Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedöház Vagyonkezelö Zrt. v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3), Decision on Respondent's Notice of Jurisdictional Objections and Request for Bifurcation (August 8, 2013)
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 Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments dated 9 March 1987, which entered into force on 28 August 1987 (the “BIT” or “Treaty”), and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States dated 18 March 1965, which entered into force on 14 October 1966 (the “ICSID Convention”).
2. The claimants are Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. (“Mezzanine”) and Danubius Kereskedőház Vagyonkezelő Zrt. (“DHSV”). Mezzanine is a partnership organized under the laws of Bermuda with its principal place of business in Hamilton, Bermuda. DSHV is a company organized and existing under the laws of Hungary, allegedly majority owned by Mezzanine. Both companies will be jointly referred to as “Claimants.”
3. The Respondent is Hungary and is hereinafter referred to as “Hungary” or “Respondent.”
4. Claimants and Respondent are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.” The Parties’ respective representatives and their addresses are listed above on page (i).
5. The dispute relates to the allegedly unlawful expropriation or nationalization without compensation and without complying with other requirements imposed by the BIT and applicable law, of Claimants’ investments in and related to Danubius Rádió Műsorzolgáltató Zrt. (“Danubius Radio” or “Danubius”), a Hungarian company, and a former licensee of one of the two nationwide FM radio-broadcasting frequencies in Hungary.
6. This decision rules on Respondent’s 28 June 2013 notification of jurisdictional objections and request for bifurcation, seeking that the Tribunal suspend the proceedings on the merits and resolve its objections to the jurisdiction of the Centre and the competence of the Tribunal as a preliminary matter.