- Browse all
- Content type
-
- Case reports
- Arbitral cases
- Commentary and analysis
- Book content
- Journal articles
- Yearbook articles
- Investment treaty overviews (by jurisdiction)
-
- Treaties
- Multilateral treaties
- Bilateral investment treaties
- Other instruments and materials
- Arbitral rules
-
- Author
- Arbitrators and Counsel
-
My Content
(0)
Recently viewed (0)
-
My Searches (0)
Recently viewed (0)
- Save
- Cite
-
Email this content
Share Link
Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friendEmail this contentor copy the link directly:The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.Link copied successfully
-
Share This
- Headnote
- Decision [eng]
- Table of Selected Defined Terms
- I Introduction and Parties
- II Procedural History
- III The Applicable Legal Framework
- IV The Specific Grounds on Annulment
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- A Grounds Related to the Tribunal’s findings on jurisdiction
- (1) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that the Treaty extends jurisdiction to a company only indirectly controlled by French nationals
- (2) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that Perenco was controlled by French nationals
- (3) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that it had jurisdiction over Perenco’s claims that caducidad breached the Block 21 Participation Contract
- B Grounds on the Tribunal’s findings on the merits
- (1) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that Ecuador’s non-compliance with the Provisional Measures amounted to a breach of contract
- (2) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that Perenco was entitled to suspend operations under the exceptio non adimpleti contractus principle
- (3) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that Decree 662 breached the Participation Contracts and that the enactment of Decree 662 and the ensuing measures breached Article 4 of the Treaty
- (4) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that Ecuador’s declaration of caducidad breached the Block 21 Participation Contract and expropriated Perenco’s contractual rights
- C Grounds on the Tribunal’s findings on damages
- 362
- 363
- 364
- 365
- 366
- 367
- (1) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that the Parties would have agreed to Law 42 being stabilized at 33% as of October 5, 2008
- (2) Grounds on the Tribunal’s decision to award value to Perenco’s loss of opportunity to extend the Block 7 Participation Contract
- (3) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that Perenco would have drilled 23 new wells on Block 7
- (4) Grounds on the Tribunal’s decision to award Perenco damages amounting to US$448,820,400
- (5) Grounds on the Tribunal’s decision to apply a post-award interest rate equivalent to LIBOR for three-month borrowings plus two percent, compounded annually, until the date of payment
- (6) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that the OCP ship-or-pay costs were fully tax-deductible
- (7) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that Perenco’s decision to suspend operations did not contribute to its own losses
- D Grounds on the Tribunal’s findings on counterclaims
- (1) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that the strict liability regime of the 2008 Constitution does not have retroactive effect
- (2) Grounds on the Tribunal’s finding that Perenco is only liable for the mud pits it built or used
- (3) Grounds on the Tribunal’s decision to allocate liability between Perenco and other operators of Blocks 7 and 21
- (4) Grounds on the Tribunal’s decision to apportion liability for environmental remediation between Perenco, Petroamazonas, and prior operators
- (5) Grounds on the Tribunal’s decision to treat the amount paid by Burlington to Ecuador as a down payment on the counterclaims
- E Committee’s Conclusions
- V Costs
- VI Decision
- Decision PDF [eng]
- [18.97.14.88]
- 18.97.14.88
