Members of the Tribunal
Mr. Rodrigo Oreamuno, President of the Tribunal
Mr. John Beechey, Arbitrator
Prof. Zachary Douglas, Arbitrator
Ms. Maria Jose Rojas, Assistant to the President of the Tribunal
Ms. Marisa Planells-Valero, Secretary of the Tribunal
Participating on behalf of the Claimant
Mr. Alexander Yanos, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Ms. Fara Tabatabai, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Mr. Pavlos Petrovas, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Ms. Rebeca Mosquera, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Participating on behalf of the Respondent
Mr. Paul Reichler, Foley Hoag LLP
Mr. Luis Parada, Foley Hoag LLP
Ms. Melinda Kuritzky, Foley Hoag LLP
Ms. Patricia Cruz Trabanino, Foley Hoag LLP
Dr. Miguel Toma, Secretary of the Presidency of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay
Dr. Nicolás Cendoya, Director, URSEC
Dr. Carlos Mata, International Legal Counsel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Dra. Inés Da Rosa, Legal Advisor, Presidency of the Republic
Dra. Nancy Aguilar, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Dra. Malena Díaz, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Finance and Economy
Dra. Marianela Bruno, Legal Advisor, Embassy of Uruguay in the United States
- The Draft Agenda circulated by the Tribunal Secretary on June 28, 2016.
- The Draft Procedural Order circulated by the Tribunal Secretary on June 28, 2016 and July 22, 2016 (revised); and
- The parties' comments on the Draft Agenda and the Draft Procedural Order received on July 19, 2016 and July 25, 2016 indicating the items on which they agreed and their respective positions regarding the items on which they did not agree.
3.2.1 US$3,000 for each day of meetings or each eight hours of other work performed in connection with the proceedings or pro rata; and
3.2.2 subsistence allowances, reimbursement of travel, and other expenses pursuant to ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulation 14.
Ms. Marisa Planells-Valero
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
Tel.: + 1 (202) 458-9273
Fax: + 1 (202) 522-2615
Paralegal email: email@example.com
Mr. Alexander Yanos
Ms. Fara Tabatabai
Mr. Pavlos Petrovas
Ms. Rebeca Mosquera
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
One Battery Park Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Dr. Miguel Toma
Secretario de la Presidencia de Uruguay
Secretaria de Presidencia
Torre Ejecutiva, Plaza Independencia 710
CP 11000 Montevideo
Dr. Nicolás Cendoya, Director
Unidad Reguladora de Servicios de Comunicaciones de Uruguay (URSEC)
CP 10100 Montevideo
Mr. Rodolfo Nin Novoa
Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Uruguay
Colonia 1206, 6to piso
Embassy of Uruguay, Washington, D.C.
1913 I Street NW
Washington D.C. 20006
Mr. Paul S. Reichler
Mr. Luis Parada
Foley Hoag LLP
1717 K Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20006
14.2.1 one unbound hard copy in Letter format2 of the entire submission, including signed originals of the pleading, witness statements, and expert reports, together with documents (but not including legal authorities); and
14.2.2 one hard copy in letter format of the entire submission including the pleading, witness statements, expert reports, and exhibits (but not including legal authorities).
Mr. Rodrigo Oreamuno
Facio & Cañas
Oficentro Torres del Campo, frente al Centro Comercial El Pueblo, 2a torre, 3er piso, Barrio Tournón
San Francisco de Goicoechea, San Jose –
Oficentro Torres del Campo,
frente al Centro Comercial El
Pueblo, 2a torre, 3er piso,
San Francisco de Goicoechea, San Jose –
1000 Costa Rica
P.O. Box 5173-1000
Phone: +506 2255 2626
Mr. John Beechey
Arbitration Chambers Hong Kong
1 Hollywood Road, Suite 803
Hong Kong S.A.R., China
Phone: +852 2140 6555
+44 7785 700 171
Prof. Zachary Douglas
9 Rue de Candolle
Phone: +44 (0)20 7404 3447
15.1.1 The Claimant shall file a Memorial no later than September 16, 2016.
15.1.2 Within 30 days after the date the Claimant files its Memorial, the Respondent shall inform the Claimant and the Tribunal as to whether it intends to raise objections to jurisdiction under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(1) and wishes to request that all or some of these objections be heard separately from the merits of the case (i.e., a request for bifurcation under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(3)).
