Magnifier Search

Azinian v. Mexico

Type of decisionAward
Date of decision18 October 1999
Tribunal
Jan Paulsson (President)
Benjamin R. Civiletti
Claus von Wobessr
Legal instrumentNorth American Free Trade Agreement
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
State responsibility can also be based on an act of the judiciary
Basic principles of NAFTA by first tribunal addressing merits
In case the annulment of a concession contract governed by national law is deemed legal by national courts, no breach of treaty can be assumed unless the claimant demonstrates that either the national legal standards for such an annulment constitute an expropriation, or the decisions by the national courts fail to meet other substantive standards of the treaty, e.g. by denial of justice.
Article 1105 NAFTA does not provide an investor protection beyond the standards of general public international law.
Examples of denial of justice include the refusal of a court to entertain a suit, the undue delay of the case, the seriously inadequate administration of justice, and the clear and malicious misapplication of the law.
Accepting national court’s jurisdiction does not preclude having recourse to other courts or tribunals having jurisdiction on another foundation; this is even true where national courts have already been called upon
The breach of a concession contract alone does not constitute a violation of NAFTA
Even in case a claim is denied, an equal allocation of costs is possible when certain criteria are met
General statement regarding basic principles of NAFTA by the first tribunal addressing merits
The breach of a concession contract alone does not constitute a violation of NAFTA
Article 1105 NAFTA does not provide an investor protection beyond the standards of general public international law
Examples of denial of justice include the a court’s refusal to entertain a suit, the undue delay of the case, the seriously inadequate administration of justice, and the clear and malicious misapplication of the law
In case the annulment of a concession contract governed by national law is deemed lawful by national courts, no breach of treaty can be assumed unless the claimant demonstrates that either the national legal standards for such an annulment constitute an expropriation or the national courts’ decisions fail to meet other substantive standards of the treaty, e.g . by denial of justice
Neither the Additional Facility Rules, nor general rules of procedural law prevent a party from communicating with a witness introduced by the opposing party

Feedback

Above you will find 14 statement(s) from this decision. Please note that when viewing the statements in their context, the same statement may appear multiple times if it is relevant for more than one topic. Did we miss something? Feel free to send us your suggestions!