|TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS|
|Ad Hoc Commission||Commission created by INC Resolution No. 508/INC of 12 July 2004|
|BIT / Treaty / France-Peru BIT||Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of France and the Government of the Republic of Peru for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments of 6 October 1993|
|C-Memorlal||Claimants’ Memorial on the Merits of 17 August 2012|
|CNTA||National Technical Commission of Archeology Comisión Nacional Técnica de Arqueología|
|CNTCPA||National Technical Commission of Qualifying Architectural Projects Comisión Nacional Técnica Calificadora de Proyectos Arquitectónicos|
|C-PHB 1||Claimants’ First Post-Hearing Brief of 31 January 2014|
|C-PHB 2||Claimants’ Reply Post-Hearing Brief of 28 February 2014|
|C-Reply||Claimants’ Reply on the Merits and Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction of 26 March 2013|
|CWS||Claimants’ witness statement|
|Exh. C-||Claimants’ Exhibits|
|Exh. R-||Respondent’s Exhibits|
|Hearing||Hearing conducted between 7-14 November 2013|
|Historical Commission||Commission created by INC Resolution NO.1260/INC of 26 November 2004|
|ICSID||International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes|
|ICSID Convention||Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States|
|INC||National Institute of Culture|
|Instituto Nacional de Cultura|
|MOC||Ministry of Culture|
|PO 1||Procedural Order No. 1 of 4 May 2012|
|R-CM||Respondent’s Memorial on Objections to Jurisdiction and Counter-Memorial on the Merits of 21 December 2012|
|RFA||Claimants’ Request for Arbitration of 17 May 2011|
|R-PHB 1||Respondent’s First Post-Hearing Brief of 31 January 2014|
|R-PHB 2||Respondent’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief of 28 February 2014|
|R-Rejoinder||Respondent’s Rejoinder on the Merits and Jurisdiction of 1 July 2013|
|RWS||Respondent’s witness statement|
|Tr. [page: line]||Transcript of the hearing (English version)|
The Claimants have been represented in this arbitration by:
Until 6 May 2014:
Carlos Paitan Contreras
Christian Carbajal Valenzuela
José Salcedo Machado
Danny Quiroga Anticona
ESTUDIO PAITAN & ABOGADOS
Av. Manuel Olguin N° 501 Ofic. 1007
Centro Empresarial Macros
Santiago de Surco
Lima 33, Peru
As of 6 May 2014:
Fernando Olivares Plácido
Avenida Brasil No. 2959
Dpto. 1101 Magdalena del Mar
Lima, 17, Peru
Isy Ralph Levy Calvo
Avenida Angamos Este No. 1551
Tercer Nivel, oficina 65
Lima, 34, Peru
The Respondent has been represented in this arbitration by:
Carlos Valderrama Bernal
Presidente de la Comisión Especial que Representa al Estado en Controversias Internacionales de Inversión Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas
Jr. Cuzco 177 - Edificio Banco de Materiales - Piso 5
Lima - Lima, Peru
Jennifer Haworth McCandless
Sidley Austin LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC. 20005, USA
Francisco Navarro Grau
Estudio Navarro, Ferrero & Pazos
Av. del Parque 195
San Isidro, Peru
The sales contract for La Herradura contains the following clause:
"6.03. If necessary, and at the request of the buyer, the Municipality [of Chorrillos] must lend its official support In the requests that the Buyer must effectuate before the Municipality of Lima [...] as well as before any other competent authority for obtaining the authorizations that may be required for an adequate development of the Project [...]."11
"1. That the National Institute of Culture determine the intangible area, delimiting It to an area corresponding to the historic zone of the Morro Solar declared a Historical Monument, recognizing for the monumental area a zone that surrounds the actual formal commemorations and includes the Monument of the Unknown Soldier, the monument of General Iglesias, the Observatory, the Obus, the Cross of the Morro and the Chapel of the Virgin.