220.127.116.11 If the Respondent interposes separate jurisdictional objections as described above in Section 15.1.2, the Respondent shall file its objections no later than 60 days after the date the Claimant files its Memorial. The Tribunal shall make its best efforts to decide within 15 days after the Respondent files its objections whether all or some of these objections will be heard separately from the merits of the case. If the Tribunal decides to hear all or some of the objections separately from the merits, the Tribunal shall set a schedule for briefing such objections. If the Tribunal decides not to hear all or some of the objections separately from the merits, the Respondent shall file a Counter-Memorial no later than 100 days after the date the Tribunal issues its decision.4
18.104.22.168 If the Respondent does not interpose separate jurisdictional objections as described above in Section 15.1.2, the Respondent shall file a Counter-Memorial no later than 120 days after the date the Claimant files its Memorial.
22.214.171.124 The Claimant shall file a Reply no later than 90 days after the date the Respondent files its Counter-Memorial. The Tribunal, in its discretion and at the request of Claimant, may adjust the deadline to 120 days for the Reply if a lengthy document request and exchange process takes place following the filing of the Respondent's Counter-Memorial.
15.1.4 The Respondent shall file a Rejoinder no later than 90 days after the date the Claimant files its Reply.
16. Production of Documents
Requests for Production
16.2.1 a description of each requested document sufficient to identify it, or a description in sufficient detail (including subject matter) of a narrow and specific requested category of documents that are reasonably believed to exist (in the case of documents maintained in electronic form, the requesting party may, or the Tribunal may order that it shall be required to, identify specific files, search terms, individuals or other means of searching for such documents in an efficient and economical manner);
16.2.2 a statement as to how the documents requested are relevant to the case and material to its outcome; and
16.2.3 a statement that the documents requested are not in the possession, custody, or control of the requesting party or a statement of the reasons why it would be unreasonably burdensome for the requesting party to produce such documents; and
16.2.4 a statement of the reasons why the requesting party assumes the documents requested are in the possession, custody, or control of another party.
|No.||Requesting Party||Documents or Category of Documents Requested||Relevance and Materiality According to Requesting Party||Responses / Objections to Document Request||Reply to Objections to Document Request||Tribunal's Decisions|
|Ref. to Submissions||Comments|
17.3.1 lack of sufficient relevance to the case or materiality to its outcome;
17.3.2 legal impediment or privilege under the legal or ethical rules determined by the Tribunal to be applicable;
17.3.3 unreasonable burden to produce the requested evidence;
17.3.4 loss or destruction of the document that has been shown with reasonable likelihood to have occurred;
17.3.5 grounds of commercial or technical confidentiality that the Tribunal determines to be compelling;
17.3.6 grounds of special political or institutional sensitivity (including evidence that has been classified as secret by a government or a public international institution) that the Tribunal determines to be compelling; or
17.3.7 considerations of procedural economy, proportionality, fairness, or equality of the Parties that the Tribunal determines to be compelling.
17.4.1 any need to protect the confidentiality of a document created or statement or oral communication made in connection with and for the purpose of providing or obtaining legal advice;
17.4.2 any need to protect the confidentiality of a document created or statement or oral communication made in connection with and for the purpose of settlement negotiations;
17.4.3 the expectations of the parties and their advisors at the time the legal impediment or privilege is said to have arisen;
17.4.4 any possible waiver of any applicable legal impediment or privilege by virtue of consent, earlier disclosure, affirmative use of the document, statement, oral communication, or advice contained therein, or otherwise; and
17.4.5 the need to maintain fairness and equality as between the parties, particularly if they are subject to different legal or ethical rules.
18.5.1 Exhibits shall be numbered consecutively throughout these proceedings.
18.5.2 The number of each Exhibit containing a document produced by Claimant shall be preceded by the letter “C-” for factual exhibits and “CL-” for legal exhibits containing authorities etc. The number for each Exhibit containing a document produced by Respondent shall be preceded by the letter “R-” for factual exhibits and “RL-” for legal exhibits containing authorities etc.
18.5.3 Each Exhibit shall have a divider with the Exhibit identification number on the tab.
18.5.4 A party may produce several documents relating to the same subject matter within one Exhibit, numbering each page of such Exhibit separately and consecutively.
18.5.5 Exhibits shall also be submitted in PDF format and start with the number “C-001” and “R-001,” respectively.
18.5.6 Copies of documentary evidence shall be assumed to be authentic unless specifically objected to by a party, in which case the Tribunal will determine whether authentication is necessary.
24. Records of Hearings and Sessions
Déjà enregistré ?