OI European Group BV v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25 - Decision on Stay of Enforcement of the Award - 4 April 2016
Reproduced from www.worldbank.org/icsid with permission of ICSID.
Case Report by Maria I. Pradilla Picas, editor Ignacio Torterola
In the Decision rendered on 4 April 2016, the ad hoc Annulment Committee lifted the provisional stay of enforcement of the Award against Venezuela. In doing so, the Committee emphasized that under ICSID Convention Article 52(5) the Committee's decision to continue the stay of enforcement depends on whether it "considers that the circumstances so require," and, thus, the decision to continue the stay is left to the discretion of the Committee. Furthermore, the Committee explained that continuation of a stay of enforcement is far from automatic, and that the burden of proving circumstances requiring the continuation of a stay of enforcement rests on the party applying for annulment, Venezuela, in the case at hand. Venezuela asserted that (i) there is no risk of non-compliance if the Award is not annulled; (ii) there is a risk that Venezuela will not be able to duly recover its funds if the stay is terminated; (iii) the Application for Annulment is not dilatory; (iv) terminating the stay of enforcement of the Award would cause significant and irreparable damage to Venezuela; and (v) OI European Group would not be prejudiced if the stay of enforcement of the Award continues pending a decision on the annulment. The Committee concluded that Venezuela, as the Applicant for annulment, had not discharged its burden of proving that there is any circumstance requiring the continuation of the provisional stay of enforcement. The Committee, therefore, rejected Venezuela's request to continue the provisional stay of enforcement and lifted it.
Stay of Enforcement of Award - Burden of Proof, Circumstances; Requirements; Annulment
OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25) - Decision on Stay of Enforcement of the Award - 4 April 2016
Case report provided by International Arbitration Case Law (IACL)