2. As a result of the above, the National Institute of Culture requests that the Ministry of Education, in the exercise of its functions, perfect the Ministerial Resolution No. 794-86-ED and establish the boundaries of the above-mentioned Historical Monument."40
On 7-14 November 2013, the Hearing on jurisdiction and merits was held in Washington, D.C. The following persons attended the Hearing:
A. For the Tribunal
• Prof. Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, President
• Dr. Eduardo Zuleta, Arbitrator
• Prof. Raúl Vinuesa, Arbitrator
B. For the Secretariat
• Ms. Alicia Martin Blanco, Secretary of the Tribunal (ICSID)
C. For the Claimants
• Mr. Carlos Paitan, Estudio Paitan & Abogados
• Mr. Christian Carbajal, Estudio Paitan & Abogados
• Mr. Danny Quiroga, Estudio Paitan & Abogados
• Mr. José Salcedo, Estudio Paitan & Abogados
• Mr. Fernando Olivares, Estudio Paitan & Abogados
• Ms. Renée Rose Levy, Claimant
• Mr. Isy Levy, Representative of the Claimants
• Mr. Jorge Barragán, Witness
• Mr. Dany Chumbes, Witness
• Mr. Guillermo Cock, Witness
• Ms. Claudette Joseph, Expert
• Mr. Ian Sandy, Expert
• Mr. Cristóbal Aljovin, Expert
• Mr Richard Martin, Expert
• Mr. Martin D’Azevedo, Expert
• Mr. Richard Marchitelli, Expert
• Mr. John Ferro, Damages Expert
• Mr. José Rivas, Damages Expert
• Mr. David Benick, Damages Expert
D. For the Respondent
• Mr. Stanimir Alexandrov, Sidley Austin LLP
• Mr. Andrew Blandford, Sidley Austin LLP
• Mr. Samuel Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP
• Ms. Marinn Carlson, Sidley Austin LLP
• Mr. Gavin Cunningham, Sidley Austin LLP
• Ms. Maria Carolina Durán, Sidley Austin LLP
• Ms. Jennifer Haworth McCandless, Sidley Austin LLP
• Ms. Courtney Hikawa, Sidley Austin LLP
• Mr. Trey Hilberg, Sidley Austin LLP
• Mr. Joseph Zaleski, Sidley Austin LLP
• Ms. Anastassiya Chechel, Sidley Austin LLP
• Mr. Ricardo Puccio, Estudio Navarro Ferrero & Pazos
• Mr. Jorge Masson, Estudio Navarro Ferrero & Pazos
• H.E. Harold Forsyth, Peruvian Ambassador to the United States
• Mr. Erika Llzardo, Embassy of the Republic of Peru In Washington D.C.
• Ms. Cecilia Galarreta, Embassy of the Republic of Peru In Washington D.C.
• Mr. Carlos José Valderrama, President of the Special Commission, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Republic of Peru
• Ms. Milagros Miranda, Peruvian Mission to the United Nations In New York
• Mr. Edwin Benavente, Witness
• Ms. Marla Elena Cordova, Witness
• Ms. Ruth Fernández, Witness
• Ms. Ana Maria Hoyle, Witness
• Ms. Elda Juárez, Witness
• Mr. David de Lambarrl, Witness
• Mr. Guillermo Málaga, Witness
• Mr. Nelson Manrique, Witness
• Mr. Daniel Alegre, Expert
• Mr. Guillermo García Montúfar, Expert
• Ms. Sheila Harris, Expert
• Mr. Brent Kaczmarek, Expert
• Ms. Isabel Kunsman, Expert
• Mr. Juan Pablo de la Puente, Expert
• The Respondent has frustrated the Claimants’ legitimate expectations that they would be able to develop the Costazul Project. The 2007 Resolution rendered their investment meaningless.
• The Respondent also failed to act transparently when it did not involve the Claimants in the approval process for the 2007 Resolution. Further, the declaration of intangibility contained in the 2007 Resolution as well as the "erratic and contradictory behavior" by the INC were "unpredictable",56 and thus constituted a violation of the obligation to maintain a stable legal framework.
• Moreover, the issuance of the 2007 Resolution constituted an act which was arbitrary, because it lacked any technical and objective foundation, and was in contradiction with existing provisions and regulations. The Claimants were also discriminated against certain local populations, which despite residing on similarly protected areas of the Morro Solar, were not treated in the same way as the Claimants.
