Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:57:22.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ambiente Ufficio SpA and Others v. Argentine Republic

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  02 May 2013 ; 08 February 2013 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Multi-party proceedings — Interpretation — Whether multi-party proceedings were compatible with the ICSID system and the BIT — Whether original submission of a multi-party proceeding required an act of consent on the part of the respondent beyond the general jurisdictional requirement of written consent — Whether the number of claimants affected the scope of the respondent’s consent to arbitration — Whether contractually unrelated persons could bring a claim together — Whether the number of claimants would prevent the tribunal from conducting the proceedings in accordance with the principles of fairness and due process

Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — ICSID Convention, Article 36 — Due authorisation — Power of attorney — Whether the request for arbitration should have been signed by the claimants themselves — Whether the power of attorney in favour of counsel was validly executed — Whether the power of attorney empowered counsel to file the request for arbitration on behalf of the claimants

Jurisdiction — Nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — ICSID Convention, Article 43 — Burden of proof — Whether the burden of proof fell on the respondent to disprove that the claimants were not Italian nationals — Whether the evidentiary burden was satisfied through the identity documents submitted by the claimants

Jurisdiction — Standing — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — Domestic litigation — Whether the claimants lacked locus standi because of their remote connection with the underlying bonds — Whether certain claims brought before domestic courts against the issuers of security entitlement deprived the claimants of their locus standi in international arbitration

Jurisdiction — Investment — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — Territorial requirement — Interpretation — Whether security entitlements related to sovereign bonds were investments covered by the BIT

Jurisdiction — Investment — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — VCLT, Article 31 — Ordinary meaning — VCLT, Article 32 — Supplementary means — Whether the tribunal must interpret the meaning of investment in accordance with its ordinary meaning — Whether the tribunal must interpret the meaning of investment using supplementary means

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test — Whether the four elements of the Salini test expressed mandatory jurisdictional requirements — Whether security entitlements issued in respect of sovereign bonds met the Salini test

Jurisdiction — Sovereign acts — Whether the impugned measures were sovereign acts constituting prima facie breaches of the BIT

Jurisdiction — Domestic litigation requirement — Consultation — Effective redress — Whether the provisions under the BIT laid down mandatory jurisdictional requirements — Whether the duty to consult was satisfied by the claimants — Whether the claimants violated the requirement to have recourse to the domestic courts prior to their request for international arbitration

Keywords

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2021

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.)