Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/75220171-Caso-cpa-no.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:28:12
Document Index: 95859175

Matched Legal Cases: ['artículo 22', 'artículo 22', 'artículo 22', 'artículo 22', 'artículo 22', 'artículo 22', 'artículo 22', 'artículo 22']

Caso CPA No - PDF
Caso CPA No
Download "Caso CPA No"
1 Caso CPA No EN EL CASO DE UN ARBITRAJE DE CONFORMIDAD CON EL TRATADO DE LIBRE COMERCIO REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA, CENTROAMÉRICA, ESTADOS UNIDOS, FIRMADO EL 5 DE AGOSTO DE 2004 ( DR-CAFTA ) y EL REGLAMENTO DE ARBITRAJE DE LA CNUDMI (APROBADO EN 2013) (el Reglamento CNUDMI ) entre MICHAEL BALLANTINE Y LISA BALLANTINE (los Demandantes ) y LA REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA (la Demandada, y conjuntamente con los Demandantes, las Partes ) ORDEN PROCESAL NO. 5 Tribunal Prof. Ricardo Ramírez Hernández (Árbitro Presidente) Sra. Marney L. Cheek Prof. Raúl Emilio Vinuesa 17 de julio de 2017
2 Caso CPA No Orden Procesal No de julio de 2017 Página 1 de 2 A. HISTORIA PROCESAL 1. De conformidad con el Calendario Procesal, el día 8 de junio de 2017, las Partes intercambiaron solicitudes para la exhibición de documentos en forma de cronograma Redfern. 2. El día 22 de junio de 2017 las Partes intercambiaron opiniones y objeciones a las solicitudes de la otra Parte usando los cronogramas Redfern. 3. El día 29 de junio de 2017, las Partes intercambiaron replicas a las objeciones de la otra Parte con arreglo al Calendario Procesal, utilizando de nuevo el cronograma Redfern. 4. El día 3 de julio de 2017, las Partes presentaron sus respectivas solicitudes de exhibición de documentos al Tribunal para que éste decidiera al respecto. B. LA DECISIÓN DEL TRIBUNAL 5. El Tribunal ha revisado las solicitudes de exhibición de documentos de las Partes y ha deliberado sobre las mismas. La decisión del Tribunal (dictada en inglés y español) respecto de las solicitudes disputadas de los Demandantes y la Demandada, se encuentran en los cronogramas Redfern adjuntos a la Orden como Anexos 1 y 2 respectivamente. 6. En virtud del Calendario Procesal, se ordena a cada Parte que entregue los documentos indicados en el Anexo 1 y en el Anexo 2 a la Parte solicitante a más tardar el lunes, 31 de julio de 2017, con sujeción a las disposiciones de la presente Orden. No se enviarán al Tribunal los documentos entregados y éstos solo pasarán a formar parte del expediente si una Parte los presenta como medios de prueba acompañando un escrito de alegaciones ulterior. 7. El Tribunal nota que su decisión respecto de las solicitudes disputadas de las Partes no tiene por objeto constituir una decisión implícita sobre ninguna de las cuestiones en disputa entre las Partes. 8. En la medida en que se deniegue una solicitud de exhibición de documentos, la denegación no afecta a ningún documento que ya se haya entregado voluntariamente o que, habiendo sido solicitado, no se le hubiera esgrimido objeción. 9. En la medida en que no se entreguen documentos que se ha ordenado presentar con arreglo a lo dispuesto en esta orden o no se entreguen de manera completa, el Tribunal podrá tomarlo en cuenta en su evaluación de las respectivas alegaciones de hecho y medios de prueba, inclusive
3 Caso CPA No Orden Procesal No de julio de 2017 Página 2 de 2 podrá extraer inferencias en contra de la Parte que se niega a entregar los documentos, de conformidad con la sección 5.6 de la Orden Procesal No. 1. Sede del Arbitraje: Washington, D.C., Estados Unidos de América Ricardo Ramírez Hernández (Árbitro Presidente) En nombre y representación del Tribunal
4 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 1 of 71 ANNEX 1 TO PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 5 PCA Case No Claimants Requests for Production of Documents Claimants set out their requests for in the schedule below. In respect of each request, the Claimants confirm that the are not in its possession, custody or control, except to the extent previously appended to a submission in this proceeding. are all created by, or known to have been received by, the Respondent and should therefore be within the Respondent s possession. Republic s Responses to Claimants Requests for Production of Documents Set forth in the schedule below are the responses of the Republic to Claimants Requests for Production of Documents. In their discussion on the relevance and materiality of the requested (third column of the chart below), the Ballantines in various passages purport to characterize the Republic s submissions and position on different issues. Republic has not attempted herein to respond to such characterizations, except insofar as they were deemed relevant to particular document requests and the Republic s response thereto. Accordingly, the absence of response or comments by the Republic in this document to particular assertions or characterizations by the Ballantines should not be construed as tacit acceptance or acquiescence by the Republic.
