A11Y LTD. CZECH REPUBLIC. (ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/1) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 9 Organization of the Hearing

Similar documents
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

THE RENCO GROUP, INC. V. REPUBLIC OF PERU (UNCT/13/1) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1

Poštová banka, a.s. and ISTROKAPITAL SE v. Hellenic Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8) Procedural Order No. 1

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES BERNHARD VON PEZOLD AND OTHERS (CLAIMANTS)

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. ACP Axos Capital GmbH. Republic of Kosovo. (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/22)

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Claimant. Respondent. (ICSID Case No. ARB/xx/xxx) [DRAFT] PROCEDURAL ORDER NO.

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Carnegie Minerals (Gambia) Limited. Republic of The Gambia

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

PROCEDURAL ORDER NO 1. Daniel Bethlehem, Presiding Arbitrator Mark Kantor, Arbitrator Raúl E. Vinuesa, Arbitrator

(ICSID Case. No. UNCT/18/3) PROCEDURAL ORDER No. 1

PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 7

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Hela Schwarz GmbH. People s Republic of China. (ICSID Case No.

ORDER NO September 2010

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Corona Materials, LLC v. Dominican Republic. (ICSID Case No.

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Washington, D.C. In the proceedings between

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Lao Holdings N.V. Lao People's Democratic Republic. (ICSID Case No.

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Sanum Investments Limited. Lao People's Democratic Republic (ADHOC/17/1)

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Churchill Mining Plc and Planet Mining Pty Ltd. Republic of Indonesia

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES IN THE PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN

Burimi S.R.L. and Eagle Games SH.A. Claimants. Republic of Albania Respondent. ICSID Case No. ARB/11/18

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES BERNHARD VON PEZOLD AND OTHERS (CLAIMANTS)

CHAIR S DIRECTIONS (for Standard Dwellinghouse claims)

PCA Case No

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited. United Republic of Tanzania

Netherlands Arbitration Institute REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION

Box 16050, Stockholm, Sweden Phone: ,

THE COURTS ACT. Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act

ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5 ABACLAT AND OTHERS (CLAIMANTS) and THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC (RESPONDENT) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 32

SUGGESTED AMENDMENT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL RULES (CR)

Box 16050, Stockholm, Sweden Phone: ,

THE COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT. Before the Tribunal constituted by. Mr Christopher Jeans QC, President; Mr David Goddard QC, member; and

The Rules of the Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES WASHINGTON, D.C. IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDING BETWEEN. and. ICSID Case No.

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTORY RULES...

PCA CASE NO

Procedural Order (PO) No.1

PCA Case No

Procedural Order No. 3

THE LMAA TERMS (2006)

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Eco Oro Minerals Corp. Republic of Colombia. (ICSID Case No.

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON BUSINESS COURT DIVISION. via telephone (check one) /

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ICDR) Independent Review Panel CASE #

Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018

ANSWER TO THE REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION [NOTE: OR ANSWER TO THE REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION AND COUNTERCLAIMS, IF

THE ELECTRICITY ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENT

Los Angeles Superior Court Limited Jurisdiction Department 77

PRETRIAL ORDER (JURY TRIALS)

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ADDITIONAL FACILITY) In the interpretation proceeding between

ARIAS U.S. RULES FOR THE RESOLUTION OF U.S. INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE DISPUTES

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

A Case Study in Litigation in Support of Arbitration: China, England, and The Turks and Caicos Islands

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE MINING AND LANDS COMMISSIONER

JUSTICE JEFFREY K. OING PART 48 PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

ANNEX V PROCEDURAL RULES ON CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION OF CONTRACTS FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND (EDF)

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COM~ERCE COURT OF ARBITRATION LEONARD 8. BANNICKE

Working methods of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

LEADR NEW ZEALAND INC. MEDIATION AGREEMENT

The 7 th Annual Michael Kirby Contract Law Moot Melbourne, Australia September 2017 THE RULES

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 576 Filed: 07/06/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:22601

DECISION ON PROVISIONAL MEASURES

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

RECTIFICATION OF AWARD

PCA Case No

Arbitration Rules of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania

Arbitration Agreement ADR Systems File # xxxxxxxxxxx Insurance Claim # xxxxxxxxxx

PCA Case No

CASE NUMBER: UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRETRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED

1) ICC ADR proceedings are flexible and party-controlled to the greatest extent possible.

REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION

INQUIRY PROCEDURES MEMORANDUM NO. 01 OF BOARD OF INQUIRY DATED 5 SEPTEMBER 2017: ISSUE 06. Act 1991 (the RMA) AND

ENGLISH TEXT OF THE IMSO CONVENTION AMENDED AS ADOPTED BY THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE IMSO ASSEMBLY PROVISIONALLY APPLIED FROM 6 OCTOBER 2008

AND CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT ( NAFTA ) PROCEDURAL ORDER ON TWO DISPUTED ISSUES DATED 6 FEBRUARY 2015 (English Text)

How to obtain permission... 17

PROCEDURAL ORDER No. 2 (Revised) May 31, Glamis Gold, Ltd., Claimant v. The United States of America, Respondent

ARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties

Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes)

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN ATA CONSTRUCTION, INDUSTRIAL AND TRADING COMPANY (CLAIMANT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

/...1 PRIVATE ARBITRATION KIT

Supplement No. 6 published with Extraordinary Gazette No. 33 dated 14 May, PRACTICE DIRECTION No. 11/2014 (GCR O.1, r.12)

PART 8 ARBITRATION REGULATIONS CONTENTS

TERMS OF REFERENCE. Issued Date: 3 January 2011

CIRCUIT COURT PROCEDURES FOR CIVIL ACTIONS

Archived Content. Contenu archivé

REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA (RESPONDENT) AWARD. Dr. Sandra Morelli Rico, President Prof. Jeswald W. Salacuse, Arbitrator Prof. Raúl E. Vinuesa, Arbitrator

Multiparty and multicontract disputes and the impact of the new International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules

THE LONDON MARITIME ARBITRATORS ASSOCIATION THE INTERMEDIATE CLAIMS PROCEDURE (2012)

CROSS EXAMINATION COURSE Milan, October 2016

PCA Case Nº IN THE MATTER OF THE ARCTIC SUNRISE ARBITRATION. - before -

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. Case No. 51-

ONONDAGA COUNTY JUSTICES AND LOCAL RULES

ICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration 1975

Unfair dismissal is a claim that can be made by certain employees that their employer acted unreasonably in terminating their employment.

Case dml11 Doc 6977 Filed 03/13/12 Entered 03/13/12 15:13:05 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 5

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION

Published by Authority. Vol. XLIII, No.77 ROAD TOWN, TORTOLA THURSDAY 24 DECEMBER 2009 CONTENTS USING THE GAZETTE

Transcription:

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION PROCEEDING UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(A) OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH AND SLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976) A11Y LTD. v. CZECH REPUBLIC PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 9 Organization of the Hearing Tribunal Yves Fortier, PC, CC, OQ, QC, Presiding Arbitrator Stanimir Alexandrov, Arbitrator Anna Joubin-Bret, Arbitrator Secretary to the Tribunal Jara Mínguez Almeida Assistant to the Tribunal Annie Lespérance 2 November 2017

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Section 17.6 of Procedural Order No. 1, a pre-hearing organizational call between the Parties and the President of the Tribunal was held by telephone conference on 1 November 2017, in preparation for the Hearing on the Merits and the remaining jurisdictional objection (the Hearing ) in this case. 2. Participating in the telephone conference were: Members of the Tribunal: The Hon. L. Yves Fortier, QC, President of the Tribunal ICSID Secretariat: Ms. Jara Mínguez Almeida, Secretary of the Tribunal Assistant to the Tribunal: Ms. Annie Lespérance, Assistant to the Tribunal On behalf of the Claimant: Mr. Hussein Haeri, Withers LLP Mr. Lucas Bastin, Essex Court Chambers Mr. David Walker, Withers LLP On behalf of the Respondent: Mr. Alfred Siwy, zeiler.partners Mr. Nicolas Zenz, zeiler.partners Ms. Marie Talašová, Czech Ministry of Finance Ms. Anna Bilanová, Czech Ministry of Finance Mr. Martin Nováček, Czech Ministry of Finance 3. The President of the Tribunal and the Parties considered: (i) the draft Agenda circulated by the Secretary of the Tribunal on 26 September 2017, and (ii) the Parties observations on the items in the draft Agenda submitted by the Claimant on behalf of both Parties on 20 October 2017. 4. An audio recording of the telephone conference was made and deposited in the archives of ICSID. The recording was made available to the Members of the Tribunal and the Parties the same day the telephone conference took place. 5. Following the session, the Tribunal now issues the present order. 2

