FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS | |
Arbitration Rules | ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings |
CM | The Claimants' Memorial dated 27 June 2014 |
Exh. C-Mxx | The Claimants' Exhibits submitted with their Memorial dated 27 June 2014 |
Exh. C-Lxx | The Claimants' Legal Authorities submitted with their Memorial dated 27 June 2014 |
CR | The Claimants' Reply dated 7 January 2015 |
Exh. CRMxx | The Claimants' Exhibits submitted with their Reply dated 7 January 2015 |
Exh. CLxx | The Claimants' Legal Authorities submitted with their Reply dated 7 January 2015 |
First Award | Award rendered on 8 May 2008 in the original arbitration proceedings |
Decision on Annulment | Decision rendered on 18 December 2012 in the annulment proceedings |
ICSID Convention | Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States dated March 18, 1965 |
ICSID or the Centre | International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes |
ILC | International Law Commission |
ND-xx | The Claimants' Exhibits submitted with their new Request for Arbitration dated 18 June 2013 |
RCM | The Respondent's Counter-Memorial dated 27 October 2014 |
RR | The Respondent's Rejoinder dated 9 March 2015 |
Exh. R-xx | The Respondent's Exhibits |
Exh. RL-xx | The Respondent's Legal Authorities |
CPP | Consorcio Periodístico y Publicitario S.A. |
EPC | Empresa Periodística Clarín, Ltda. |
CDE | Council for the Defence of the State |
Decision No. 43 | Decision of the the Santiago court dated 28 April 2000 |
Hearings, Day [x], p.[x] | Transcript of the hearing held in London from 13 to 16 April 2015 |
Mr Pey Casado and the Foundation Presidente Allende submitted a Request for Arbitration to ICSID on 7 November 1997, in reliance on the Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Chile on the Reciprocal Protection and Promotion of Investments ("BIT") which had entered into force on 29 March 1994, Article 10 of which provides:
1. Any dispute concerning investments, as defined in this Agreement, which arises between a Contracting Party and an investor of the other Contracting Party shall, to the extent possible, be settled by means of friendly consultations between the two parties to the dispute.
2. If the dispute cannot be settled within six months of the time it was initiated by one of the Parties, it shall be submitted, at the discretion of the investor, to:
- The national jurisdiction of the Contracting Party involved in the dispute; or
- International arbitration in the conditions described in paragraph 3.
Once the investor has submitted the dispute to the jurisdiction of the Contracting Party involved or to international arbitration, the choice of one or the other procedure shall be final.
3. If the dispute is submitted to international arbitration, it may be brought before one of the following arbitration bodies, at the discretion of the investor:
- The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), established by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which was opened for signature in Washington, D.C., on 18 March 1965, when each State Party to this Agreement has acceded to it. As long as this condition remains unmet, each Contracting Party gives its consent to submit the dispute to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the Additional Facility of ICSID;
- An ad hoc court of arbitration established under the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
4. The arbitration body shall take its decision on the basis of the provisions of this Agreement, of the law of the Contracting Party that is a party to the dispute, including the rules relative to conflicts of laws, and of the terms of any specific agreements concluded in relation to investment, as well as of the principles of international law on the subject.
5. The arbitral awards shall be final and binding for the parties to the dispute.
6. The Contracting Parties shall refrain from dealing, through diplomatic channels, with matters concerning arbitration or judicial proceedings already under way until the relevant procedures have been completed, unless the parties to the dispute have not complied with the award of the court of arbitration or the decision of the ordinary court pursuant to the terms of compliance established in the award or decision.16
The Request was registered on 20 April 1998,17 and a Tribunal was constituted on 14 September 1998, which will be referred to in this Award as "the First Tribunal".
Exh. RL-029 / Exh. ND07, Agreement on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Chile, 2 October 1991.
Exh. R-27, Award, 8 May 2008, para. 8.
For the reasons set forth above, the Committee renders the following decisions:
1. Pursuant to Article 52(1)(d) and (e), decides to annul paragraph 4 of the dispositif of the Award of 8 May 2008 and the corresponding paragraphs in the body of the Award related to damages (Section VIII);
2. Rejects the other grounds of the Republic's Application for annulment;
3. Rejects the Claimants' request for the partial annulment of paragraph 8 of the dispositif of the Award;
4. Finds that paragraphs 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 of the dispositif as well as the body of the Award but for Section VIII are res judicata ;
5. Decides that there is no need to order the temporary stay of enforcement of the un-annulled portion of the Award.
6. Decides that each party shall bear one half of the ICSID costs incurred in connection with this annulment proceeding; and
7. Decides that each party shall bear its own litigation costs and expenses incurred with respect to this annulment proceeding.