5 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 2 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 1 complete file maintained by Respondent s MMA showing the bases both for the creation and demarcation of the Baiguate National Park (the Park ). creation and demarcation of the Park is central to this case. Respondent used the existence of the Park to deny a permit to the Ballantines. existence of the Park has also used by Respondent to prevent development of any kind. Both parties have submitted evidence regarding the circumstances of the creation of the Park, the ecological justifications for its establishment, the MMA s decision to demarcate the specific Park boundaries, and the notice to and communication with the landowners of property within the Park. Ballantines understand that Respondent s MMA maintains a file that includes the requested here. Republic has no objection to providing the described in this request. However, the Ballantines understanding of the types of information contained in the file (as articulated in its commentary below) is not necessarily accurate. Ballantines do not seek an order with respect to this request Respondent has agreed to produce the. Ballantines look forward to the production of responsive material. Because the Respondent contends that the Ballantines description of the expected content of such file is not necessarily accurate, the Ballantines reserve their rights to contest the completeness of Tribunal takes note. El Tribunal toma nota.
6 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 3 of 71 Commentary of the Ballantines: the Respondents production. We understand that this file contains, among other things, the following information: technical reports (flora and fauna inventories, slope maps, riparian and watercourses analyses); gap analyses; minutes or reports of meetings with affected landowners; drafts of proposed Park boundaries; communications with landowners; publicizing the Park s creation.
7 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 4 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 2 complete file maintained by MMA with regard to the creation and implementation of the Baiguate Park Management Plan (the Plan ) (Ex. R-084). Respondent has submitted the Plan in this Arbitration as evidence for various assertions. Plan was dated March 20, 2017, almost 8 years after the purported creation of the Park. Respondent maintains that this Plan governs the permitted activities and uses of the Park. Respondent further maintains that the Plan was created in connection with various groups and after research. Given the many years that passed before this Plan was distributed, and the technical assertions made in this plan, the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Plan and the information and analyses conducted (if any) in connection with this Plan are relevant and material to the arbitration. Republic has no objection to providing the described in this request. However, the Ballantines understanding of the types of information contained in the file (as articulated in its commentary below) is not necessarily accurate. Ballantines do not seek an order with respect to this request Respondent has agreed to produce the. Ballantines look forward to the production of responsive material. Because the Respondent contends that the Ballantines description of the expected content of such file is not necessarily accurate, the Ballantines reserve their rights to contest the Tribunal takes note. El Tribunal toma nota.
8 Commentary of the Ballantines: completeness of the Respondents production. PCA Case No Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 5 of 71 We understand that this file contains, among other things, the following information: minutes of public meetings and MMA meetings; the ICT (technical committee report); drafts of the Plan; records of communications with landowners and stakeholders; created for the public.
9 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 6 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 3 complete file maintained by Respondent s MMA showing the bases both for the creation and demarcation of the Salto de Jimenoa Natural Monument. Salto de Jimenoa Natural Monument is another park that was specifically drawn as to exclude favored businesses and landowners. Central to Respondent s defense is its assertion that it did not treat the Ballantines differently than landowners in areas with similar terrain and topography. analyses that Respondent relied upon to create the Monument and to demarcate its boundaries are relevant and material to this dispute. In addition, certain witnesses, such as Eleuterio Martinez wrote extensively about the circumstances surrounding the creation of this National Monument without including any of the relevant requested here. Republic has no objection to providing the described in this request. However, the Ballantines understanding of the types of information contained in the file (as articulated in its commentary below) is not necessarily accurate. Ballantines do not seek an order with respect to this request Respondent has agreed to produce the. Ballantines look forward to the production of responsive material. Because the Respondent contends that the Ballantines description of the expected content of such file is not necessarily accurate, the Ballantines reserve their rights to contest the Tribunal takes note. El Tribunal toma nota.
10 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 7 of 71 Commentary of the Ballantines: completeness of the Respondents production. We understand that this file contains, among other things, the following information: technical reports (flora and fauna inventories, slope maps, riparian and watercourses analyses); gap analyses; minutes or reports of meetings with affected landowners; drafts of proposed boundaries; communications with landowners; publicizing the natural monument s creation.
11 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 8 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order Tribunal takes note of the Respondent s conformity to produce pertaining to those projects which have not been objected. remainder of the request is granted partially. 4 complete files maintained by Respondent s MMA for each of the following projects (hereinafter, the Projects ): Jamaca de Dios (Phase 1) Jamaca De Dios (Phase 2 or Ampliacion ) Ballantines have put forward evidence to show that they were treated in an inequitable and discriminatory fashion compared to -owned projects, such as the ones in this request. Respondent has asserted that many of these Projects were treated differently for various reasons. But Respondent did not submit complete documentation relating to these Projects to support these assertions. Each of these Projects is relevant to this proceeding as an ecological, environmental, geographic, or competitive comparator to the Ballantines investment. As such, complete MMA files concerning its evaluation of these Projects are directly material to the Ballantines claims and Respondent s defense. Republic does not object in principle to providing the files for the projects identified by the Ballantines in this request, with two exceptions:, and, for the reasons articulated below. First, the relevance of project has not been established, as it has never been mentioned by either party in this arbitration. Second, any information concerning any of We look forward to the production of the agreed but request that all in the request be produced. is relevant to this dispute. fact that the Ballantines did not cite it in the Amended Statement of Claim has no bearing on whether or not it is an appropriate comparator. This large, residential mountain project was built by a in a Category 2 production will include information pertaining to but not in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Procedural Order No. 1 and Art. 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules. Parties are requested to agree on a process to protect any confidential information contained in the files, which is consistent with the process provided in Article 10.21(4) of the CAFTA- DR.
