brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
C: The Tribunal’s Decision of 2 August 2010<br />
1.14. On 2 August 2010, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal issued its Decision on <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s Preliminary<br />
Objections <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Articles 10.20.4 and 10.20.5 (for ease of reference, here<br />
called “<strong>the</strong> Decision of 2 August 2010”).<br />
1.15. In Part X of <strong>the</strong> Decision of 2 August 2010 (paragraph 266), <strong>the</strong> Tribunal decided<br />
for <strong>the</strong> reasons <strong>the</strong>rein set out:<br />
(1) As to <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s Objections <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Article 10.20.4, <strong>the</strong>se objections<br />
are not granted by <strong>the</strong> Tribunal;<br />
(2) As to <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s Objection <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Article 10.20.5, this objection<br />
is not granted by <strong>the</strong> Tribunal;<br />
(3) As to costs, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal here makes no order <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Article 10.20.6,<br />
whilst reserving all its powers as to orders for costs at <strong>the</strong> final stage of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
arbitration proceedings; and<br />
(4) As to all o<strong>the</strong>r matters, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal retains its full powers to decide any fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
matters in <strong>the</strong>se arbitration proceedings, whe<strong>the</strong>r by order, decision or<br />
award.<br />
1.16. The Decision of 2 August 2010 (with its all rec<strong>ita</strong>tions and reasons) should be read<br />
with this Decision to avoid unnecessary repetition here.<br />
D: The Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections<br />
1.17. The Respondent submitted its Objections to Jurisdiction <strong>under</strong> ICSID Arbitration<br />
Rule 41(1) on 3 August 2010, leading to <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r procedure resulting in this Jurisdiction<br />
Decision. The Respondent‟s Objections comprise four independent grounds<br />
to this Tribunal‟s jurisdiction: (i) Abuse of Process by <strong>the</strong> Claimant; (ii) Ratione<br />
Temporis; (iii) <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s Denial of Benefits <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Article 10.12.2;<br />
and (iv) <strong>the</strong> Investment Law.<br />
Part 1 – Page 4