ARBITRAL AWARD RENDERED IN 2005 IN SCC CASE 93/2004
(1) Jurisdiction under a Bilateral Investment Treaty.
(2) Application of the principle of iura novit curia and failure of Respondent to appear (procedural default).
(3) Application of the fair and equitable treatment standard.
(4) Reimbursement of moral damages.
(1) The Arbitral Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction under the relevant bilateral investment treaty, because:
(a) a dispute exists between the claimant and the government of the Republic; and
(b) the investor meets the criteria set forth in article 1(1) of the BIT, because he is an individual having the nationality of the country of X and making an investment in the Republic.
(2) The Arbitral Tribunal, in applying the law, is not bound by the pleadings made by the parties and may by its own motion apply legal sources or legal qualifications that have not been pleaded by the parties.
(3) In the contractual relationship between the investor and the host state, the investor had legitimate expectations to obtain compensation under the fair and equitable treatment standard of the BIT.
(4) The Arbitral Tribunal observes that the Claimant failed to produce any factual evidence for moral damages and the Arbitral Tribunal rejects the request of reimbursement of moral damages.
Claimant: Mr X, Company Y and Company Z, represented by counsel