12 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 9 of 71 the requested projects, which may be confidential on the basis that it is information pertaining to an ongoing process of evaluation by the MMA for an environmental permit, i.e., In addition, Resolution No dated 2 June 2017 provides that the files pertaining to projects of third parties are reserved and confidential information. 1 protected area (Valle Neuvo) that is at altitudes higher than Phase 1 or Phase 2 of Jamaca de Dios. It has at least 51 residences, a restaurant and common areas. It was not only allowed to develop years after the park was created in 1996 but it was also allowed to expand in 2011 by the MMA despite steep slopes and its location. project is directly relevant to the discriminatory El Tribunal toma nota de la conformidad de la Demandada para entregar documentos concernientes a aquellos proyectos que no han sido objetados. El resto de la solicitud se concede parcialmente. La entrega incluirá información concerniente a pero no a de conformidad con las secciones 6.2 y 6.3 de la Orden Procesal No. 1 y el artículo 22 del Reglamento CNUDMI. Se solicita a las Partes que convengan en un proceso para proteger cualquier información confidencial que se encuentre en los archivos que sea conforme a los procedimientos 1 Resolution No dated 2 June 2017 classifies as reserved information data and contacts of third parties provided with the sole purpose of procuring environmental authorizations or services provided by this Ministry, pursuant to General Law No on Free Access to Public Information, article 17, paragraph (i), which provides as follows: Concerning commercial, industrial, scientific, or technical secrets, or reserved or confidential industrial, or commercial information of third parties received by the government concerning a request for a permit, authorization or any other procedure, and submitted with that sole aim, and disclosure of which could lead to economic damages.
13 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 10 of 71 Concerning the files of those projects, which the Republic does not object to provide, the Republic notes that any businessrelated information concerning third parties is deemed confidential and would be provided subject to Claimants commitment not to disclose such information or make any use thereof outside this arbitration. treatment of the Ballantines. We note that the Respondent s contention that some projects are different because of altitude (made in the Statement of Defense for the first time) makes this directly relevant to the case. In fact, Constanza (where is located) and Jarabacoa (where Jamaca is located) are nationally recognized mountain tourism areas. (Law ) This makes these projects quite analogous. Similarly, establecidos en el artículo del DR-CAFTA.
14 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 11 of 71 material should be produced. Although mentioned in the ASOC, Respondent and its witnesses completely ignore it. Ballantines understand that the permit for that second phase of development has been issued, making an assertion under the June 2017 resolution immaterial. But even if a permit has not been granted, this material should be produced. As an initial matter, we note that Respondent s reliance on a resolution issued
15 this very month (June 2017) as a basis to refuse to produce this file is quite convenient. Otherwise, that a party deems information to be confidential may (a) restrict its access to the public or (2) require redactions but is not a valid basis to refuse production completely. All sorts of material is confidential to varying degrees. Not all of the information in the file is a business record of an applicant. file includes much information created by Respondent. PCA Case No Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 12 of 71
16 Nevertheless, in order to avoid an issue, the Ballantines would agree that any alleged business records from file can be treated initially as attorney s eyes only, meaning Baker & McKenzie personnel. We would reserve the right to make an application to the Tribunal to use the material and/or disclose it to the Ballantines themselves if appropriate. We would also be happy to discuss redaction of certain financial or personal information if appropriate. But PCA Case No Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 13 of 71
17 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 14 of 71 withholding the details of the permit application regarding the plan for the project and materials evaluating the project in the ministry is not appropriate given its relevance and materiality to this case. Lastly, the Ballantines commit not to disclose any such information produced or make any use thereof outside this arbitration as requested by Respondent. Commentary of the Ballantines: We understand that the files for each of the Projects would include, among other things, the following : solicitations of the terms of reference (request, preliminary analysis, project description, payment of environmental tax); terms of reference ( ToR ) (including technical visits and technical reports needed to generate ToR); environmental studies (including environmental impact statements); assessment by MMA of request (technical visits, ITR, minutes and report of Technical Evaluation Committee, issuance or denial of permit or license, reconsideration requests, and
18 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 15 of 71 responses, if any); approved site and technical information; communications between project proponent and MMA; project s chronological report.
