brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

More documents

Recommendations

Info

tice.” In the present case, according to the Respondent, such acts took place in 2004 and were in any event completed by January 2007. 102 3.15. With respect to the Claimant‟s allegation that exchanges before December 2007 between MARN and MINEC and the Claimant evidenced a “mere disagreement” and not a dispute for the purpose of CAFTA, the Respondent submits that the definition of a dispute set forth by the Permanent Court of International Justice in Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (adopted by ICSID tribunals) defines a dispute as a “disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or interests between two persons.” As such a disagreement existed between 2004 and 2006 before the Respondent‟s accession to CAFTA, the Claimant‟s contrary case should be rejected by the Tribunal. 103 3.16. As regards CAFTA‟s limitation period, CAFTA Article 10.18.1 limits consent to submit a claim to arbitration to three years from the date when the claimant first acquired, or should have first acquired, knowledge of the alleged breach of CAFTA and that the claimant or the enterprise had thereby incurred loss or damage. The Respondent submits that the evidential materials before this Tribunal demonstrate that the Claimant knew in December 2004 that the environmental permit was not issued within the time-limit fixed by Salvadoran law; and that, even on the argument that the three-year term could only count from the date CAFTA entered into force for the Respondent (on 1 March 2006), the Claimant did not file its Notice of Arbitration until 30 April 2009, after CAFTA‟s three-year time limit had expired. 104 3.17. Lastly, the Respondent relies on the award dated 14 March 2011 in Commerce Group, 105 whereby, according to the Respondent, that tribunal considered the same factual allegations advanced by the Claimant in this case and decided that the al- 102 103 104 105 Reply Memorial, §§ 213-216. Reply Memorial, § 218. Jurisdiction Memorial, §§ 324-336; Reply Memorial, §§ 220-223; Hearing D1.117-119; Respondent‟s Post-Hearings Submissions, § 112. Commerce Group Corp. and San Sebastian Gold Mines, Inc. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/17, Award, 14 March 2011 [Commerce v. El Salvador]. Part 3 - Page 5
leged de facto ban on mining was not a relevant measure for the purposes of CAF- TA. 106 (03) The Claimant’s Case 3.18. In summary, the Claimant submits that Respondent‟s objection to the Tribunal‟s jurisdiction ratione temporis under CAFTA should fail on two principal grounds: (i) that nothing in CAFTA requires an investor first to attain the status of “person of a Party” and only afterwards make its investment in the territory of another Party; and (ii) that the measure at issue is not MARN´s failure to grant an environmental permit to PRES within the required time period in 2004, but the Respondent‟s de facto mining ban consisting of the practice of the Respondent to withhold permits and concessions in furtherance of the exploitation of metallic mining investments, which was only publicly disclosed in President Saca‟s speech in March 2008, after the Claimant´s change of nationality in December 2007. 107 3.19. As regards the first ground, the Claimant submits that CAFTA Article 10.28 clearly establishes that the order of operations, whether investments were made before acquiring the nationality of a Party or otherwise, is not determinative of whether a person is a covered investor of a Party under CAFTA. 108 3.20. As regards the second ground with respect to the relevant date, the Claimant submits that the Parties‟ dispute arose only when the Claimant first became aware of the relevant measure that constituted a breach of the Respondent´s CAFTA obligations towards the Claimant, causing damage to its investments in El Salvador. The Claimant submits that it neither became nor could have become aware of the relevant measure (in the form of the de facto ban on mining) before 13 March 2008 when President Saca publicly disclosed the existence of this ban. In the Claimant‟s own words: “it is the ban, as first publicly confirmed by El Salvador´s chief executive in 106 107 108 Commerce v. El Salvador, supra note 105, § 112. See the Respondent´s letter dated 17 March 2011; and the Respondent‟s Post-Hearing Submissions, § 38. Jurisdiction Rejoinder, §§ 226-227; Hearing D1.134-138 and 215; Claimant‟s Post-Hearing Submissions, § 20. Jurisdiction Rejoinder, §§ 228-229. Part 3 - Page 6
