Content area
Full Text
Case Summaries
ICSID Case No.ￂ ￂ ￂ ARB/07/26
Date of Awardￂ ￂ ￂ 8 December 2016
Claimantsￂ ￂ ￂ Urbaser S.A. (Urbaser) and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa (CAAB)
Respondentￂ ￂ ￂ The Argentine Republic (Argentina)
Treatyￂ ￂ ￂ Agreement on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Argentine Republic and the Kingdom of Spain (Argentina-Spain BIT or BIT)
Introduction
On 8 December 2016, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal chaired by Professor Andreas Bucher, with co-arbitrators Professor Pedro J. Martinez-Fraga (Claimants' appointee) and Professor Campbell McLachlan QC (Respondent's appointee), issued its award in Urbaser and CAAB v. Argentina (Award). The dispute related to a Concession Contract granted to Aguas Del Gran Buenos Aires S.A. (AGBA), a company in which Claimants were shareholders, for the provision of water and sewerage services in the Province of Greater Buenos Aires (Province). Claimants alleged that they had faced numerous obstacles created by the Province's authorities, which precluded the efficient and profitable operation of their Concession. Respondent counterclaimed that Claimants had failed to make the necessary investment in the Concession, thereby violating their obligation under international law based on the human right to water.
Claimants filed a Request for Arbitration against Argentina in 2007 under Article X of the Argentina-Spain BIT, alleging that the Province had obstructed the operation of the Concession, unreasonably refused to renegotiate following the 2001-2002 economic crisis, and wrongfully terminated the Concession Contract in 2006. Claimants claimed that the Province's acts amounted to violations by Argentina of each of Articles III (prohibition on unfair and discriminatory measures), IV (obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment (FET)), and V (prohibition on expropriation) of the BIT, and requested US$316 million1in compensation for losses caused by those breaches.
Argentina argued that the problems arose from Claimants' deficient management and counterclaimed against Claimants, alleging that Claimants' failure to fulfill their investment obligations under the Concession Contract violated their international law obligation relating to the human right to water. Argentina requested that the Tribunal award damages...