19 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 16 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 5 Fines and supporting levied against the Projects (as defined above), as well as proof of payment of those fines by the Project proponents. Ballantines have submitted evidence and testimony about an arbitrary, discriminatory, and excessive fine levied against them. Respondent has asserted that it has fined other property owners, noting a fine that it asserts was made against the politically-connected was fined for building an entire project on the side of a mountain without any permit at all. Ballantines believe that this fine remains unpaid years later even though it was purportedly levied. Tribunal should be made aware of what other fines, if any, were levied on land owners for building entire projects without permits or for other violations of enviromental laws, as well as whether those fines were actually paid. As such, these relating to fines are relevant and material to the Ballantines claims and Respondent s defense. Republic has no objection to providing copies of fines and supporting levied against the Projects identified in request no. 4 above (except for, for the reasons explained in request no. 4 above), and proof of payment of such fines by Project proponents. However, the Ballantines understanding of the information contained in such (as indicated in its We look forward to the production of the agreed but request that all in the request be produced. We reiterate our relevancy arguments for i.e., the fact that the Ballantines did not mention this project as a comparator in the Statement of Claim does not mean that the project is not relevant. Respondent contended for the first time in Tribunal takes note of the Respondent s conformity to produce pertaining to those projects which have not been objected. remainder of the request is granted partially. production will include information pertaining to in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Procedural Order No. 1 and Art. 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules. Parties are requested to agree on a process to protect any confidential information contained in the files, which is consistent with the process provided in Article 10.21(4) of the CAFTA-DR.
20 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 17 of 71 commentary below) is not necessarily accurate. the Statement of Defense that altitude of the project was a factor, despite the lack of support for that in the law. This means that is certainly relevant as it has altitudes exceeding Jamaca. file will show, among other things, how Respondent considered the altitude of the project, if it all. We note that Respondent s basis for refusing to provide information on project files for El Tribunal toma nota de la conformidad de la Demandada para entregar documentos concernientes a aquellos proyectos que no han sido objetados. El resto de la solicitud se concede parcialmente. La entrega incluirá información concerniente a pero no de conformidad con las secciones 6.2 y 6.3 de la Orden Procesal No. 1 y el artículo 22 del Reglamento CNUDMI. Se solicita a las Partes que convengan en un proceso para proteger cualquier información confidencial que se encuentre en los archivos que sea conforme a los procedimientos establecidos en el artículo del DR-CAFTA. based a was
21 resolution and purported confidentiality because the Ministry was considering a permit. But what does this have to do with fines levied and/or paid by? se fines and payments have nothing to do with the material submitted for an environmental permit. In addition, the June 2017 Resolution discusses business material provided by the project proponent. Here, we are seeking fines issued by the Ministry. Such PCA Case No Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 18 of 71
22 information is not confidential simply because an entity is allegedly seeking a permit. Thus, Respondent has provided no basis to refuse to produce regarding fines and payments for and such should be produced. PCA Case No Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 19 of 71 Commentary of the Ballantines: This supporting material should include: report of infringement (inspection report, technical support, photos or other evidence); resolution of fine; reconsideration requests and final resolutions; new evaluations; and minutes of meetings discussing the fines.
23 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 20 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 6 Inspection reports (or similar ) for each of the Projects (as defined above) Ballantines have asserted that they were discriminated against as a result of inspections against their project, relating to the manner of these inspections and related issues. Respondent has asserted that it inspections are part of the ordinary course for Respondent and that the Ballantines were not treated any differently than other projects. se inspection reports will show the frequency and results of inspections conducted on the -owned Projects compared to the inspections conducted at Jamaca de Dios. As such, these inspection reports are relevant and material to the Ballantines claims and Respondent s defense. Republic has no objection to providing the inspection reports that may exist for the Projects defined above, (except for, for the reasons explained in request no. 4 above). We look forward to the production of the agreed but request that all in the request be produced. We have explained the relevancy of in reply to Request nos. 4 and 5. With respect to, we note that Respondent relied on a June 2017 resolution and general confidentiality to assert that the file requesting a permit should Tribunal takes note of the Respondent s conformity to produce pertaining to those projects which have not been objected. remainder of the request is granted partially. production will include information pertaining to but not in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Procedural Order No. 1 and Art. 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules. Parties are requested to agree on a process to protect any confidential information contained in the files, which is consistent with the process provided in Article 10.21(4) of the CAFTA-DR.
24 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 21 of 71 not be produced. But, again, such a resolution has nothing to do with inspection reports by the Ministry. se reports are based on site visits and evaluations done by the Ministry. This is separate from allegedly confidential information submitted by an applicant. Respondent s own inspection of a project is not the type of material contemplated by Respondent s June 2017 resolution as this is not business information related to the project. As such, these inspection reports should be produced. El Tribunal toma nota de la conformidad de la Demandada para entregar documentos concernientes a aquellos proyectos que no han sido objetados. El resto de la solicitud se concede parcialmente. La entrega incluirá información concerniente a pero no a de conformidad con las secciones 6.2 y 6.3 de la Orden Procesal No. 1 y el artículo 22 del Reglamento CNUDMI. Se solicita a las Partes que convengan en un proceso para proteger cualquier información confidencial que se encuentre en los archivos que sea conforme a los procedimientos establecidos en el artículo del DR-CAFTA.
