An ICSID Garqaad Tribunal ka kooban Veijo Heiskanen, Philippe Sands iyo Carolyn Lamm ayaa diiday in la saxo qaladaad xisaabta la sheegay in a Award Final taariikhaysan 8 March 2016 in kiiska Ickale Insaat Limited v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB / 10/24.
The primary issue that was the subject of İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi’s Request for Rectification of 29 March 2016 was whether the majority (Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands) had made clerical, khaladaadka arithmetical ama la mid ah qodobka 49(2) of the ICSID Convention in the Award by ruling that the confiscation of USD 13.9 million ee mashiinada iyo qalabka si ay u ururiyaan qiyaastii USD 3 million in delay penalties was not “xad-dhaaf ah iyo sida expropriatory sida” (para. 375 of the Final Award). Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands reached this decision after making a number of adjustments to the starting value of the confiscated machinery and equipment, in order to find that the difference between the “qiimaha dhabta ah” of the Claimant’s machinery and equipment and the delay penalties was only USD 1,564,214 (paragraph 375 of the Final Award).
Intii lagu guda jiray dacwadda, Claimant uu bixiyo ee amarada dalabka hore ee qalabka oo dhan, except for a few items of equipment that were over 10 sano jir ah oo loogu talagalay taas oo rasiidhada ayaa looma baahna in la sii hayo oo hoos sharciga Turkish. Claimant ee khabiir ayaa sidoo kale la siiyaa a table setting forth the the original purchase price of the machinery and equipment, their import date into Turkmenistan, taariikhda asalka iibsiga, and references to the exhibits showing the purchase price for each piece of equipment. Guud ahaan, amarada dalabka iyo warbixinta muujisay in Claimant ku bixisay qiyaastii USD 13.9 million si ay u iibsadaan alaabta iyo qalabka kala wareegeen, kuwaasi oo ay kala wareegeen ku salaysan a Turkmenistan Maxkamadda Sare Directive doonaya bixinta qiyaastii USD 3 milyan oo Cadaab ah Dib mashaariicda dhismaha, a difference of approximately USD 10 million. Inta ay Ciqaabta Dib la soo rogay kuma jirin muran, although there was a debate concerning whether it was just to impose delay penalties on a number of grounds (for instance imposing delay penalties prior to the completion date of construction projects), iyo dacweysanaha ku dooday in qiimo dhaca waa in la tixgeliyo ee mashiinada iyo qalabka la isticmaalayo halkii qiimaha bedelka, sida Claimant ee khabiir ayaa ku dooday, inkastoo Claimant ee khabiir ayaa sidoo kale tirada qiimo dhaca ee dhagaysiga kama dambaysta.
In ay Award Final, Tribunal Garqaad ku kala jabeen on Su'aasha ah in Maxkamadda Sare ee Turkmenistan ayaa Directive inay la wareegaan USD 13.9 million of machinery and equipment for USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was “xad-dhaaf ah iyo sida expropriatory sida". In a Qayb khilaafsani Opinion ah Carolyn Lamm, ayay xukuntay in inta badan, ka kooban Veijo Heiskanen iyo Philippe Sands, markiisii hore Halmaameen rikoorka si ixtiraam leh in dib loo dhigo Ciqaabta, taas oo muujisay "that Claimant provided sufficient evidence detailing the amount of the inflation of the penalties (USD 1,650,825), iyo in la tixgeliyo si ay u yareeyaan in USD 1,161,961” (paragraph 18 of Dissenting Opinion). She also found that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had reversed the burden of proof concerning such issues as insurance payments, kaas oo dacweysanaha ayaa soo saaray wax caddeyn oo lagu taageerayo ay dood, and that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had “qiimeeyey caddayn oo aan tixgelin isku dheeli tiran ee labada dhinac” (paragraph 22 of Dissenting Opinion). She also found that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had erred in reaching their ruling that the confiscation of USD 13.9 million ee mashiinada iyo qalabka qiyaastii USD 3 milyan oo Cadaab ah Dib ma ahaa mid xad dhaaf.
