• Copy the reference
  • Tutorial video

Procedural Order No. 4

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1.
By letter of 26 September 2018, Respondent filed a request for a 60-day extension of the deadline set out in Procedural Order No. 3 to submit its Counter-Memorial on the Merits and Memorial on Jurisdiction (the “Extension Request”).
2.
By communication of 27 September 2018, the Tribunal invited Claimant to submit observations regarding the Extension Request. On 1 October 2018, Claimant submitted its observations regarding the Extension Request.
3.
By communication of 2 October 2018, Respondent sought leave from the Tribunal to submit a brief response to Claimant’s letter of 1 October 2018. On the same date, the Tribunal granted Respondent’s request and invited Claimant to respond to Respondent’s submission no later than by 5 October 2018.
4.
On 3 October 2018, Respondent submitted its observations regarding Claimant’s letter of 1 October 2018. Subsequently, on 5 October 2018, Claimant submitted its observations regarding Respondent’s letter of 3 October 2018.
5.
On 8 October 2018, Respondent submitted an additional communication in connection with the Extension Request, to “bring to [the Tribunal’s] attention new material facts that occurred following [Respondent’s] letter of 3 October 2018.”

II. ORDER

6.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered Respondent’s Extension Request, which is mainly based on alleged delays in the preparation of its Counter-Memorial on the Merits and Memorial on Jurisdiction arising out of a government transition process known as empalme, as well as Claimant’s arguments by which it objects to the Extension Request.
7.
The Tribunal does not favor procedural delays and it disapproves of persistent revisions to the timetable of the proceeding, which was originally set out in Procedural Order No. 1 of 30 November 2017 and later revised in Procedural Order No. 3 of 29 August 2018.
8.
Nevertheless, in view of the seeming impossibility of the Respondent to be able to complete its filing in under sixty days, the Tribunal decides to grant the Extension Request.
9.
The granting of Respondent’s Extension Request constitutes a final extension. In no circumstances will the Tribunal allow another extension for the filing of Respondent’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits and Memorial on Jurisdiction.
10.
Claimant will be allowed the same 60-day extension for the filing of its Reply on the Merits and Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction, if so required.
11.
In view of the above, Annex A to Procedural Order No. 1 is hereby amended as follows:

Annex A – Procedural Calendar

Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia

(ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41)

[…]

Scenario 3

The following timetable shall apply in the event that objections to jurisdiction are made in response to the memorial on the merits, and there is a request for bifurcation which is refused.

Description Party / Tribunal Period of Time Due Date
Counter-Memorial on the Merits and Memorial on Jurisdiction Respondent +60 days from 25 October 2018 24 December 2018
Cut-off date for submission of applications for leave to file a Non-Disputing Party submission Non-Disputing Parties +5 days from Counter-Memorial on Merits and Memorial on Jurisdiction 31 December 2018

Subsequent citations of this document as a whole:
Subsequent citations of this excerpt:
Click on the text to select an element Click elsewhere to unselect an element
Select a key word :
1 /

Instantly access the most relevant case law, treaties and doctrine.

Start your Free Trial

Already registered ?