25 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 22 of 71 Commentary:
26 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 23 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 7 Requests for and issuance of No Objection letters by the municipalities for each of the Projects (as defined above) Ballantines have asserted (and Respondent has agreed) that a No Objection letter from the municipality is required for each project. Ballantines have asserted (and Respondent does not deny) that some projects did not even have MMA permits. Respondent has offered no documentary evidence with regard to other projects obtaining No Objection letters. requests for these no objection letters, the speed with which the municipalities issued the no objection letters, and whether in fact certain projects even have them, are relevant and material to this dispute. Republic has no objection to providing copies of any No objection letters issued by municipal authorities for those projects mentioned under request no. 4 (except for and, for the reasons explained in request no. 4 above). We look forward to the production of the agreed but request that all in the request be produced. We have explained the relevancy of in reply to Request nos. 4 and 5. With respect to, Respondent s objection makes no sense given its explanation for objecting in its response to Request No. 4. In that response, Respondent pointed to a June Tribunal takes note of the Respondent s conformity to produce pertaining to those projects which have not been objected. remainder of the request is granted partially. production will include information pertaining to but not in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Procedural Order No. 1 and Art. 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules. Parties are requested to agree on a process to protect any confidential information contained in the files, which is consistent with the process provided in Article 10.21(4) of the CAFTA-DR.
27 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 24 of 71 Commentary: 2017 Resolution that talked about information submitted by the project proponent with the sole purpose of procuring environmental authorizations or services provided by this Ministry. Here, these requests would have been made to the municipality, not the Ministry. In addition, a no objection letter issued by the municipality would certainly not be confidential data provided by a project proponent. As such, this material should be provided. El Tribunal toma nota de la conformidad de la Demandada para entregar documentos concernientes a aquellos proyectos que no han sido objetados. El resto de la solicitud se concede parcialmente. La entrega incluirá información concerniente a pero no a de conformidad con las secciones 6.2 y 6.3 de la Orden Procesal No. 1 y el artículo 22 del Reglamento CNUDMI. Se solicita a las Partes que convengan en un proceso para proteger cualquier información confidencial que se encuentre en los archivos que sea conforme a los procedimientos establecidos en el artículo del DR-CAFTA.
28 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 25 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 8 Request for a No Objection letter by the project to the municipality of Jarabacoa and the issuance of this No Objection letter. Ballantines have learned that another project in Jarabacoa,, obtained an extraordinarily speedy no objection letter from Jarabacoa while these officials would not even respond to requests from Jamaca de Dios for the same. Ballantines understand that is owned by a politically-connected. failure of Jarabacoa to issue a no objection letter for the construction of a mountain lodge while speedily granting other such letters is relevant and material to this dispute. Republic objects to the relevance and materiality of this request. This document request is the first time has been mentioned in this arbitration. Ballantines have not attempted to explain why the information about this project would be relevant for the case at hand. In addition, Resolution No dated 2 June 2017 provides that the files pertaining to projects of third parties are reserved and Respondent seems to take the view that anything not mentioned in the Statement of Claim cannot be relevant to the case. This is faulty reasoning. This proceeding is designed to be an exchange of arguments, facts, and assertions. A claimant cannot possibly anticipate in its Statement of Claim every argument or fact a Respondent will raise in its two later submissions. As a respondent submits facts or makes arguments, a claimant introduces new request is denied in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Procedural Order No. 1 and Art. 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules. It is also denied for lack of relevance. Se deniega la solicitud de conformidad con las secciones 6.2 y 6.3 de la Orden Procesal No. 1 y el artículo 22 del Reglamento CNUDMI. También se deniega por falta de relevancia.
29 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 26 of 71 confidential information 2. facts or arguments to support its claims and defenses. This is exactly what is happening here. Respondent has asserted that it did not discriminate regarding the timing it took with respect to the no objection letter that was never issued to the Ballantines. Ballantines understand that the no objection letter issued to by the same municipality was issued with 2 Resolution No dated 2 June 2017 classifies as reserved information data and contacts of third parties provided with the sole purpose of procuring environmental authorizations or services provided by this Ministry, pursuant to General Law No on Free Access to Public Information, article 17, paragraph (i), which provides as follows: Concerning commercial, industrial, scientific, or technical secrets, or reserved or
30 an alacrity unrecognized by the Ballantines. This makes such a request and issuance of the no objection letter relevant and material. We further note that the burden of producing this request and letter is quite minimal, especially as Respondent is already producing other such requests and letters. PCA Case No Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 27 of 71 Commentary: confidential industrial, or commercial information of third parties received by the government concerning a request for a permit, authorization or any other procedure, and submitted with that sole aim, and disclosure of which could lead to economic damages.
31 PCA Case No Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 28 of 71
32 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 29 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 9 Environmental Compliance Reports (defined in Statement of Defense by its Spanish acronym ICA ) submitted by any Project (as defined above) between 2010 to the present. Ballantines have asserted that they were treated differently from project owners because, among other reasons, the Ballantines were required to produce ICA Reports every six months, whereas other projects were not. Respondent has implied that all project owners are required to and do submit these reports. Respondent even submitted a document purporting to show a landowner who was fined for not submitting an ICA Report. This fine was levied in 2017 against a gas station. Respondent s implied assertion that Project owners were submitting ICA Reports is dubious as it is unlikely that was submitting ICA Reports when it operated for years without a permit. And Respondent has submitted no evidence to support its implied assertion that any of these entities in fact did submit ICA Reports. Whether these Projects were in fact required to submit ICA Reports is relevant and material to the Ballantines claims and Respondent s defenses. Republic has no objection to providing the ICAs submitted by the projects defined above, (except for and, for the reasons explained in request no. 4 above). We look forward to the production of the agreed but request that all in the request be produced. We reiterate our arguments on the relevance and materiality of these as set out in our replies to request nos. to 4 to 8 i.e., the fact that is not mentioned in the Statement of Defense is not at all determinative of its relevance and materiality. With respect to Tribunal takes note of the Respondent s conformity to produce pertaining to those projects which have not been objected. remainder of the request is granted partially. production will include information pertaining to but not in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Procedural Order No. 1 and Art. 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules. Parties are requested to agree on a process to protect any confidential information contained in the files, which is consistent with the process provided in Article 10.21(4) of the CAFTA- DR.