II. ORGANIZATION OF THE HEARING 6. The Tribunal has taken note of the areas of agreement between the Parties, and of the Parties respective positions in the areas of disagreement, included both in their comments on the draft Agenda for the pre-hearing organizational call and discussed during the call. 7. Having considered the Parties positions, the Tribunal issues this Procedural Order setting out the Procedural Rules that the Parties have agreed upon and/or the Tribunal has determined will govern the conduct of the Hearing. A. Date and Venue 8. The Hearing will take place from 13 to 17 November 2017. 9. The Hearing will take place at Room A at the World Bank Paris Conference Center located at 66, Avenue d Iéna, 75116 in Paris, as previously informed in ICSID s communication of 11 October 2017. B. Daily Schedule 10. The daily schedule during the Hearing will be from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 2:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. (approximately) with a short break of 15 minutes in each of the morning and afternoon sessions. C. Order of Proceedings 11. Having listened to the Parties positions, the Tribunal has determined that the Claimant s witnesses will be presented to the Tribunal first, followed by the Respondent s witnesses. The Claimant s technical experts will be followed by the Respondent s technical experts. Lastly, the Tribunal will listen to the oral evidence of the quantum experts. 12. The Tribunal has invited the Parties to discuss the daily schedule, including the length of opening and closing statements and revert to the Tribunal with an agreed daily schedule by c.o.b. Tuesday, 7 November 2017. D. Time Allocation 13. The principle of equal time as between the Parties shall be observed in the conduct of the hearing. The Secretary of the Tribunal shall act as the timekeeper and use a chess clock approach. 14. The Tribunal may take time for its own questions during the Parties presentations or during witness examination. In this event, the time incurred by the Tribunal s questions shall be included within the time allocated to the Party currently using the time. 15. A total of approximately 30 hours are reserved for the Hearing, with 14 hours reserved for each Party and two hours reserved for administrative and logistical matters that may arise during the hearing. 3

E. Documents for Use at the Hearing 16. The Parties shall provide each Member of the Tribunal, as well as the Tribunal s Assistant, the Tribunal s Secretary, the court reporter, and the interpreters where applicable, with: i. At the commencement of the Hearing, the Claimant will provide an agreed core bundle of contemporaneous documents (or extracts) in chronological order, crossreferenced to where these documents are exhibited in the arbitration file; and, ii. iii. In advance of the Hearing, the Respondent will send to the Tribunal unified USB sticks (PC and Mac compatible) of all pleadings, witness statements, expert reports, exhibits, legal authorities, and orders in the arbitration file, with a unified hyper-linked index. The Respondent will provide copies of the USB sticks to the Tribunal s Secretary and the court reporter at the commencement of the Hearing. Each Party will prepare a hard copy of Examination Bundles for each witness/expert it wishes to cross-examine. 17. The provisions of Procedural Order No. 1, Section 15.7 concerning Demonstrative Exhibits remain applicable. 18. In addition, promptly after the conclusion of the Hearing day in which the corresponding Demonstrative Exhibit is used, the Parties shall upload the Demonstrative Exhibit to the case folder in the electronic file sharing system ( BOX ), assigning it a consecutive exhibit number. F. Witnesses and Experts Examination 19. As a general principle, the procedure for hearing oral witnesses at the Hearing will be as follows: i. The Parties may conduct a brief (5 to 10 minutes) direct examination when introducing each witness. ii. The examination of quantum experts shall start with a brief opening presentation by the expert (of up to 20 minutes each). iii. The scope of the re-examination will be limited to matters that have arisen in the cross-examination. iv. The Tribunal will have the right to examine the witness or expert at any time and to interject questions during the examinations by counsel for the Parties. Nonetheless, the Tribunal will endeavour to save its principal questions to a time following that witness s or expert s re-examination; and in that event, the Tribunal would seek to ensure that each Party shall have an opportunity to examine a witness or expert on matters arising from questions by the Tribunal. 4

