erred in describing the Respondent’s position in relation to the possibility of a partial annulment and its consequences (paragraph 67 of the Decision);
(iv) The Committee erred in stating that the Respondent was not making a late annulment application by way of a counterclaim (paragraph 70 of the Decision);
(v) The Committee erred in stating that the Respondent argued that there was a contradiction between the Tribunal’s reasons concerning jurisdiction and its reasons concerning the merits of the dispute (paragraph 72 of the Decision);
(vi) The Committee erred in stating that neither party disputes that a tribunal commits an excess of powers if it fails to exercise its jurisdiction (paragraph 86 of the Decision);
(vii) The Committee erred in summarizing the arguments of the Respondent in relation to the treatment by the Tribunal of the Tucumán claims (paragraph 93 of the Decision).
[W]hile it is arguable that the Tribunal failed to state any reasons for its finding that "CAA should be considered a French investor from the effective date of the Concession Contract," that finding played no part in the subsequent reasoning of the Tribunal, or in its dismissal of the claim. (...) It is also clear the CGE controlled CAA at the time the proceedings were commenced, so that there was no question that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over CAA as one of the Claimants in the arbitration.4
(a) Respondent’s Request for a supplementary decision is denied;
(b) Respondent’s Requests for rectification are denied, with the exception of the following:
(i) The third sentence of paragraph 72 of the Decision is rectified by the substitution of the word "Claimants" for the word "Respondent",
(ii) The first sentence of paragraph 86 of the Decision is rectified by the deletion of the words and neither party disputes."
(c) Each party shall bear all of its own costs incurred in connection with the Request for Supplementation and Rectification of the Committee’s Decision, and Respondent shall pay the entirety of the fees and expenses of the Committee in connection with the above-mentioned request of Argentina.