The Codsiga Sixitaan filed by Claimant claimed that the Arbitral Tribunal had made basic math errors in comparing USD 13.9 million ee mashiinada iyo qalabka si ay u USD 3 milyan oo Cadaab ah Dib, marka lagu daro kuwa lagu xusay by Carolyn Lamm. Khaas ahaan, Tribunal Garqaad ah, marka la barbar labada qiyamka, ayaa si qaldan jaro USD 1.8 million on the basis of “inter-shirkadda xawilaadaha” by confusing positive and negative numbers, misunderstanding that Respondent had argued that such a deduction should be made (paragraphs 29-37) when this was not the case. Claimant sidoo kale ku dooday in inta badan, Veijo Heiskanen iyo Philippe Sands, ayaa si qaldan jaro USD 2.6 million on the basis of fictitious insurance payments, inkastoo wax caddeyn ah la soo gudbiyay by dacweysanaha muujinaya in wax bixinta caymiska la sameeyey iyo, haddii ay dhacdo wax kasta oo, ma caymiska khiyaali celiso lahaa 100% of assets confiscated by a State (paragraphs 38-51) on the basis of their initial purchase price without deductions. Claimant also noted that the Arbitral Tribunal had not accepted the depreciation calculations that had been offered by Claimant’s witness at the final hearing and that it had made obvious calculation errors concerning depreciation itself in order to find that the difference between USD 13.9 million ee mashiinada iyo qalabka iyo qiyaastii USD 3 milyan oo Cadaab ah Dib ma ahaa mid xad dhaaf.
Respondent did not take issue with Claimant’s allegations that the Arbitral Tribunal calculations were incorrect in its Kormeerka on Claimant ee Codsiga Rectitication of 12 Laga yaabaa 2016, but instead argued that the Arbitral Tribunal had not been supplied with sufficient evidence and that the relief that Claimant was seeking in the Request for Rectification went beyond the scope of Article 49(2) of the Convention, since a successful application would result in a reversal of the Arbitral Tribunal’s Final Award.
In ay Reply, Claimant noted that, qaadashada talaabo dib, the majority’s comparison finding no significant difference in value between USD 13.9 million in confiscated machinery and equipment and USD 3 million in Delay Penalties ran counter to common sense and was “xujo ah.” It responded to Respondent’s arguments and again showed that the Arbitral Tribunal’s subtraction of USD 1.8 million for “inter-shirkadda xawilaadaha” was based on a confusion of positive and negative numbers by the Arbitral Tribunal and made no sense. It argued that Respondent’s observations did not justify the deduction of USD 2.6 milyan oo lacagta caymiska khayaal ah iyo tayadiisa, in Tribunal Garqaad uu xisaabiyaa qiimo qaldan, fulinta xisaabaha xisaab sax ku dheehan yahay u goynayaa qiimaha undepreciated ka qiyamka hore u qiime, taasoo keentay in laga jarin in la wareegay mashiinada iyo qalabka lahaa qiimaha xun, oo waxay ku dooday in Tribunal Garqaad ah waa in la siiyaa fursad uu ku saxo khaladaadka ay xisaab cad.
In ay Rejoinder, Respondent did not argue that any of the Arbitral Tribunal’s calculations in comparing the value of USD 13.9 million in machinery and equipment with USD 3 milyan oo Cadaab ah Dib ahaayeen xisaab sax, laakiin ku dooday in qodobka 49(2) of the ICSID Convention was narrow and claimed that Claimant was seeking a substantive review of the Final Award.
Garqaad Tribunal ee Veijo Heiskanen, Philippe Sands and Carolyn Lamm issued their Go'aanka ku saabsan Claimant ee Codsiga Go'aan Dheeriga ah iyo Sixitaan of Award oo ku saabsan 4 October 2016. Go'aanka, which agrees that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in using the words “hoose” for “sare” with respect to the USD 1.8 million in inter-company transfers (paragraph 135), diiday in ay dib u jaro taas oo ku salaysan in qiimaha kala duwan ee suuqa kala iibsiga ka dhexeeya shirkadda Yeelay Claimant ee caddayn muuqo kalsoonaan karin, although it agreed to correct its textual error reversing the words “sare” and “hoose". The Arbitral Tribunal also refused to reconsider its deduction of USD 2.6 million for hypothetical insurance payments and did not respond to Claimant’s point that 100% qiimihii hore iibka aan la oofin doono caymiska wax khiyaali ah si uu u jiro. Tribunal Garqaad The haddii kale diiday in ay u falanqeeyaan qaladaad xisaabta ay, oo aan isku haysto by dacweysanaha.
