Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:13:46.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Micula v. Romania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2015

Jonathan Chevry
Jonathan Chevry*
Affiliation:
Ph.D. Researcher, Department of Law, European University Institute (EUI)
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The award in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) case Micula v. Romania was released to the parties at the very end of 2013. It is in 2014, however, that the case gained notoriety as the European Commission (EC) started actions to fight against the enforcement of the award.

Type
Case Summaries
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 540 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © Jonathan Chevry 2015 

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

1 Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A, S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013 (hereinafter ‘Micula – Award’).

2 Micula – Award, paras. 145–151, 173–177.  Romania challenged this allegation, arguing that it did not make a binding promise that the EGO 24 scheme would remain unchanged for this period of ten years.  Micula – Award, para. 270.

3 The proceedings were bifurcated and the tribunal first issued a decision on jurisdiction in which it dismissed all the objections raised by Romania.  See, Micula v. Romania, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 24 September 2008.

4 G. Abi-Saab (the State appointed arbitrator) wrote a separate opinion in which he explained that while concurring with the award's conclusions, he would have used another legal ground.  In his view, Romania's behavior towards the investor during the accession process did not amount to lack of transparency but to ‘slackness in due diligence’.  See, Micula v. Romania, Separate Opinion of Georges Abi-Saab, 5 December 2013, para. 13.

5 Micula – Award, para. 410.

6 Ibid., paras. 457–459.

7 Ibid., para. 328.

8 Ibid., para. 864.

9 Micula – Award, paras. 825–227.

10 Micula – Award, paras. 864–872.

11 Ibid., para. 340.

12 Ibid., para. 341.

13 See C. Trevino, ‘As Tribunal is Finalized for Second Micula v. Romania ICSID Arbitration, New Developments Come in Relation to Earlier Award’, Investment Arbitration Reporter, 1 May 2015.

14 EC, State Aid SA.38517(2014/c) – Romania Implementation of Arbitral Award, Brussels, 01.10.2014 C(2014) 6848, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/254586/254586_1595781_31_11.pdf (accessed 4 May 2014).

15 EC – Press Release, ‘State Aid: Commission Orders Romania to Recover Incompatible State Aid Granted in Compensation for Abolished Investment Aid Scheme’, 30 March 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4725_en.htm (accessed 4 May 2015).

16 Action brought on 2 September 2014 – Micula a.o. v. Commission (Case T-646/14), OJ C 439/29, 8.12.2014.