Case 1:20-Cv-01795-ABJ Document 1-5 Filed 07/01/20 Page 2 of 280
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:20-cv-01795-ABJ Document 1-5 Filed 07/01/20 Page 2 of 280 PCA CASE NO. 2015-32 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE LAW OF THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC ON INVESTMENTS IN THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC OF 27 MARCH 2003 AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW RULES OF ARBITRATION OF 1976 -between- STANS ENERGY CORP. AND KUTISAY MINING LLC (“Claimants”) -and- THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC (“Respondent”, and together with the Claimants, the “Parties”) __________________________________________________________ AWARD 20 August 2019 __________________________________________________________ Arbitral Tribunal Professor Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (President) The Honourable Colin L. Campbell, Q.C. Mr. Stephen Jagusch, Q.C. Registry Permanent Court of Arbitration Secretary Dr. Dirk Pulkowski Case 1:20-cv-01795-ABJ Document 1-5 Filed 07/01/20 Page 3 of 280 PCA Case No. 2015-32 Award TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 A. THE PARTIES ............................................................................................................................. 1 B. THE TRIBUNAL’S TERMINOLOGY AND REASONING ................................................... 1 C. THE ESSENCE OF THE CLAIMANTS’ CASE ...................................................................... 2 D. THE ESSENCE OF THE RESPONDENT’S CASE ................................................................. 5 E. THE SCOPE OF THE PRESENT AWARD ............................................................................. 7 PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 8 A. COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION...................................................................... 8 B. CONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL............................................................. 9 C. WRITTEN AND ORAL PLEADINGS ON JURISDICTION ................................................. 9 D. AWARD ON JURISDICTION ................................................................................................. 14 E. WRITTEN PLEADINGS ON THE MERITS AND ANY REMAINING OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................. 15 F. HEARING ON THE MERITS AND ANY REMAINING OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION......................................................................................................................... 24 THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS ................................................................................................... 29 A. THE CLAIMANTS’ REQUESTS ............................................................................................ 29 B. THE RESPONDENT’S REQUESTS ....................................................................................... 33 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS..................................................................................... 34 A. RARE EARTH ELEMENTS MARKETS ............................................................................... 34 B. THE KYRGYZ REPUBLIC ..................................................................................................... 37 C. STANS ENERGY’S INVESTMENTS IN THE KYRGYZ REES SECTOR ....................... 38 1. Stans Energy’s Investments in the Kyrgyz Uranium Sector ............................................. 38 2. Acquisition of the Licenses for Kutessay II and Kalesay .................................................. 40 3. Operation Under the License Agreements.......................................................................... 55 a. License Agreements No. 1 ................................................................................................. 55 b. License Agreements No. 2 ................................................................................................. 62 4. Conclusion of the Kutessay II License Agreement No. 3 ................................................... 70 D. THE RESPONDENT’S MEASURES IN RESPECT OF THE LICENSES ......................... 77 1. 26 June 2012 Resolution ....................................................................................................... 77 2. Thirty-days’ Work Suspension Order of the Kutessay II License Agreement No. 3 ...... 81 E. ASIARUD REPORTS AND STANS ENERGY’S DISCLOSURE ........................................ 87 F. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE GRANTING OF THE LICENSES ........................................................................................................................ 89 1. Proceedings Brought by the Prosecutor General Before the Inter-District Court of Bishkek Asking to Invalidate the 21 December Minutes (No 736-N-09) .......................... 89 2. Proceedings Brought by Baotou Before the Bishkek City Court Asking to Invalidate the SAGMR’s 2009 Decisions ..................................................................................................... 92 G. THE CLAIMANTS’ ARBITRATION BEFORE THE MCCI .............................................. 92 H. FORMAL TERMINATION OF THE LICENSES BY THE SAGMR ................................. 94 ii PCA 278376 Case 1:20-cv-01795-ABJ Document 1-5 Filed 07/01/20 Page 4 of 280 PCA Case No. 2015-32 Award JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY ............................................................................... 96 A. MATERIAL SCOPE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE 2003 INVESTMENT LAW ..... 96 1. Whether Article 3(1) of the 2003 Investment Law Limits the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction to Claims Under the Substantive Provisions of the 2003 Investment Law .......................... 98 a. The Claimants’ Position..................................................................................................... 99 b. The Respondent’s Position .............................................................................................. 100 c. The Tribunal’s Analysis................................................................................................... 102 2. Whether International Treaties and General International Law Form Part of the Applicable Law Pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 2003 Investment Law .......................... 104 a. The Claimants’ Position................................................................................................... 105 b. The Respondent’s Position .............................................................................................. 108 c. The Tribunal’s Analysis................................................................................................... 111 B. WHETHER STANS ENERGY QUALIFIES AS “INVESTOR” HOLDING AN “INVESTMENT” UNDER THE 2003 INVESTMENT LAW ............................................. 112 1. Whether the 2003 Investment Law Protects Only “Direct Investments” ...................... 114 a. The Respondent’s Position .............................................................................................. 115 b. The Claimants’ Position................................................................................................... 116 2. Whether Stans Energy’s Participation in Kutisay Mining LLC Qualifies as a “Direct Investment” ......................................................................................................................... 117 a. The Respondent’s Position .............................................................................................. 117 b. The Claimants’ Position................................................................................................... 118 3. Whether Stans Energy’s Participation in Stans KG Qualifies As a “Direct Investment” ......................................................................................................................... 119 a. The Respondent’s Position .............................................................................................. 119 b. The Claimants’ Position................................................................................................... 120 4. The Tribunal’s Analysis ..................................................................................................... 121 C. WHETHER KUTISAY MINING LLC QUALIFIES AS AN “INVESTOR” HOLDING AN “INVESTMENT” UNDER THE 2003 INVESTMENT LAW ...................................... 122 1. Whether Kutisay Mining LLC Qualifies as an “Investor” ............................................. 122 a. The Respondent’s Position .............................................................................................. 122 b. The Claimants’ Position................................................................................................... 123 c. The Tribunal’s Analysis................................................................................................... 125 2. Whether Kutisay Mining LLC Qualifies as a “Foreign Investor” ................................. 125 a. The Respondent’s Position .............................................................................................. 125 b. The Claimants’ Position................................................................................................... 127 c. The Tribunal’s Analysis................................................................................................... 128 D. WHETHER THE CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE CLAIMANTS ACQUIRED THEIR INVESTMENTS THROUGH CORRUPTION ................................ 129