Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:29:56.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Alejandro A. Escobar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 445 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2008

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.)

References

Endnotes

page 447 note 1 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, opened for signature 18 March, 1965; entered into force 14 October, 1966, 4ILM 532 (1965).

page 447 note 2 Under ICSID Convention, Article 52(5), if the party applying for annulment requests a stay of enforcement of the award in its application, enforcement shall be stayed provisionally until the ad hoc committee rules on the request.

page 447 note 3 See Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/ 3 (second annulment proceeding pending); Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3 (annulment proceeding pending); Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8 (annulment proceeding pending); and Sempra Energy v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16 (annulment proceeding pending). In CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, the ad hoc committee rendered its decision on Argentina's application for annulment on September 25, 2007, accepting the application in part only and leaving intact the operative portion of the underlying award.

page 447 note 4 ICSID Convention, supra note 2, Article 53(1).

page 447 note 5 Id., Article 54(1).

page 447 note 6 Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on the Argentine Republic's Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award, 28 December, 2007, paras. 21-22.

page 447 note 7 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on the Argentine Republic's Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award, 1 September, 2006, available at <http://icsid.world-bank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet.>

page 447 note 8 Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, supra note 7, para.27.

page 447 note 9 Id., para. 31.

page 447 note 10 Id., paras. 34-35.

page 447 note 11 Id., para. 32.

page 447 note 12 Id., para. 38.

page 447 note 13 Id., para. 37.

page 447 note 14 Id., para. 39.

page 447 note 15 Id., para. 43.

page 447 note 16 See supra note 4.

page 456 note 1 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (IC SID Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, September 25, 2007.

page 456 note 2 In reciting these submissions, the Committee is not to be taken as having accepted them, nor are they to be taken as being unchallenged by the other side.

page 456 note 3 ASCJ, 7/7/1992, Ekmekdjián, Miguel Angel v. Sofovich, Gerardo et al, Judgment: 315.1503.

page 456 note 4 National Constitution, Article 75(22).

page 456 note 5 Argentina referred to CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision on the Argentine Republic's Request for Continued Stay of the Enforcement of the Award, September 1, 2006; Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7), Decision on the Stay of the Enforcement of the Award, November 30, 2004; MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd.&MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/ 01/7), Decision on the Respondent's Request for a Continued Stay of Execution, June 1, 2005; Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4), Decision on Application for Annulment, February 5,2002, ‘among others'.

page 456 note 6 Argentina referred to Maritime International Nominees Establishment (MINE) v. Republic of Guinea (ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4), Interim Order on Guinea's Application for Stay of Enforcement of the Award, August 12, 1988; Mitchell v.Congo (op. cit); MTD v. Chile (op. cit); and CMS v. Argentina (op. cit).

page 456 note 7 Cambridge University Press, 2001 at 1060,1483.

page 456 note 8 Azurix referred to CDC Group pic v. Republic of Seychelles (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/14), Decision on Whether or Not to Continue Stay and Order, July 14, 2004; Amco Asia Corp. v. Indonesia (Amco I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1), Decision on the Application for Annulment, May 16, 1986; Amco Asia Corp. v. Indonesia (Amco II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1), Interim Order No. 1 Concerning the Stay of Enforcement of the Award, March 2, 1991; Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/84/ 3), Annulment Decision; Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4), Decision on Application for Annulment, February 5, 2002, 2002; Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10), Procedural Order No. 4, February 22, 2006; Mitchell v. Congo (op cit).

page 456 note 9 Azurix referred to Friedland, P. D., “Stay of Enforcement of the Arbitral Award Pending ICSID Annulment Proceedings”, in Annulment of ICSID Awards 177 at 185Google Scholar; and Schreuer, Christoph, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (op. cit) at 1060 ¶¶483-4 (Cambridge University Press 2001)Google Scholar.

page 456 note 10 Azurix referred inter alia to the passage in Mitchell v. Congo (op. cit) ¶33 in which the ad hoc Committee stated that any “improvement” to the award creditor by virtue of the security “constitutes the counterbalance to the negative effect of the stay on the beneficiary, i.e. the counterbalance to the delay in his satisfaction through payment of the amount of the award, which in principle should be immediate”.

page 457 note 11 Azurix referred to MTD v. Chile (op cit) ¶29; and CMS v. Argentina (op. cit) ¶38.

page 457 note 12 Corte Suprema de Justicia, June 1,2004,“Cartellone v. Hidronor” Fallos 327-1881.

page 457 note 13 Azurix quotes from the CDC ad hoc Committee's consideration of the issue at CDC v. Seychelles (op. cit) ¶19.

page 457 note 14 (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision on the Argentine Republic's Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award, September 1, 2006 in which the decisions in Amco I(op. cit), Mine v. Guinea (op. cit), Wena Hotels v. Egypt (op.cit), CDC v. Seychelles (op. cit), Mitchell v. Congo (op. cit), MTD v. Chile (op. cit) and Repsol v. Petroecuador (op. cit) are cited.

page 457 note 15 Vienna, 23 May 1969, Articles 31-33.

page 457 note 16 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision on Annulment, September 25, 2007.

page 457 note 17 Article 71 provides that any Contracting State may denounce the Convention by written notice, taking effect six months after receipt of such notice.

page 457 note 18 The fact that interest rates are below market is not be to the point, as the rates are those that prevail in the ICSID system, which is not tied to the global, or any domestic, market.

page 457 note 19 CDC v. Seychelles (op. cit)¶19.