Summary

Source: icsid.worldbank.org

Decision on the Respondent's Rule 41 Objection

I. INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES

1. This case concerns a dispute submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID" or the "Centre") on the basis of the Agreement between the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Angola on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments which entered into force on 24 April 2020 and its revised version which entered into force on 22 December 2021 (the "BIT" or "Treaty") and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which entered into force on 14 October 1966 (the "ICSID Convention").

2. The Claimant is Ricardo Filomeno Duarte Ventura Leitão Machado ("Mr. Machado" or the "Claimant"), a natural person having the nationality of Portugal.

3. The Respondent is the Republic of Angola ("Angola" or the "Respondent").

4. The Claimant and the Respondent are collectively referred to as the "Parties."

5. This decision concerns the Respondent's preliminary objection under Rule 41 of the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules (the "ICSID Rules") requesting the Tribunal to dismiss the Claimant's claims for manifest lack of legal merit.

...

IV. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

39. The Tribunal has fully considered the arguments presented by the Parties in their submissions regarding the Rule 41 Objection. The Tribunal will present below a summary of their positions, only reproducing the arguments it deems material for the purposes of this decision. Therefore, the fact that certain arguments, documents or legal authorities are not mentioned or detailed in this chapter does not mean that the Tribunal has not taken them into account.

40. In brief terms, Angola requests the dismissal of all claims brought by the Claimant, as provided by Rule 41 of the ICSID Rules ("Rule 41"), on the basis that they are manifestly without legal merit as they fall outside the temporal scope of the applicable BIT4. The Claimant, on the other hand, argues that, since Angola has only put forward an objection saying that the Tribunal manifestly lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis, for the purposes of Rule 41 all that matters is that the Claimant has substantiated his case on facts that according to him happened after the entry into force of the BIT5.

...

VII. THE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION

103. For the reasons set forth above, the Tribunal unanimously decides as follows:

(1) REJECTS the Respondent's Rule 41 ratione temporis objection;

(2) DEFERS the Tribunal's decision on costs related to the Respondent's Rule 41 objection to a later stage; and

(3) DETERMINES the proceedings to continue in accordance with the Procedural Calendar set forth in Annex B of Procedural Order No. 1.

...