Page 1 and 2:
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEF
Page 3 and 4:
One-Time Acts .....................
Page 5 and 6:
Glossary of Defined Terms “CAFTA
Page 7 and 8:
African Holding Company of America,
Page 9 and 10:
Waste Management, Inc. v. United Me
Page 11 and 12:
1.4. Prior to 2 March 2012, the Cla
Page 13 and 14:
C: The Tribunal’s Decision of 2 A
Page 15 and 16:
1.23. The Respondent: The Responden
Page 17 and 18:
under cover of a letter also dated
Page 19 and 20:
G: The Parties’ Claims for Relief
Page 21 and 22:
c. Piercing the corporate veil (Mem
Page 23 and 24: H: The Jurisdictional Issues 1.46.
Page 25 and 26: (02) CAFTA 1.4. CAFTA Article 10.1:
Page 27 and 28: 2. At least 90 days before submitti
Page 29 and 30: measure alleged to constitute a bre
Page 31 and 32: (03) The ICSID Convention 1.13. ICS
Page 33 and 34: (5) ILC Articles on State Responsib
Page 35 and 36: proof or the Claimant‟s allegatio
Page 37 and 38: 2.11. Burden of Proof: As far as th
Page 39 and 40: 2.19. In presenting this main objec
Page 41 and 42: precedented regulatory obstacles de
Page 43 and 44: 2.32. In its Post-Hearing Submissio
Page 45 and 46: SID Convention, nor relates to a
Page 47 and 48: But on the other side, an internati
Page 49 and 50: for such disputes would constitute,
Page 51 and 52: scribed in its early pleadings form
Page 53 and 54: 2.65. The Tribunal considers that t
Page 55 and 56: vestment (which by themselves are n
Page 57 and 58: minated; nothing more could have be
Page 59 and 60: to arbitrarily change or add new re
Page 61 and 62: 2.86. Accordingly, treating the rel
Page 63 and 64: 2.93. The Tribunal notes that this
Page 65 and 66: ability and not merely as a possibl
Page 67 and 68: 2.105. Having reached these several
Page 69 and 70: Tribunal‟s jurisdiction to determ
Page 71 and 72: 3.5. The Respondent also submits th
Page 73: cause there was only one applicatio
Page 77 and 78: Claimant, it came to light only in
Page 79 and 80: that led to the revocation should b
Page 81 and 82: for the purpose of deciding the Rat
Page 83 and 84: distinction made in the Commerce Gr
Page 85 and 86: EMELEC v. Ecuador (under the USA-Ec
Page 87 and 88: would qualify for treaty protection
Page 89 and 90: 4.17. (iii) Timeliness: The Respond
Page 91 and 92: the Respondent submits, to require
Page 93 and 94: ditiously resolved” (paragraph l)
Page 95 and 96: provided the Respondent with its No
Page 97 and 98: 4.44. The Claimant contends further
Page 99 and 100: lomatic protection within the meani
Page 101 and 102: Party [i.e. as the host State] whic
Page 103 and 104: there were and are certain activiti
Page 105 and 106: 4.74. It will be recalled that the
Page 107 and 108: der different arbitration rules, th
Page 109 and 110: 4.91. It follows that this third co
Page 111 and 112: Convention. 145 In the Respondent
Page 113 and 114: further express requirement of havi
Page 115 and 116: Legislativa was fully aware that th
Page 117 and 118: made before and after the Claimant
Page 119 and 120: 5.33. As established by the Interna
Page 121 and 122: 5.40. As also summarized above, the
Page 123 and 124: Government had always treated the C
Page 125 and 126:
PART 6: ISSUE E - LEGAL AND ARBITRA
Page 127 and 128:
6.10. The Claimant submits that, un
Page 129 and 130:
tion ratione temporis (i.e. the con
Page 131 and 132:
Party to also put in a witness stat
Page 133 and 134:
ture arbitration proceedings. Indee
Page 135 and 136:
this arbitration with the least exp
Page 137 and 138:
abused the Tribunal's indulgence in
Page 139 and 140:
avoided; but, instead, the Responde
Page 141 and 142:
“a U.S. investor organized under
Page 143 and 144:
The Respondent acknowledges, of cou
Page 145 and 146:
Claimant submits that under the cir
Page 147 and 148:
ment in the communications with the
Page 149 and 150:
6.76. The Claimant submits that the
Page 151 and 152:
PART 7: THE OPERATIVE PART 7.1. For
show all

brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?