• Finally, the Respondent engaged In acts of bad faith, coercion, or harassment towards the Claimants.
"(1) Assume jurisdiction over all the claims filed by the Claimants against the Republic of Peru on the basis of the Peru-France BIT.
(2) Declare that the Peruvian State is liable for the breach of the international obligations assumed under the Peru-France BIT.
(3) Establish the damages incurred and interest applied.
(4) Require the Respondent to pay the costs and fees incurred by the Claimants throughout the arbitral proceedings.
(5) Establish any additional damages and compensation that the Tribunal deems appropriate."58
Jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention is governed by Article 25, which reads as follows:
"(1) The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally.
(2) "National of another Contracting State" means:
(a) any natural person who had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration as well as on the date on which the request was registered pursuant to paragraph (3) of Article 28 or paragraph (3) of Article 36, but does not Include any person who on either date also had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute; and
(b) any juridical person which had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration and any juridical person which had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute on that date and which, because of foreign control, the parties have agreed should be treated as a national of another Contracting State for the purposes of this Convention."
The main provisions of the BIT are set out in both language versions below. Article 1 of the Spanish version defines "investment", "national", and "company" in the following terms:
"(1) El término "inversión" designa todos los activos tales como bienes, derechos e intereses de toda naturaleza y, en particular, aunque no exclusivamente:
(a) Los bienes muebles e inmuebles, asi como todo otro derecho real tales como las hipotecas, privilegios, usufructos, fianzas y derechos similares;
(b) Las acciones, primas en emisión y otras formas de participación, sean minoritarias o indirectas, en las sociedades constituidas en el territorio de una de las partes contratantes;
(c) Las obligaciones, acreencias y derechos a toda prestación que tenga valor económico;
(d) Los derechos de autor, los derechos de propiedad industrial (tales como patentes de invención, licencias, marcas registradas, modelos y diseños industriales), los procedimientos técnicos, los nombres registrados y la clientela;
(e) Las concesiones otorgadas por la ley o en virtud de un contrario, especialmente las concesiones relativas a la prospección, el cultivo, la extracción o la explotación de recursos naturales, incluso aquellas que se encuentran en el area marítima de las Partes Contratantes.
Dichos activos deben ser o haber sido invertidos conforme a la legislación de la Parte Contratante en el territorio o en el area marítima en la cual la inversión es efectuada, antes o después de la entrada en vigencia del presente Convenio.
Toda modificación de la forma de inversión de los activos no afecta su calificación de inversión, siempre que esta modificación no sea contraria a la legislación de la Parte Contratante en el territorio o en la zona marítima en la cual la inversión es efectuada.
(2) El término "nacionales" designa toda persona física que posee la nacionalidad de una de las partes.
(3) El término "sociedades" designa toda persona jurídica constituida en el territorio de una de las Partes Contratantes conforme a la legislación de esta parte y que posee allí su sede social, o es controlada directa o indirectamente por nacionales de una de las Partes Contratantes, o por personas jurídicas que poseen su sede social en el territorio de una de las Partes Contratantes y constituidas conforme a la legislación de esta parte.
The French version of Article 1 of the Treaty reads as follows:
"1. Le terme « investissement » désigne tous les avoirs tels que les biens, droits et intérêts de toutes natures et, plus particulièrement mais non exclusivement :
a) Les biens meubles et immeubles, ainsi que tous autres droits réels tels que les hypothèques, privilèges, usufruits, cautionnements et droits analogues ;
b) Les actions, primes démission et autres formes de participation, même minoritaires ou indirectes, aux sociétés constituées sur le territoire de l'une des Parties contractantes ;
c) Les obligations, créances et droits a toutes prestations ayant valeur économique ;
d) Les droits d'auteur, les droits de propriété industrielle (tels que brevets d'invention, licences, marques déposées, modèles et maquettes industrielles), les procèdes techniques, les noms déposés et la clientèle ;
e) Les concessions accordées parla loi ou en vertu d'un contrat, notamment les concessions relatives a la prospection, la culture, l'extraction ou l'exploitation de richesses naturelles, y compris celles qui se situent dans la zone maritime des Parties contractantes.