Tribunal Garqaad The sidestepped arrinta ay xisaab khaldan sheegtay in cutubka 121 that the “ka Claimant ee dalab la wareegida waxaa meesha ka saaray maxaa yeelay Maxkamada helay, aqlabiyad, that the Claimant had ‘failed to prove that the Supreme Court’s Directive was excessive and as such expropriatory.’ Accordingly, go'aanka Maxkamadda ee ku Claimant ee dalab la wareegida on Su'aasha ah in cadaymo u soo jeestay ka hor Maxkamada in Maxkamadda Sare Directive lahaa saamayn expropriatory, in uu yahay, in la wareegidda ah wixii dhacay. This is a qualitative determination as to the application of the law to the facts; it is not a decision on quantification of compensation for expropriation that the Tribunal has determined to have taken place. Sidaas awgeed, sida ujeedada xisaabinta ee cutubyada 364-76 Abaalmarinta waxay ahayd in awood Maxkamada si loo ogaado in cadaymo ka hor waxaa la aasaasay in Maxkamadda Sare Directive lagu gartaa karin sida iyagoo xad-dhaaf ah iyo, sida, sida isagoo saamayn expropriatory, xisaabinta daruuri ahaayeen muujinaysaa oo keliya, ama qiyaasida, oo mana ay loogu talagalay si ay u bixiyaan quantification kooban oo ujeedooyinka qiimaysay rasmiga ah ee labada qiimaha hantida ama mid ka mid ah hagaajin aqbalay ama aan aqbalay by Maxkamada.” In other words, Tribunal Garqaad ku sheegay in ay la barbardhigo of USD 13.9 million in wax lala wareegay iyo qalabka iyo USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was a “tayada” decision, halkii ay ka mid tahay in si adag marka la barbar dhigo qiimaha of USD 13.9 milyan oo qalab iyo qalabka iyo USD 3 milyan oo Cadaab ah Dib.
Sidee, ka dibna, ma Tribunal Garqaad ku yimaadaan ay "tayada"Go'an in Directive Maxkamadda Sare ee wareegayeen qiyaastii USD 13.9 milyan oo qalab bixinta qiyaastii USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was not excessive? We will never know, tan iyo Tribunal Garqaad aanu sharax sida ay u noocan oo kale ah ayaa laga yaabaa "tayada"Go'aanka aan dhab ahaan is barbar labada qiyamka.
"Anigu ma hayo iimaanka ee geedi socodka ICSID socda abaalmarinta of Veijo Heiskanen, Philippe Sands iyo Carolyn Lamm,” said a represenative of Claimant. "The Arbitral Tribunal did not care about justice and was not trying to find a fair result. Ickale could have received a fairer decision by using the Courts of Turkmenistan rather than wasting years in ICSID proceedings and hundreds of thousands of dollars only to receive an award by Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands that makes a mockery of justice.”
Sida laga soo xigtay William Kirtley of Law Aceris, "I was not involved during the written phase of the arbitration when the expert reports were prepared, and the experts’ findings could have been presented more succinctly and in a less confusing manner. khubarada ayaa sidoo kale soo bandhigay natiijooyinkii ay English, taas oo aan ku jiray afkooda hooyo. Si kastaba ha ahaatee, go'aan ay maxkamadda wax Garqaad in la wareegayeen qiyaastii USD 13.9 million ee mashiinada iyo qalabka, for which uncontested purchase orders had been provided, si ay u bixiso rigoore u dhac aadka shaki ah oo kaliya USD 3 million, and a finding that this is not ‘excessive,’ suggests that that the majority of the Arbitral Tribunal, ugu yaraan, did not make any real effort to rule fairly in the arbitration. This is not the only aspect of the final award that can be severely criticized, and I hope that the younger generation of arbitration lawyers and arbitrators will make a far more sincere effort to arrive at a result that comports with justice and that Ickale will seek annulment of the Final Award.”