ICSID arbitral linajumuisha Veijo Heiskanen, Philippe changarawe na Carolyn Lamm imekataa kusahihisha makosa ya madai hesabu katika Tuzo ya mwisho tarehe 8 Machi 2016 katika kesi Ickale Insaat Limited v. Turkmenistan, Hakuna kesi ICSID. ARB / 10/24.
The primary issue that was the subject of İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi’s Request for Rectification of 29 Machi 2016 was whether the majority (Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands) had made clerical, arithmetical au sawa makosa chini ya Ibara 49(2) of the ICSID Convention in the Award by ruling that the confiscation of USD 13.9 milioni katika mitambo na vifaa ili kukusanya takriban USD 3 million in delay penalties was not “kupindukia na kama expropriatory kama” (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 “thamani halisi” of the Claimant’s machinery and equipment and the delay penalties was only USD 1,564,214 (paragraph 375 of the Final Award).
wakati wa kesi, Mdai alikuwa zinazotolewa kununua amri ya awali ya vifaa vyote, except for a few items of equipment that were over 10 umri wa miaka na ambayo risiti walikuwa hawatakiwi kuwekwa chini ya sheria za Kituruki. mtaalam mdai alikuwa pia ilitoa table setting forth the the original purchase price of the machinery and equipment, their import date into Turkmenistan, awali ya kununua tarehe, and references to the exhibits showing the purchase price for each piece of equipment. Kwa ujumla, kununua maagizo na ripoti ilionyesha kuwa Mdai alikuwa na alitumia takriban USD 13.9 milioni kununua vifaa kuwapokonya na Vifaa, ambayo zilichukuliwa kwa misingi ya Turkmenistan Mahakama Kuu direktiv kutafuta malipo ya wastani wa dola 3 milioni katika Kuchelewa Adhabu kwa miradi ya ujenzi, a difference of approximately USD 10 milioni. kiasi cha Adhabu Kuchelewa kwamba walikuwa zilizowekwa hakuwa katika mzozo, 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), na kujibu hoja kwamba uchakavu zichukuliwe katika akaunti kwa ajili mitambo na vifaa badala ya kutumia thamani uingizwaji, kama mtaalam Mdai alikuwa alisema, ingawa mtaalam Mdai alikuwa pia ilitoa takwimu kwa ajili ya uchakavu katika mjadala wa mwisho.
Katika tuzo yake ya mwisho, Arbitral mgawanyiko juu ya suala la iwapo Mahakama ya Turkmenistan direktiv Kuu ya kutaifisha USD 13.9 million of machinery and equipment for USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was “kupindukia na kama expropriatory kama". Ndani ya Sehemu Pinzani Maoni ya Carolyn Lamm, yeye ilitawala kwamba wengi, linajumuisha Veijo Heiskanen na Philippe Sands, alikuwa wa kwanza kupuuzwa rekodi kwa heshima na Kuchelewa Adhabu, ambayo ilionyesha "that Claimant provided sufficient evidence detailing the amount of the inflation of the penalties (USD 1,650,825), na kwamba lazima zichukuliwe katika akaunti kupunguza yao kwa 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, ambayo kujibu alikuwa zinazozalishwa hakuna ushahidi kuunga mkono hoja zake, and that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had “tathmini ushahidi bila uwiano kuzingatia pande zote mbili” (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 milioni katika mitambo na vifaa kwa takriban USD 3 milioni katika Kuchelewa Adhabu haikuwa kupindukia.
Ya Ombi kwa ajili ya Rectification filed by Claimant claimed that the Arbitral Tribunal had made basic math errors in comparing USD 13.9 milioni wa mitambo na vifaa kwa USD 3 milioni katika Kuchelewa Adhabu, pamoja na wale ilivyoelezwa na Carolyn Lamm. Hasa, arbitral, wakati kulinganisha maadili mbili, alikuwa kimakosa katwa USD 1.8 million on the basis of “uhamisho baina ya kampuni” 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. Mdai Pia alisema kuwa idadi kubwa, Veijo Heiskanen na Philippe Sands, alikuwa kimakosa katwa USD 2.6 million on the basis of fictitious insurance payments, ingawa hakuna ushahidi yamewasilishwa na Mjibu kuonyesha kwamba malipo ya bima yoyote yaliyofikiwa na, katika tukio lolote, hakuna bima kubuni itakuwa reimburse 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 milioni wa mitambo na vifaa na takriban USD 3 milioni katika Kuchelewa Adhabu haikuwa kupindukia.
Respondent did not take issue with Claimant’s allegations that the Arbitral Tribunal calculations were incorrect in its Uchunguzi juu ya ombi Mdai kwa Rectitication ya 12 Mei 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.