Lesdits avoirs doivent être ou avoir été investis conformément a la législation de la Partie contractante sur le territoire ou dans la zone maritime de laquelle /'investissement est effectue, avant ou après l’entrée en vigueur du présent Accord.
Toute modification de la forme d'investissement des avoirs n'affecte pas leur qualification d'investissement, a condition que cette modification ne soit pas contraire a la législation de la Partie contractante sur le territoire ou dans la zone maritime de laquelle /'investissement est réalisé.
2. Le terme de « nationaux » désigne toute personne physique possédant la nationalité de l'une des Parties contractantes.
3. Le terme de « sociétés » désigne toute personne morale constituée sur le territoire de l'une des Parties contractantes, conformément a la législation de celle-ci et y possédant son siège social, ou contrôlée directement ou indirectement par des nationaux de l'une des Parties contractantes, ou par des personnes morales possédant leur siège social sur le territoire de J'une des Parties contractantes et constituées conformément a la législation de celle-ci.
The Spanish version of Article 8 on the settlement of investment disputes reads as follows:
"(1) Toda controversia relativa a una inversion entre una parte y un nacional o sociedad de la otra Parte Contratante será amigablemente dirimida entre las partes en la controversia.
(2) Si tal controversia no hubiese podido ser solucionada en un plazo de seis meses a partir del momento en que cualquiera de las partes en la controversia la hubiera planteado, será sometida, a pedido de cualquiera de las partes, al arbitraje del Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas (CIADI), creado por la Convención para el Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones entre Estados y nacionales de otros Estados, firmada en Washington el 18 de marzo de 1965.
(3) Una persona jurídica constituida en el territorio de una de las Partes Contratantes y que antes del surgimiento de la controversia estuviera controlada por los nacionales o sociedades de la otra Parte Contratante será considerada, para los efectos del artículo 25 (2) (b) de la convención mencionada en el párrafo (2) anterior, como sociedad de esa parte contratante.
(4) Cada parte contratante otorga su consentimiento incondicional para someter las controversias al arbitraje internacional, de conformidad con las disposiciones de este artículo.
(5) El laudo arbitral será definitivo y obligatorio."
The French version of Article 8 reads as follows:
"1. Tout différend relatif aux investissements entre l'une des Parties contractantes et un national ou une société de l'autre Partie contractante est réglé a l'amiable entre les deux Parties concernées.
2. Si un tel différend n'a pas pu être réglé dans un délai de six mois a partir du moment ou il a été soulevé par l'une ou l’autre des parties au différend, il est soumis a la demande de l'une ou l'autre de ces parties a l'arbitrage du Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (C.I.R.D.I.), crée par la Convention pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements entre Etats et ressortissants d'autres Etats, signée a Washington le 18 mars 1965.
3. Une personne morale constituée sur le territoire de l’une des Parties contractantes et qui, avant que le différend ne soit soulevé, est contrôlée par des nationaux ou des sociétés de l’autre Partie contractante est considérée pour l’application de l’article 25 (2, b) de la Convention mentionnée au paragraphe 2 ci-dessus comme une société de l’autre Partie contractante.
4. Chacune des Parties contractantes donne son accord sans réserve au règlement des différends par recours a l'arbitrage international conformément aux dispositions de cet article.
5. Les sentences arbitrales sont définitives et obligatoires."
• First, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention and the BIT because the Claimants have not demonstrated that they were "Investors" under the BIT at the time the events occurred that gave rise to the dispute. For the Respondent, the documents that the Claimants have submitted purporting to show Ms. Levy’s direct and Indirect ownership of Gremcitel In 2005 and 2007 are rife with Inconsistencies, hand-written corrections, and unverlflable claims. In addition, Gremcitel does not qualify as an Investor under Article 8(3) of the BIT because It was not controlled by a French national before the dispute at Issue In this case emerged.
• Second, the Respondent argues that the Claimants’ Investment is an abuse of process. In the Respondent’s view, the Irregularities of the documents purporting to show Ms. Levy’s alleged ownership and the testimony at the Hearing demonstrate that Ms. Levy attempted to acquire Interest In Gremcitel In a hurry, when key actions of the government were taken or were about to be taken. Such conduct is evidence that Ms. Levy acquired her alleged interest in Gremcitel for the sole purpose of internationalizing an existing or foreseeable, and otherwise purely domestic, dispute, which constitutes an abuse of process.
