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.
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