v. The Tribunal shall have at all times complete control over the procedure in relation to any witness or expert giving oral evidence, including the right to recall a witness or expert and the right to limit or deny, on its own motion or at the request of a Party, the right of a Party to conduct any examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination if it appears to the Tribunal that such examination or evidence is unlikely to serve any relevant purpose. vi. The Tribunal will consider during the hearing, upon application from a Party, the possibility of witness conferencing of the technical experts following their crossexamination. vii. Only the fact witnesses will be sequestered, with the exception of Mr Jan Buchal, the Claimant s party representative. To be clear, the technical experts shall not be sequestered. 20. The Tribunal notes that, in view of the Respondent s statement that Mgr. Martin Ludma is not an expert in this arbitration and that it is not relying on Exhibit R-0019 as an expert opinion, the Claimant is not calling Mgr. Martin Ludma to testify as an expert witness. 21. In respect of the Respondent s application to cross-examine all three experts who have drafted the Claimants quantum experts reports, the Tribunal, notes the following: - the Claimant s first expert report on quantum submitted on 30 May 2015 is labelled (on the cover page) as a joint report provided by Prof. Robert C. Lind, Pavel Urban and Dr. Pavel Vacek ; - in para. 1.1 of the first report, it is stated this expert report has been submitted as a joint report of three experts ; - throughout their first report, the experts use the we to preface every sentence; - the three experts signed the first report on page 44; - Claimant s counsel, Mr. Haeri, in his oral submission, stated that this was so with respect to the experts first report which was filed before his firm became counsel of record for the Claimant; - Mr. Haeri added that the second expert report on quantum submitted on 2 July 2017 had clarified the situation as it was the expert report of CRS Economics s.r.o. ; - However, the second report is also labelled (on the cover page) as having been jointly prepared by Prof. C. Lind, Pavel Urban and Dr. Pavel Vacek ; - throughout their second report, the experts use the we to preface every sentence; - the three experts each signed the second report on page 37; and 5

- there is no reference to CRS Economics either in the body of the second report or on the signature page. 22. Consequently, having deliberated, the Tribunal decides that, in the event that the Respondent wishes to cross-examine the Claimant s quantum experts, it will do so by examining the three authors of the joint report, Prof. Robert C. Lind, Pavel Urban and Dr. Pavel Vacek, together. G. Interpretation 23. The provision of Procedural Order No. 1, Section 11.3 applies. 24. The World Bank s Interpretation Division identified two qualified interpreters and provided the candidates curriculum vitae to the Parties on 11 October 2017. H. Audio Recording and Hearing Transcripts 25. The provision of Procedural Order No. 1, Section 18.1 on audio recording applies. 26. The provisions of Procedural Order No. 1, Section 18.2 and 18.3 on transcripts apply. I. Post-Hearing Briefs 27. The question of the Post-Hearing Briefs will be considered at the conclusion of the Hearing. J. Statement on Costs 28. As agreed by the Parties, they shall file Statements on Costs of not more than three pages. The deadline for filing such Statements shall be discussed at the conclusion of the Hearing. K. Closed Hearing 29. The provision of Procedural Order No. 1, Section 17.5 applies. L. Logistical Items 30. The logistical details (e.g., confirmation of room number assignments, list of Hearing participants, set up details, details on court reporting and interpretation services, internet access, audio-visual equipment and catering orders) will be handled through correspondence directly by the ICSID Hearing Organization Team. 31. The set up for the Hearing is currently scheduled for Friday, 10 November 2017 between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. 6

III. SKELETON ARGUMENTS 32. The parties shall file skeleton arguments (maximum 20 pages in length) by c.o.b. 3 November 2017. Paris, this 2 nd day of November 2017 Signed on behalf of the Arbitral Tribunal [signed] The Hon. L. Yves Fortier, QC President 7