33 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 30 of 71 Respondent s arguments about confidentiality and its June 2017 Resolution, these arguments are not applicable to this request. We understand that these ICA Reports are produced periodically by permitted projects. This means that any restrictions about business submitted by a project proponent seeking a permit are outside of these ICA Reports. As such, the Respondent should produce these. El Tribunal toma nota de la conformidad de la Demandada para entregar documentos concernientes a aquellos proyectos que no han sido objetados. El resto de la solicitud se concede parcialmente. La entrega incluirá información concerniente a pero no a de conformidad con las secciones 6.2 y 6.3 de la Orden Procesal No. 1 y el artículo 22 del Reglamento CNUDMI. Se solicita a las Partes que convengan en un proceso para proteger cualquier información confidencial que se encuentre en los archivos que sea conforme a los procedimientos establecidos en el artículo del DR-CAFTA.
34 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 31 of 71 Commentary:
35 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 32 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 10 Slope calculations performed by MMA at any time on any Project (as defined above). issue regarding slopes lies at the heart of this dispute. Respondent has simply denied that it treated the Ballantines differently with regard to the slope issue, but has not provided any relevant evidence about the Ballantines claims of disparate treatment. Projects that the Ballantines have identified as comparators are mountain projects, meaning that all of them are likely to be built or have been built on property that includes areas in which slopes exceed 60%. Whether these Projects are approved (or simply built) on property that contains slopes in excess of 60%, while the Ballantines have been entirely denied any right to build at all on their land because a small portion of that land purportedly has slopes in excess of 60%, is of central relevance and materiality to the claims before the Tribunal. Respondent purports to have measured slopes on the Ballantines Phase 2 property, but has provided no evidence that it has measured slopes on any other Projects. Importantly, these Projects are built Republic objects to the relevance of this request. Republic has already provided its slope calculations regarding the following projects: Jamaca de Dios I, Jamaca de Dios II, See Witness Statement of Engineer Zacarias Navarro, p. 27 and Annex B of that Statement. Anne x B provides details concerning Respondent attempts to obfuscate the issue here. calculation of slopes by Zacarias Navarro for purposes of this arbitration have been presented in his report, but the Ballantines seek contemporaneo us measurements taken by the MMA with its evaluation of these projects and their requests for permits. If the MMA did not take any such measurements at any of these projects, Respondent should be forced Granted partially. production will include the contemporaneous measurements taken by the MMA on any Project, including the information pertaining to but not in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Procedural Order No. 1. and Art. 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules. Parties are requested to agree on a process to protect any confidential information contained in the files, which is consistent with the process provided in Article 10.21(4) of the CAFTA- DR. Concedida parcialmente. La entrega incluirá las medidas contemporáneas
36 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 33 of 71 on private property and the Ballantines may not be able to obtain access to determine slope percentages for these projects. It is therefore important for Respondent to provide its slope calculations, if any, for these projects. the concentration and slope range of the area comprised within each of the aforementioned projects. slope calculations for and have not been provided, since those projects do not appear relevant to the case at hand (and in fact the was not even mentioned in any of Claimants pleadings. Moreover, information regarding the project continues to be confidential because the relevant to disclose that. If it did take slope measurements, it should disclose those, as the MMA s denial of the Ballantines request to expand based upon the putative slopes of Phase 2 appears to be a singular event in the history of the MMA. This is extremely relevant and material. If Respondent granted permits for these projects despite having determined that the projects included slopes in excess of 60%, this would call into tomadas por el MMA en los Proyectos, incluida la información concerniente a pero no a de conformidad con las secciones 6.2 y 6.3 de la Orden Procesal No. 1 y el artículo 22 del Reglamento de la CNUDMI. Se solicita a las Partes que convengan en un proceso para proteger cualquier información confidencial que se encuentre en los archivos que sea conforme a los procedimientos establecidos en el artículo del DR-CAFTA.
37 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 34 of 71 environmental permit request is still under consideration by the MMA. In addition, Resolution No dated 2 une 2017 provides that the files pertaining to projects of third parties are reserved and confidential information. 3 question the Respondent s entire defense here. Lastly, we note that Respondent has (apparently) for the first time in this particular response asserted that is not relevant, even though Respondent admits that it is mentioned in the Amended Statement of Claim. Respondent does not provide a basis to assert that is not 3 Resolution No dated 2 June 2017 classifies as reserved information data and contacts of third parties provided with the sole purpose of procuring environmental authorizations or services provided by this Ministry, pursuant to General Law No on Free Access to Public Information, article 17, paragraph (i), which provides as follows: Concerning commercial, industrial, scientific, or technical secrets, or reserved or confidential industrial, or commercial information of third parties received by the government concerning a request for a permit, authorization or any other procedure, and submitted with that sole aim, and disclosure of which could lead to economic damages.
