ππππππππππ πππππππππππ πππππππ πππππ – The recent decision by the High Court of Australia in π²ππππ ππ ππ πΊππππ π π°πππππππππππππ πΊπππππππ π³πππππππππ πΊ.πΜ.π.π. & π¨πππ [2023] π―πͺπ¨ 11 may not be as favourable as it seems for former renewable energy investors seeking to enforce their ICSID award against Spain.
Indeed, upon closer examination, it appears to be a setback for their efforts. I have written a comprehensive article examining the claim by Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.Γ.R.L. against the Kingdom of Spain, delving into this matter’s puzzle.
It is interesting to note that the legal discourse surrounding this case focused on the differentiation between Β«πππππππππππ,Β» Β«πππππππππππΒ», and, most significantly, Β«πππππππππ.Β» Furthermore, the decision made against Spain appears to be the opposite.
This and much more are in my new analysis recently published by LexisNexis UK (subscription is required).
Again, many thanks to LexisNexis UK, Gustavo Moser, Rebecca Lamb, and Rukiya M for their outstanding support!
Please stay tuned here for the latest developments in international investment law.
#investmentlaw #internationalarbitration #SpainArbitration #australia