• Third, the Respondent argues that the Claimants have no "investment" under either Article 25 of the ICSID Convention or the BIT. First, the Claimants have failed to demonstrate that they ever had a "right to develop" the Costazul project, on which they base their claim. Furthermore, they have failed to produce any evidence that they have made any monetary contribution and thus have not undertaken any risk in their alleged investment.
• First, Ms. Levy, a French national, acquired indirect control over Gremcitel in 2005 (when she acquired 33.3% of the shares in Hart Industries, which was the main shareholder of Gremcitel) and direct control over Gremcitel in 2007 (when she acquired 58.82% of the shares in Gremcitel). Therefore, Gremcitel should also be considered a French company as it was under French control before the dispute arose (in accordance with Article 8(3) of the BIT and Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention).
• Second, the Claimants submit that an allegation of abuse of process requires a high standard to be met. The Respondent has not established that the Claimants had foreseen the event which gave rise to the dispute (/.e., the issuance of the 2007 Resolution), and that they accordingly manipulated Gremcitel’s nationality to gain access to ICSID.
• Third, the Claimants have made an investment by acquiring the land and the relating right to develop it, by holding rights and interests related to the land, as well as licenses and other types of authorizations. These assets fall within the broad definition of investment contained in Article 1 of the BIT as well as within Article 25 of the ICSID Convention. Furthermore, the Claimants contend that, while the 2005 transfer of shares occurred free of charge, this was due to the intra-family nature of the corporate restructuring. In addition, Ms. Levy’s 2007 acquisition of the Gremcitel shares occurred in exchange of a payment in kind (through the exchange of shares which she held in a company called "Holding XXI").
(i) Hart Industries corporate resolution dated 7 February 2005.68 The Claimants submit that through this resolution, Mr. Levy, then sole shareholder and director of Hart Industries, resolved to amend Article 7(2) of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Hart Industries In order to divide the 1000 shares Into three groups, one of which would be a group of 333 "preferred shares" that would exercise exclusive control over the company.
(ii) Hart Industries corporate resolution dated 9 February 200569 It is the Claimants’ contention that this corporate resolution approved the transfer of the preferred shares from Mr. Levy to his sister Ms. Levy.
(iii) Hart Industries corporate resolution dated 7 March 2005.70 According to the Claimants, through this resolution, the 9 February 2005 transfer of the shares was ratified and all powers and rights in the company were transferred to Ms. Levy "until all legal proceedings concerning resolutions dated February 7th 2005 and February 9th 2005 are finished".
"I Claudette Joseph Notary Public In and for the state of Grenada, West Indie hereby certify that this document was acknowled [sic]
executed before me by Mr. Isy Levy and witnessed before me by Mr. Teddy R. St. Lou on the 9th day of February 2005.
I certify further that the date shown by me being 7th February 2005, was a genuine error on my part."
