An tortishuvchi Arbitraj tribunali iborat Veijo Heiskanen taklif, Philippe Sands va Kerolin Lemm bir gumon arifmetik xatolarni tuzatish uchun rad etdi Final Award yil 8 qadam tashlamoq 2016 holda Ickale Qurilish Limited v. Turkmaniston, Tortishuvchi Case No. ARB / 10/24.
The primary issue that was the subject of İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi’s Request for Rectification of 29 qadam tashlamoq 2016 was whether the majority (Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands) had made clerical, Moddasiga ostida arifmetik yoki shunga o'xshash xatolar 49(2) of the ICSID Convention in the Award by ruling that the confiscation of USD 13.9 taxminan dollar to'plash uchun mashina va uskunalar bilan million 3 million in delay penalties was not “ortiqcha va bunday expropriatory sifatida” (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 “real qiymati” of the Claimant’s machinery and equipment and the delay penalties was only USD 1,564,214 (paragraph 375 of the Final Award).
muhokamasi davomida, Da'vogar taqdim qilgan Barcha uskunalar boshlang'ich xarid qilish buyurtmalarini, except for a few items of equipment that were over 10 yoshda va qaysi tushumlar Turkiya qonun ostida saqlanishi shart emas edi. Da'vogarning ekspert, shuningdek, taqdim etgan table setting forth the the original purchase price of the machinery and equipment, their import date into Turkmenistan, haqiqiy sotib olish sana, and references to the exhibits showing the purchase price for each piece of equipment. jami, Sotib olish to'g'risida buyruq va hisobot Da'vogar taxminan dollar sarflagan edi ko'rsatdi 13.9 million musodara qilingan materiallarni va uskunalar sotib olish uchun, taxminan AQSh dollari to'lashni istagan bir Turkmaniston Oliy sudi Direktifin asosida musodara qilingan 3 qurilish loyihalari uchun Delay Jazo milliondan, a difference of approximately USD 10 million. qo'yilgan Delay Jazo miqdori nizo emas edi, 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), va javobgar amortizatsiya mashina va uskunalar o'rniga almashtirish qiymatini foydalanish uchun hisobga olinishi kerak, deb ta'kidlaydi, Da'vogarning ekspert janjallashadi sifatida, Da'vogarning ekspert, shuningdek, yakuniy majlisida amortizatsiya uchun raqamlarni taqdim etgan bo'lsa-da,.
uning Final mukofoti, Arbitraj tribunali Turkmanistonning Direktifin Oliy sudi dollar musodara qilish yo'qmi savolga bo'lindi 13.9 million of machinery and equipment for USD 3 million in Delay Penalties was “ortiqcha va bunday expropriatory sifatida". bir Qisman Kerolin Lemm fikriga aloíida, u ko'pchilik deb qaror qildi, Veijo Heiskanen'ni va Filipp Qumlarning topgan, birinchi Penaltı vaqtini kech hurmat bilan rekord unutganlar edi, qaysi "ko'rsatdithat Claimant provided sufficient evidence detailing the amount of the inflation of the penalties (USD 1,650,825), va AQSh dollari ularni kamaytirish e'tiborga olinishi lozim 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, buning uchun javobgardan uning dalillar qo'llab-quvvatlash hech qanday dalil ishlab chiqarilgan edi, and that Veijo Heiskanen and Philippe Sands had “har ikki tomonning muvozanatli ko'rib holda dalillarni baholadi” (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 taxminan AQSh dollari uchun mashina va uskunalar bilan million 3 Delay Jazo milliondan ortiqcha emas edi.
Bu Tozalash uchun so'rov filed by Claimant claimed that the Arbitral Tribunal had made basic math errors in comparing USD 13.9 AQSh dollariga mashina va uskunalar million 3 Delay Jazo milliondan, Kerolin Lemm ta'kidlaganidek o'sha tashqari. Jumladan, Arbitraj tribunali, Ikki qiymati qilayotganini, noto'g'ri dollar chegirib edi 1.8 million on the basis of “Inter-kompaniyasi transfer” 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. Da'vogar ham ko'pchilik, deb ta'kidlaydi, Veijo Heiskanen taklif va Philippe Sands, noto'g'ri dollar chegirib edi 2.6 million on the basis of fictitious insurance payments, hech qanday dalil har qanday sug'urta to'lovlari qilingan edi ko'rsatgan javobgarning tomonidan taqdim etilgan edi-da va, har qanday tadbirda, hech gipotetik sug'urta tovon edi 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 mashina va uskunalar va taxminan AQSh dollari million 3 Delay Jazo milliondan ortiqcha emas edi.
