Should the Award be interpreted as meaning that the Netherlands is under the obligation to bring at its own expenses the Iron Rhine railway back to a level allowing for a use of the Iron Rhine comparable to the one that prevailed during the regular albeit light use of the line prior to discontinuation of such use in 1991?
Should the Award be interpreted as meaning that Belgium has no right to temporary use of the Iron Rhine line?
Should the finding that the Netherlands' requirements may not amount to a denial of Belgium's right of transit nor render unreasonably difficult the exercise by Belgium of its right of transit (§§ 239(c) and 241(e)) be interpreted as applying to the issue of temporary use of the Iron Rhine, together with the Tribunal's findings on the principles and procedures laid down in the March 2000 MoU, contained in paragraphs 157 and 158 of the Award?
Should the Tribunal's ruling on the apportionment of costs in segment C if a loop around Roermond is agreed, be interpreted as laying with Belgium the costs of a reactivation of the historic route through Roermond, when such costs result from measures required by the Netherlands after the award had been rendered, over and above those included in the figures presented to the Tribunal, the Dutch legislation of general application remaining unchanged?
Get access to the most extensive & reliable source of information in arbitrationREQUEST A FREE TRIAL
Already registered ?