38 relevant. But, in any event, it certainly is relevant and material. is a mountain resort / housing project quite similar to the Jamaca de Dios. can be seen from both the City of Jarabacoa. Both Jamaca de PCA Case No Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 35 of 71 have elevations gains between meters and have comparable terrain, and geology. It is comparable both in terms of its location and its operations. As such,
39 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 36 of 71 Commentary: Respondent should produce these.
40 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 37 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 11 Permits from the Department of Tourism for any Project (as defined above). Such a permit is required for any project and there is no evidence that any of the Projects were required to obtain such a permit, despite Respondent s assertions that these Projects had correct permitting. Respondent has allowed (and continues to allow) certain projects to operate in National Parks after their creation. Whether these -owned projects have tourism permits, or are otherwise allowed to operate without them, is relevant and material to the discriminatory and unfair treatment by Respondent against the Ballantines. Republic has no objection to providing copies of the permits from the Department of Tourism concerning the projects identified in request for No. 4 above (except for, for the reasons explained in request for No. 4 above). We look forward to the production of the agreed but request that all in the request be produced. We reiterate our arguments above regarding the relevance and materiality of and With respect to Respondent s reliance on its June 2017 resolution and assertions about confidential business information, we note that such. Tribunal takes note of the Respondent s conformity to produce pertaining to those projects which have not been objected. remainder of the request is granted partially. production will include information pertaining to but not in accordance with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Procedural Order No. 1 and Art. 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules. Parties are requested to agree on a process to protect any confidential information contained in the files, which is consistent with the process provided in Article 10.21(4) of the CAFTA- DR.
41 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 38 of 71 Commentary: objections are not applicable here. We seek permits from the Department of Tourism, not from the Ministry of the Environment. June 2017 Resolution has nothing to do with the Department of Tourism. Moreover, permits from the Ministry of Tourism would not contain confidential business information submitted by a project proponent. As such, they should be produced. El Tribunal toma nota de la conformidad de la Demandada para entregar documentos concernientes a aquellos proyectos que no han sido objetados. El resto de la solicitud se concede parcialmente. La entrega incluirá información concerniente a pero no a de conformidad con las secciones 6.2 y 6.3 de la Orden Procesal No. 1 y el artículo 22 del Reglamento CNUDMI. Se solicita a las Partes que convengan en un proceso para proteger cualquier información confidencial que se encuentre en los archivos que sea conforme a los procedimientos establecidos en el artículo del DR-CAFTA.
42 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 39 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 12 Communications to and from Respondent, on the one hand, and officials, on the other hand, with respect to any permit requests and responses, any reconsideration requests and responses, and any proposed developmental maps and plans. Commentary: Respondent has asserted repeatedly that and Jamaca de Dios are comparable projects in very meaningful respects. Respondent has asserted that it has denied a permit for its work and then reconfirmed that denial. Documents submitted by the Ballantines call into question that assertion as Respondent admitted to still considering the permit after it asserts to the Tribunal that it denied the request. As Respondent asserts that is the most comparable, the issue of whether Respondent has actually denied the permit and the communications regarding this permit request and relevant and material to the dispute. Republic objects to this request because it is repetitive. This request is already subsumed within request for No. 4 above, to which the Republic has not objected with respect to Ballantines do not seek an order with respect to this request Respondent has agreed to produce the. Ballantines look forward to the production of responsive material. Tribunal takes note. El Tribunal toma nota.
43 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 40 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 13 Applications for permits to MMA from any development project (whether housing, resort, manufacturing, commercial, or otherwise) within a Category 2 Protected Area within the Republic after August 9, 2009 and the MMA s acceptance or rejection of any such permit applications. Respondent has asserted that Category 2 Protected Areas have very limited uses as defined by its Law No Respondent denied a permit to Jamaca de Dios for development activity based on its assertion that the land was located in a Category 2 Protected Area. Whether Respondent has granted projects for development activities in these protected areas are relevant and material to this dispute. Republic objects to the materiality and relevance of this request. characteristics and nature of the projects in Jamaca de Dios render immaterial and irrelevant projects on manufacturing, commercial, or otherwise. re is no justification at all for requesting the full universe of permits in Category 2 environmentally protected areas that the MMA has received during the last 8 years, and the MMA s replies to those requests. In addition, the request is overly We note that this Request, unlike many of Respondent s requests, does not ask for referencing or discussing the applications for permits. Ballantines are simply requesting the applications and denials or approvals from the MMA. Such are certainly relevant and material to the dispute. Respondent made all manner of assertions in its Statement of Defense about the limited activities that Granted partially. Respondent will only produce the applications of the projects that were granted permission in the mentioned areas, including the corresponding permit. Concedida parcialmente. La Demandada solo entregará las solicitudes de los proyectos a los que se otorgó un permiso en las áreas mencionadas, incluirá también los respectivos permisos.