(i) the rectification must have occurred at least seven years after the original notarization. While it is undated, the notary stamp records the expiration date of the notary’s commission, which is 4 April 2017. Because of the 5-year duration of a notary’s commission already mentioned, the rectification must, in the Respondent’s view, have occurred after 2012.90
(ii) the unreliability of the rectification is also evidenced by the struck-through words written by the notary, which evidence her confusion as to what she actually acknowledged;91
(iii) it is unclear how the notary public exactly "acknowledged" Mr. Isy Levy’s signature, when, the Respondent argues, Mr. Levy was not in Grenada at that time, as shown by a Report of the Ministry of Interior of Peru;92 and
(iv) the very notary public’s reliability is, in the Respondent’s view, questionable as she issued a legal opinion about the Claimants’ compliance with Grenadian corporate law having herself been involved in the transaction.93
"the Resolution was presented to me sometime In 2010. The specific date I can’t remember. And It was presented by Mr. St Louis and Mr. Levy, both appearing In person before me...".94
Alternatively, the Respondent argues that the dispute arose no later than 2004, but likely as early as 2001, when Gremco started disputing the land’s archeological and historical delimitation.117 The Respondent relies on the following events to show that there was a dispute "long before Ms. Levy was allegedly Injected Into the corporate structure of Gremcitel, either In 2005 or 2007":118
• The 3 July 2001 "Proposal of Historical Delimitation - Morro Solar" submitted by Gremco to the INC,119 which, In the Respondent’s view, shows that Gremco was requesting the INC to redefine the Morro Solar more narrowly (that is, as encompassing only the so-called "Chorrillos Peak"), and thus from then on "began disputing the land’s historical protection".120
• The May 2002 "Agreement of Cooperation Between INC and Gremco",121 which in the Respondent’s submission represents an attempt by the INC and Gremco to amicably resolve the "dispute" between the parties.122
• A number of subsequent exchanges between Gremco and/or Mr. Levy, on the one side, and the INC, on the other,123 in which Gremco contested the INC’s position that the entire promontory should be protected.124
• The 2004 creation of the Ad Hoc Commission to obtain an opinion on the Parties’ diverging views on the delimitation. The Respondent contends that, even if the discussions within that framework were harmonious, the parties had opposing views - i.e., they disagreed about the proper delimitation of the historical area of the Morro Solar.125
• The creation of the Historical Commission by the end of 2004, entrusted with the task of proposing a delimitation of the historical area, which in the Respondent’s submissions shows that, by late 2004, the Levys knew that the INC still had not adopted Gremco’s position on a narrow delimitation of the historical area of the Morro Solar, and were on notice that the INC may issue a conclusive delimitation of the historical area of the Morro Solar including Gremcitel’s land.126
"During the period January 1, 2007-December 31, 2008, the transfer of 40,000 shares from Hart Industries to Renée Rose Levi was not registered in the accounting records. Also, the sworn statement filed with the tax authorities in 2007 does not mention the names or the shareholding of the main shareholders."160
At the outset, the Tribunal notes that Gremcitel is both a claimant in its own name through the mechanism of Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention and Article 8(3) of the BIT, and part of Ms. Levy’s alleged investment under Article 1(1)(b) (which comprises shares in a company constituted in the territory of one of the Contracting Parties). Although, as will be seen, the resolution of the issues relating to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione temporis over Ms. Levy and Gremcitel requires addressing facts which are closely intertwined with each other, for the sake of clarity the Tribunal deems it appropriate to first set out the requirements which each of the two Claimants must fulfill under the ICSID Convention and the BIT to have the standing to bring this arbitration.
a. Under Article 25(2)(a) of the ICSID Convention, Ms. Levy must be a national of one of the ICSID Contracting States on the dates she consented to submit the dispute to arbitration and when the request for arbitration was registered under Article 36(3) of the ICSID Convention. She must not be a Peruvian national on either one of these dates.
b. Under Article 1(1) of the BIT, Ms. Levy must fulfill the definition of "national", i.e., she must be a French national.
In turn, the following jurisdictional requirements must be met for Gremcitel to bring claims In its own name:
a. Under Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention:
I. Gremcitel "had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute" on the date of consent;
II. "the parties have agreed [that It] should be treated as a national of another Contracting State for the purposes of [the ICSID Convention]";
III. "because of foreign control".
b. Under Article 8(3) of the BIT, Gremcitel was controlled by a national of the other Contracting Party (i.e., a French national) on a critical date ("antes delsurgimiento de la controversia" In the Spanish version of the Treaty; "avant que le différend ne soit soulevé" ¡n the French version).
"Said assets must be or have been invested, in accordance with the legislation of the Contracting Party In the territory or maritime area In which the investment is effected, before or after the entry into force of the present Treaty".168
a. The Tribunal is precluded from exercising jurisdiction over this dispute;
b. The Claimants shall reimburse to the Respondent the amounts which the Respondent has deposited with ICSID for the costs of the arbitration;
c. The Claimants shall pay USD 1,571,858.72 to the Respondent, as a contribution to the legal fees and other expenses which the Respondent incurred in connection with the arbitration;
d. All other requests for relief are dismissed.
Déjà enregistré ?