tutorial video tutorial video Discover the CiteMap in 3 minutes
Source(s) of the information:
Source(s) of the information:

    Decision (Decision No. DEC. 41-302-3)

    [1].
    On 19 August 1985 the Tribunal filed in this case the English version of Partial Award No. 186-302-3. The English version of the Award was served on the Agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran and on the Agent of the United States of America on 20 August 1985. The Farsi version of the Award was filed on 12 December 1985 and was served on the Agent of the United States of America on 13 December 1985 and on the Agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 16 December 1985.
    [2].
    On 19 March 1986 the Civil Aviation Organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran submitted an objection to certain of the Tribunal's determinations made in the Partial Award and requested, pursuant to Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the Tribunal Rules, that the Award be revised.
    [3].
    Articles 35 ("Interpretation of the Award"), 36 ("Correction of the Award") and 37 ("Additional Award") each require that a post-Award request to the arbitral Tribunal, whether it be to give "an interpretation of the Award," or "to correct in the Award any errors in computation, any clerical or typographical errors, or any errors of a similar nature," or "to make an additional Award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the Award," be made "[w]ithin 30 days after the receipt of the Award." According to Article 2(3) of the Tribunal Rules a document "shall be deemed to have been received by [the] arbitrating parties when it is received by the Agent of their Government."
    [4].
    As noted above, the English text of Partial Award No. 186-302-3 was received by the Agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 20 August 1985, and the Farsi version on 16 December 1985. Accordingly, the Civil Aviation Organization's request filed on 19 March 1986 clearly was not made within "30 days after the receipt of the Award" as required by Articles 35, 36 and 37. The Tribunal therefore dismisses the request for having been filed too late. See Component Builders, Inc. and The Islamic Republic of Iran, Decision No. DEC 40-395-3 (18 Dec. 1985); Harnischfeger Corporation and Ministry of Roads and Transportation et al., Award No. 175-180-3 at 21-22 (26 April 1985).
    [5].
    In view of the above, the Tribunal does not reach the question as to whether the request for revision made here properly can be considered a request for correction, interpretation or additional award pursuant to the Tribunal Rules.
    Whole document
    para.
    Click on the text to select an element Click elsewhere to unselect an element
    Select a key word :
    1 /