Respondent did not take issue with Claimant’s allegations that the Arbitral Tribunal calculations were incorrect in its Rectitication uchun da'vogar talabi bo'yicha kuzatuvlar ning 12 May 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.
uning javob, Claimant noted that, orqaga bir qadam olib, 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 “sirli.” It responded to Respondent’s arguments and again showed that the Arbitral Tribunal’s subtraction of USD 1.8 million for “Inter-kompaniyasi transfer” 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 soxta va isbotlanmagani sug'urta to'lovlari uchun million, Arbitraj tribunali noto'g'ri qadrsizlanganini hisoblab edi, matematik noto'g'ri hisoblar amalga allaqachon loyiq ko'rur qadriyatlardan undepreciated qadriyatlarni yechib shunday, texnika zimmasiga va uskunalar ajratmalar natijada salbiy qiymatini edi, va u Arbitraj tribunali o'z ravshan arifmetik xatolarni tuzatish uchun bir imkoniyat berilishi kerak, deb ta'kidlaydi.
In uning qarshi harakat, 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 Delay Jazo milliondan matematik to'g'ri edi, lekin bu modda tortishding 49(2) of the ICSID Convention was narrow and claimed that Claimant was seeking a substantive review of the Final Award.
Veijo Heiskanen'ni arbitraj sudiga, Philippe Sands and Carolyn Lamm issued their Mukofoti qo'shimcha qarori va tozalash haqida uchun da'vogar iltimosini to'g'risidagi qaror 4 oktyabr 2016. qaror, which agrees that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in using the words “pastroq” for “oliy” with respect to the USD 1.8 million in inter-company transfers (paragraph 135), Inter-kompaniyasi o'tkazmalari uchun turli narxlar tabiatan ishonchsiz da'vogarning dalil qilib asosida bu soliq imtiyozlari qayta bosh tortdi, although it agreed to correct its textual error reversing the words “oliy” and “pastroq". 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% boshlang'ich sotib olish narxi har qanday xayoliy sug'urta tomonidan to'langan qilmagan of mavjud. Arbitraj tribunali aks holda uning arifmetik xatolar tahlil qilish rad, qaysi javobgarning ishtirok edi.
Arbitraj tribunali bandda da'vo tomonidan noto'g'ri arifmetik masalani sidestepped 121 that the “Tribunal topildi Da'vogarning musodara da'vo ishdan olindi, ko'pchilik tomonidan, that the Claimant had ‘failed to prove that the Supreme Court’s Directive was excessive and as such expropriatory.’ Accordingly, Tribunal Oliy sudi vakolati, bir expropriatory ta'sir borligi aniqlandi oldin da'vogarning musodara da'vo ustida tribunal qarori yo'qmi dalillar savolga yoqilgan, deb, bir ommaviylashtirish sodir bo'lgan yoki yo'qligini. 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. Binobarin, bandlarida hisoblar maqsadida sifatida 364-76 Mukofoti u Oliy sudi vakolati, ortiqcha deb tavsiflanadi bo'lishi mumkin tashkil oldin dalil yo'qligini aniqlash uchun tribunalni imkon edi va, bunaqa, bir expropriatory ta'sir sifatida, hisob-kitoblar, albatta faqat dalolat edi, yoki taxminan, va sudi tomonidan qabul aktivlarning qiymati yoki qabul yoki yo'q o'zgarishlar har qanday yo rasmiy baholash maqsadlari uchun aniq miqdor ta'minlash uchun mo'ljallangan edi.” In other words, Arbitraj tribunali da'vo deb AQSh dollari uning taqqoslash 13.9 musodara moddiy va asbob-uskunalar va AQSh dollari million 3 million in Delay Penalties was a “sifat” decision, qat'iy AQSh dollari qadriyatlarni nisbatan o'rniga bir 13.9 moddiy va asbob-uskunalar va AQSh dollari million 3 Delay Jazo milliondan.
Qanday, so'ng, Arbitraj tribunali etib edi uning "sifat"Belgilash Oliy sud vakolati, taxminan dollar musodara deb 13.9 to'lov taxminan AQSh dollari uchun uskunalar million 3 million in Delay Penalties was not excessive? We will never know, Arbitraj tribunali bu "bunday qilish mumkin, qanday qilib tushuntirib bermaydi, chunkisifat"Belgilash holda aslida ikki qiymati solishtirish.
"Men Veijo Heiskanen'ni mukofot quyidagi tortishuvchi jarayonida hech qanday ishonishimiz, Filipp Sands va Kerolin Lemm,” 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.”
Ga ko'ra Aceris Qonun William Kirtley, "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. ekspertlar, shuningdek, ingliz tilida o'z xulosalarini taqdim etildi, ularning ona tili emas edi. Shunday bo'lsa-da, taxminan dollar musodara har qanday arbitraj sudiga tomonidan qaror 13.9 mashina va uskunalar bilan million, for which uncontested purchase orders had been provided, faqat AQSh dollari yuqori shubhali kechikish jazo to'lash uchun 3 million, and a finding that this is not ‘excessive,’ suggests that that the majority of the Arbitral Tribunal, kamida, 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.”