On 11 March 2014, the Tribunal held its first session with the Parties by telephone. In addition to the Tribunal and its Secretary, the following participated:
For the Claimants:
Dr Juan E. Garcés Garcés y Prada, Abogados
Ms Carole Malinvaud Gide, Loyrette, Nouel
Ms Alexandra Muñoz Gide, Loyrette, Nouel
For the Respondent:
Mr Paolo Di Rosa Arnold & Porter LLP
Ms Gaela Gehring Flores Arnold & Porter LLP
Ms Mallory Silberman Arnold & Porter LLP
Mr Juan Carlos Riesco Carey
Ms Victoria Fernández-Armesto Republic of Chile
Mr Juan Banderas Casanova Republic of Chile
From 13 to 16 April 2015, the Tribunal held an oral hearing in London. In addition to the Tribunal, its Secretary, and the President's Assistant, the following participated:
For the Claimants:
Dr Juan E. Garcés Garcés y Prada, Abogados
Mr Michel Stein Garcés y Prada, Abogados
Mr Hernán Garcés Garcés y Prada, Abogados
Ms Carole Malinvaud Gide, Loyrette, Nouel
Ms Alexandra Munoz Gide, Loyrette, Nouel
Ms Natasha Peter Gide, Loyrette, Nouel
Ms Astrid Westphalen Gide, Loyrette, Nouel
Ms Coral Pey Grebe Foundation Presidente Allende
Ms Francisca Durán Ferraz de Andrade Foundation Presidente Allende
Ms Marie Ducrocq Foundation Presidente Allende
Mr Christophe Schmit Accuracy
Mr Eduard Saura Accuracy
For the Respondent:
Mr Paolo Di Rosa Arnold & Porter LLP
Ms Gaela Gehring Flores Arnold & Porter LLP
Ms Mallory Silberman Arnold & Porter LLP
Ms Shepard Daniel Arnold & Porter LLP
Mr Kelby Ballena Arnold & Porter LLP
Mr Jorge Carey Carey
Mr Gonzalo Fernández Carey
Mr Juan Carlos Riesco Carey
Ms Liliana Machiavello Republic of Chile
Ms Victoria Fernández-Armesto Republic of Chile
Mr Brent C. Kaczmarek, CFA Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Mr Andrew Preston Navigant Consulting, Inc.
Dr Marcos Libedinsky Tschorne
The Respondent recalls that Procedural Order No. 1 identifies the scope of the Tribunal's authority as the matters identified in paragraph 359.1 of the Decision on Annulment, and submits that all the Claimants' requests for relief, in particular those relating to claimed postFirst Award violations of Article 4 of the BIT, exceed the Tribunal's authority, as they either represent a variety of new claims or revisit prior failed claims.262 The Respondent rejects in particular the following: the freestanding expropriation claim; the claim that various post First Award events relating to the Goss press constitute a violation of Article 4 of the BIT; the claim that the behaviour of its representatives amounts to a new violation of Article 4 of the BIT; the claim that national treatment was denied to the Claimants when the owners of most other media companies were compensated for the expropriation of their assets; and the claim based on unjust enrichment.263
RR, para. 37; RCM, paras. 240-42.
RR, paras. 39-40.
The Respondent submits in the alternative that even if the First Award had failed to address a claim for unjust enrichment, the appropriate proceeding would have been the filing of a request for supplementation pursuant to Article 49(2) of the ICSID Convention, but subject to a fixed time limit of 45 days after the date on which an award is rendered; having failed to observe that, the Claimants must now be deemed to have waived their rights to make such a claim.272
RCM, para. 239.
Par ces motifs, le Comité rend les décisions suivantes :
1. décide d'annuler le paragraphe 4 du dispositif de la Sentence du 8 mai 2008 et les paragraphes correspondants dans le corps de la Sentence relatifs aux dommages-intérêts (Section VIII) conformément à l'article 52(1)(d) et (e) ;
2. rejette les autres fondements de la Demande en annulation de la République ;
3. rejette la demande des Demanderesses tendant à l'annulation partielle du paragraphe 8 du dispositif de la Sentence ;
4. estime que les paragraphes 1 à 3 et 5 à 8 du dispositif ainsi que le corps de la Sentence, à l'exception de la Section VIII, ont autorité de chose jugée.355
1. décide qu'il est compétent pour connaître du litige entre les demanderesses et la République du Chili ;
2. constate que la défenderesse a violé son obligation de faire bénéficier les demanderesses d'un traitement juste et équitable, en ce compris celle de s'abstenir de tout déni de justice
3. constate que les demanderesses ont droit à compensation356 ;
4. ordonne à la République du Chili de payer aux demanderesses le montant de USD 10,132,690.18, portant intérêt au taux de 5%, composé annuellement, à compter du 11 avril 2002 jusqu'à la date d'envoi de la présente sentence ;
5. met à la charge de la défenderesse une contribution aux frais et dépens exposés par les demanderesses, d'un montant de USD 2,000,000,- (deux millions) ;
6. décide que les frais de procédure seront supportés par les parties dans la proportion de : 3/4 du montant total (soit USD 3,136,893.34) pour la défenderesse et 1/4 du montant total (soit 1,045,631.11) pour les demanderesses ; ordonne en conséquence à la défenderesse de payer aux demanderesses la somme de USD 1,045,579.35 ;
7. ordonne à la République du Chili de procéder au paiement dans un délai de 90 jours à compter de la date d'envoi de la présente sentence, des sommes figurant dans le présent dispositif (points 4, 5 et 6), faute de quoi le montant portera intérêts composés annuellement au taux de 5%, à compter de la date d'envoi de la présente sentence jusqu'à celle du parfait paiement ;
8. rejette toutes autres ou plus amples conclusions.