The earlier procedural history of this case was set out in paragraphs 1-11 of the Tribunal’s decision of 29 January 2004 (“the Jurisdictional Decision”).1 By that decision the Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction over the dispute under Article VIII(2) of the BIT2 in combination with Articles X(2) and IV and dismissed the claim so far as it is based on Article VI (expropriation). However, the remedy sought by SGS was predicated on the resolution of an unresolved contractual dispute between the parties in respect of the very subject matter of its claim, and the parties had agreed that disputes under the contract were to be resolved before the courts of the Philippines. Accordingly the Tribunal stayed these proceedings “pending a decision on the amount due but unpaid under the CISS Agreement, a matter which (if not agreed by the parties) is to be determined by the agreed contractual forum under Article 12 of the CISS Agreement”. It further decided “that the proceedings will resume on the request of either party as soon as the condition for admissibility set out above has been satisfied”.