TABLE OF CONTENTS
C. THE DISPUTE
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND TO THE PRESENT ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS
A. THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE WHEAT SUPPLY TRANSACTIONS
B. THE CONTRACTUAL STRUCTURE OF THE WHEAT SUPPLY TRANSACTIONS
C. THE ALLEGED NON-PAYMENT FOR THE WHEAT SUPPLIED
D. THE GAFTA ARBITRATION
E. THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. FROM THE NOTICE OF ARBITRATION TO THE TERMS OF APPOINTMENT
B. FROM THE TERMS OF APPOINTMENT TO THE HEARING
IV. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
A. UZBEKISTAN'S OBJECTIONS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
B. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS ON THE MERITS
V. ANALYSIS BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
A. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL RULES
B. THE TERM "INVESTMENTS" UNDER THE BIT
C. THE EXISTENCE OF AN "INVESTMENT" UNDER THE BIT
D. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
II. Factual Background to the Present Arbitral Proceedings
12. The factual context of the present arbitral proceedings revolves around the importation of grain into Uzbekistan in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
13. In summary, Romak and several companies specialized in the trading of grain (A) entered into a set of contracts for the supply of wheat (B). As a result of difficulties in obtaining payment for wheat deliveries (C), Romak initiated arbitration proceedings against its Uzbek counterparty pursuant to the contracts, under the auspices of the Grain and Feed Trade Association (hereinafter, "GAFTA") (D) and unsuccessfully attempted to enforce the resulting award in several countries including Uzbekistan (E).
The Arbitral Tribunal, for the reasons stated above:
1) DISMISSES Romak’s claims for lack of jurisdiction; and
2) ORDERS that the Parties shall bear the arbitration costs of € 293,462.27 in equal shares, to be satisfied out of the advance on costs already paid by the Parties. Each Party shall bear its own costs for legal representation and assistance. Issued in Paris, France.
Date: November 26, 2009.
Noah Rubins, Co-arbitrator
Nicolas Molfessis, Co-arbitrator
Fernando Mantilla-Serrano, Chairman