Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:09:22.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Azurix Corporation v. Argentine Republic

ICSID (Ad hoc Committee).  28 December 2007 ; 01 September 2009 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Annulment — Stay of enforcement — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Provision of security — Discretion of ad hoc committee to decide on security — Burden on claimant to show security required — Annulment proceeding not an exceptional circumstance justifying security

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b) — Meaning of “manifestly” — “Test” of manifest excess of powers — Whether tribunal had manifestly acted without jurisdiction — ICSID Convention, Article 41(2) — Tribunal as judge of its own competence — Whether manifest lack of jurisdiction if decision under Article 41(2) incorrect

Annulment — Function of annulment committee — No appeal or de novo review

Foreign investment — Standing — Investment through company — Controlling shareholding — When investor not legal owner of assets constituting investment — When investor not party to contract giving rise to rights constituting an investment — Investor’s financial and commercial interest in the investment — Separate legal personalities and rights and obligations of shareholders and company — Right of shareholder to pursue investment treaty claim — ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b) — Multiple proceedings — ICSID proceedings of shareholders in light of proceedings brought by company in national courts — Prevention of double recovery

Applicable law — Annulment — Whether tribunal disregarded applicable law — ICSID Convention, Article 42 — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b) — BIT governed by international law — ICSID Convention, BIT and international law as applicable law — Municipal law helpful in determining breach of BIT — General principles of international law — Applicable law in determination of “fair and equitable” standard

Annulment — Failure to state reasons — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(e) — Whether the award contained contradictory statements — Tribunal’s refusal to consider an issue — Whether serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure

Annulment — Denial of fundamental evidence — ICSID Convention, Article 43(a) — ICSID Arbitration Rule 34(2) — Tribunal’s discretionary power to call upon a party to produce documents — No right of party to obtain evidence from opposing party — Inequality of treatment of parties — Application of different standards in admission of evidence

Procedure — Composition of tribunal — Disqualification of arbitrator — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(a) — ICSID Convention, Articles 57 and 58 — No right to de novo review of challenge of arbitrator — Waiver of rights to raise objections — Estoppel from raising objections

Annulment — Damages — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(a) — Tribunal’s discretion to apply “fair market value” standard

Annulment — Costs of annulment proceedings — Administrative and Financial Regulations, Regulations 14(3)(d) and 14(3)(e) — Applicant to bear costs of entirely unsuccessful application

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)