Matter
Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedohaz Vagyonkezelo Zrt. v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3)
- 16 January 2013Arbitration
16 January 2013Arbitration
Decision on Respondent's Objection under Arbitration Rule 41(5)
- Decision summary
- The Tribunal held that the parties agreed to arbitrate only expropriation rights and obligations under Article 6 of the UK-Hungary Bilateral Investment Treaty. It held that international law may inform the expropriation and compensation analysis, that Article 42(1) of the ICSID Convention is not an independent source of obligation, and that most-favoured-nation provisions may apply to expropriation. The Respondent's Rule 41(5) objection was granted in part and denied in part.
Supporting details
13 authorities · 19 participantsAccession Mezzanine Capital L.P.
- Representative
- Covington & Burling LLP (For: Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P.)
- Representative
- Eugene D. Gulland (For: Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P.)
- Representative
- Miguel Lopez Forastier (For: Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P.)
- Representative
- Alexander O. Canizares (For: Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P.)
Danubius Kereskedohaz Vagyonkezelo Zrt.
Hungary
- Representative
- Arnold & Porter LLP (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Jean E. Kalicki (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Dmitri Evseev (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Kende, Molnar-Biro, Katona (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Janos Katona (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Gyorgy Molnar-Biro (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Gabor Puskas (For: Hungary)
Institution
- Arbitrator
- Arthur W. Rovine
- Arbitrator
- Marc Lalonde
- Arbitrator
- Donald M. McRae
- Tribunal secretary
- Mairee Uran-Bidegain
6 months and 23 days later · 204 days
- 8 August 2013Arbitration
8 August 2013Arbitration
Decision on Respondent's Notice of Jurisdictional Objections and Request for Bifurcation
- Decision summary
- The Tribunal ordered that the case be bifurcated and set a schedule for written submissions and a hearing on jurisdiction. It held that the jurisdictional issues were significant, warranted focused examination in a separate phase, and overlapped substantially with the merits. It invited submissions on whether the Respondent's objections were filed as early as possible under Arbitration Rule 41(1), left that timeliness issue unresolved, and reserved costs.
Supporting details
8 authorities · 19 participantsAccession Mezzanine Capital L.P.
- Representative
- Covington & Burling LLP (For: Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P.)
- Representative
- Eugene D. Gulland (For: Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P.)
- Representative
- Miguel Lopez Forastier (For: Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P.)
- Representative
- Alexander O. Canizares (For: Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P.)
Danubius Kereskedohaz Vagyonkezelo Zrt.
Hungary
- Representative
- Arnold & Porter LLP (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Jean E. Kalicki (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Arnold & Porter (UK) LLP (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Dmitri Evseev (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Kende, Molnar-Biro, Katona (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Janos Katona (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Gyorgy Molnar-Biro (For: Hungary)
- Representative
- Gabor Puskas (For: Hungary)
Institution
- Arbitrator
- Arthur W. Rovine
- Arbitrator
- Marc Lalonde
- Arbitrator
- Donald M. McRae
- Tribunal secretary
- Mairee Uran-Bidegain