24.01.2014 Views

brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

6.80. In <strong>the</strong>se circumstances, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal considers that, in <strong>the</strong> exercise of its discretion<br />

<strong>under</strong> ICSID Arbitration Rule 28(1), <strong>the</strong> eventual result of <strong>the</strong>se Non-CAFTA<br />

Claims on <strong>the</strong> merits may provide a highly relevant factor to any decision as to <strong>the</strong><br />

final allocation of legal and arbitration costs between <strong>the</strong> Parties. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> Parties‟<br />

respective cases on costs, as summarised above, closely mirror <strong>the</strong>ir different<br />

submissions as to those eventual merits. Accordingly, as a matter of discretion, <strong>the</strong><br />

Tribunal declines to make an order at this stage as regards <strong>the</strong> allocation of any legal<br />

or arbitration costs incurred during this second phase of <strong>the</strong>se arbitration proceedings.<br />

6.81. The Tribunal also notes that its powers as to costs <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> ICSID Arbitration Rules<br />

are limited to an order in an award; and that this Decision is not an “award” within<br />

<strong>the</strong> meaning of <strong>the</strong> ICSID Convention and <strong>the</strong> ICSID Arbitration Rules.<br />

6.82. It remains never<strong>the</strong>less appropriate for <strong>the</strong> Tribunal to state at this stage certain conclusions<br />

regarding <strong>the</strong> Parties‟ respective arguments on costs. First, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal<br />

does not criticise <strong>the</strong> conduct of <strong>the</strong> Respondent or its Counsel (including Mr<br />

Parada) for submitting to <strong>the</strong> Tribunal factual evidence of certain events in November<br />

and December 2007 apparently disputed by <strong>the</strong> Claimant and <strong>the</strong>n potentially<br />

relevant to <strong>the</strong> issues of jurisdiction. It would be possible here to say much more;<br />

but, given that this arbitration will continue fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal considers it best to<br />

state this conclusion succinctly on what must now be regarded as a dead issue for <strong>the</strong><br />

future of <strong>the</strong>se arbitration proceedings. As regards <strong>the</strong> Claimant, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal similarly<br />

discounts <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s criticism of its conduct during <strong>the</strong>se arbitration<br />

proceedings. Again, <strong>the</strong> less here said, <strong>the</strong> better in what was inev<strong>ita</strong>bly an uncomfortable<br />

controversy.<br />

6.83. Lastly, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal intends that its lengthy summary of <strong>the</strong> Parties‟ o<strong>the</strong>r arguments<br />

on costs, as set out above, will provide a written record which it will be unnecessary<br />

for <strong>the</strong> Parties to duplicate later in <strong>the</strong>se arbitration proceedings. In <strong>the</strong> meantime,<br />

until an award or <strong>the</strong> final stage of <strong>the</strong>se proceedings, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal reserves in full all<br />

its powers and jurisdiction in regards to legal and arbitration costs as regards both<br />

Parties‟ existing and future claims.<br />

Part 6 - Page 26

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!