Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., and MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2), Decision on Respondent's Objection under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) (March 11, 2013)
1. The present dispute is submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID” or the “Centre”) on the basis of the Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Hungarian People’s Republic for Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments dated 2 September 1987, which entered into force on 1 June 1988 (the “Netherlands BIT”), the Agreement Between the Swiss Confederation and the Hungarian People’s Republic on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments dated 5 October 1988, which entered into force on 16 May 1989 (the “Swiss BIT” and jointly with the Netherlands BIT, the “Treaties”), and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which entered into force on October 14, 1966 (the “ICSID Convention”). The Hungarian People’s Republic ratified the ICSID Convention on 4 February 1987 and it entered into force for Hungary on 6 March 1987.
2. The Claimants are Emmis International Holding, B.V. (“Emmis International”), Emmis Radio Operating, B.V. (“Emmis Radio”), and Mem Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft (“MEM”). Emmis International and Emmis Radio are both corporations organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands with their principal place of business in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. MEM is a company organized and existing under the laws of Hungary, allegedly controlled by a Swiss national. These parties will be collectively referred to hereinafter as “Claimants.”
3. The Respondent is Hungary and is referred to as “Hungary” or “Respondent.”
4. The Claimants and the Respondent will be hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
5. The Parties’ respective legal counsel of record in this arbitration are listed above on page (i). Claimants were represented by Covington & Burling until 17 January 2013, when, with the consent of the Claimants, that firm came off the record. On 8 February 2013, following a suspension of the proceedings ordered by the Tribunal in order to enable the Claimants to appoint new counsel, the firm of Quinn Emanuel was appointed to represent the Claimants in this arbitration.