Katika Jibu lake, Claimant noted that, kuchukua hatua nyuma, 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 “puzzling.” It responded to Respondent’s arguments and again showed that the Arbitral Tribunal’s subtraction of USD 1.8 million for “uhamisho baina ya kampuni” 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 milioni kwa ajili ya malipo ya kughushi na unproven bima, kwamba arbitral alikuwa mahesabu uchakavu kimakosa, kufanya mahesabu hesabu sahihi ambapo ni katwa maadili undepreciated kutoka maadili tayari ilipungua, kusababisha makato kwamba kudhani mitambo na vifaa alikuwa na thamani hasi, na ni alisema kuwa mahakama arbitral lazima apewe nafasi ya kusahihisha makosa yake dhahiri hesabu.
katika ripoti yake ya udaku, 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 milioni katika Kuchelewa Adhabu walikuwa kimahesabu sahihi, lakini alisema Ibara kwamba 49(2) of the ICSID Convention was narrow and claimed that Claimant was seeking a substantive review of the Final Award.
Arbitral ya Veijo Heiskanen, Philippe Sands and Carolyn Lamm issued their Uamuzi juu ya ombi Mdai kwa ajili ya uamuzi Supplementary na Rectification wa Tuzo juu ya 4 Oktoba 2016. Uamuzi, which agrees that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in using the words “chini” for “juu” with respect to the USD 1.8 million in inter-company transfers (paragraph 135), alikataa kufikiria upya punguzo huu kwa msingi huo bei tofauti kwa ajili ya uhamisho baina ya kampuni akafanya ushahidi Mdai ya asili uhakika, although it agreed to correct its textual error reversing the words “juu” and “chini". 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% ya awali ya kununua bei isingekuwa kulipwa na bima yoyote kubuni kuwepo. Arbitral vinginevyo alikataa kuchambua makosa yake hesabu, ambayo ulikuwa bado aligombea na Mjibu.
Arbitral sidestepped suala la hesabu zake mbaya kwa kudai katika aya 121 that the “Mdai madai kuondolewa alifukuzwa kwa sababu Mahakama iligundua, na wengi, that the Claimant had ‘failed to prove that the Supreme Court’s Directive was excessive and as such expropriatory.’ Accordingly, uamuzi Mahakama ya juu kutaifisha madai Mdai akageuka juu ya swali la kama ushahidi mbele ya Mahakama imara kwamba Mahakama Kuu Maagizo na athari expropriatory, hiyo ni, iwapo expropriation yaliyotukia. 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. Kwa sababu hiyo, kama madhumuni ya mahesabu katika aya 364-76 wa Tuzo ni kuwezesha kesi za mauaji ya kuamua iwapo ushahidi mbele yake imara kwamba Mahakama Kuu direktiv inaweza kuwa na sifa kama kuwa kupindukia na, kama vile, kama kuwa na athari expropriatory, mahesabu walikuwa lazima dalili tu, au approximations, na walikuwa si nia ya kutoa quantification sahihi kwa madhumuni ya hesabu rasmi ya ama thamani ya mali au yoyote ya marekebisho kukubaliwa au si kukubaliwa na Mahakama.” In other words, Arbitral alidai kuwa kulinganisha yake ya USD 13.9 milioni katika nyenzo kuwapokonya na vifaa na USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was a “ubora” decision, badala ya moja ambayo madhubuti ikilinganishwa maadili ya USD 13.9 milioni katika nyenzo na vifaa na USD 3 milioni katika Kuchelewa Adhabu.
jinsi, kisha, hakuwa arbitral kufika katika yake "ubora"Uamuzi kwamba Maagizo ya Mahakama Kuu confiscating takriban USD 13.9 milioni katika vifaa kwa ajili ya malipo takriban USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was not excessive? We will never know, tangu arbitral haina kueleza jinsi gani inaweza kufanya vile "ubora"Uamuzi bila ya kweli kulinganisha maadili mbili.
"Sina imani katika mchakato ICSID zifuatazo tuzo ya Veijo Heiskanen, Philippe Sands na 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.”
Kulingana na William Kirtley ya Sheria 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. wataalam pia kuwasilisha matokeo yao kwa Kiingereza, ambayo ilikuwa si lugha yao ya asili. Hata hivyo, uamuzi na mahakama yoyote arbitral kwamba confiscating takriban USD 13.9 milioni katika mitambo na vifaa, for which uncontested purchase orders had been provided, ili kulipa yenye kutatanisha kuchelewa adhabu ya USD tu 3 milioni, and a finding that this is not ‘excessive,’ suggests that that the majority of the Arbitral Tribunal, angalau, 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.”