44 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 41 of 71 broad, administratively onerous, and not readily available. MMA has estimated that providing such information would require a 10-person team of MMA officials dedicated fulltime to document review and site visits for approximately two months. Requests for should ask for specific and relevant information; they should not be fishing expeditions. purportedly can occur in Category 2 Protected Areas. Ballantines have demonstrated the disparate treatment they have encountered with regard to its project. Respondent should produce with regard to what it has permitted in Category 2 Protected Areas. Ballantines are willing to compromise on this Request. Rather than seeking all applications and denials/approval s for these projects, the Ballantines will accept the applications of
45 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 42 of 71 Commentary: the projects that were granted permission in these areas, including the corresponding permit. Given what Respondent asserts is the very limited activities that are allowed in these areas, this should be relatively simple for Respondent to provide. We will not seek the applications for the projects in these areas that were denied a permit.
46 Annex 1 to Procedural Order No. 5 Page 43 of 71 Description of Document Relevance and Materiality Response Reply Tribunal s Order 14 attached picture includes three arrows pointing to roads neighboring Jamaca de Dios. Ballantines request the applications for permission and permits granted, if any, for these three roads, and all technical studies evaluating slope percentages and other considerations for these three roads. We understand that these three roads are Respondent has admitted that the neighboring has meaningful similarities to Jamaca de Dios. land adjacent to Jamaca on the other likewise has similar terrain. Roads were built on both sides of Jamaca de Dios through similarly sloped terrain with similar environmental conditions. Whether Respondent granted permits for those roads, or just acquiesced to those roads being built, is relevant and material to whether the Ballantines were required to obtain permits and/or denied permits for road projects in the same conditions. DR objects to this request because it lacks sufficient specificity to enable the Republic to identify the roads for which the Ballantines are requesting information. Ballantines request provides a map of a few inches which can be barely read. Without the georeferences of the roads and the names of the relevant projects, it would not be possible to provide the requested information. Once the Ballantines have identified the relevant roads following are what we understand to be the GPS coordinates of the three roads, as well as the names of the projects and/or roads: Finally, we have included a larger map as an request is granted. Se concede la solicitud.
CONSEJO DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA. Bruselas, 19 de mayo de 2010 (26.05) (OR. en) 10013/10 Expediente interinstitucional: 2010/0801 (COD)
CONSEJO DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA Bruselas, 19 de mayo de 2010 (26.05) (OR. en) 10013/10 Expediente interinstitucional: 2010/0801 (COD) DROIPEN 51 COPEN 123 CODEC 459 INFORME De: Presidencia A: COREPER Asunto:
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. ACP Axos Capital GmbH. Republic of Kosovo PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 3
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES ACP Axos Capital GmbH v. Republic of Kosovo PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 3 Members of the Tribunal Mr. Philippe Pinsolle, President of the Tribunal Dr.
Legal Remedies for Human Trafficking in Ecuadorian Law and Public Policy
Legal Remedies for Human Trafficking in Ecuadorian Law and Public Policy Johanna Villegas STUDENT WORKING PAPER UNIVERSITY of NOTRE DAME THE CENTER for CIVIL and HUMAN RIGHTS This paper was prepared for
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SELF-HELP CENTER CIVIL COMPLAINT BREACH OF CONTRACT. Self Help Center Loca ons:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SELF-HELP CENTER www.occourts.org CIVIL COMPLAINT BREACH OF CONTRACT All documents must be typed or printed neatly. Please use black ink. Self Help Center
ANNEX A Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40)
ANNEX A Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case ARB/12/14 and 12/40) Respondent s to Produce s from the EKCP Archive of Rudy Endang Kurniawan s or of s ed 1.
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l.
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30) DECISION
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE REPUBLIC OF EL SALVADOR'S REPLY OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES Pac Rim Cayman LLC Claimant, v. The Republic of El Salvador Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12 THE REPUBLIC OF EL SALVADOR'S
Office of Utilities Regulation. Harmonisation of Mobile RIOs. Determination Notice
Determination Notice DOCUMENT TITLE AND APPROVAL PAGE DOCUMENT NUMBER: 2013/TEL/003/DET.002 DOCUMENT TITLE: PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT This document contains the decisions of the (OUR) regarding the harmonisation
US-CHINA LAW REVIEW. VOL. 12 October 2015 NO. 10 THE ONE-YEAR TRIAL PERIOD IN SPANISH PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS: A NEW KIND OF ATYPICAL WORK?
US-CHINA LAW REVIEW VOL. 12 October 2015 NO. 10 THE ONE-YEAR TRIAL PERIOD IN SPANISH PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS: A NEW KIND OF ATYPICAL WORK? Icíar Alzaga Ruiz The rise of atypical workers, such as
(ICSID Case Nos. ARB/10/11 and ARB/10/18) Procedural Order No 16. (Concerning the Respondents Request for Reconsideration of 30 June 2016)
(Concerning the Respondents Request for Reconsideration of 30 June 2016) Following the Tribunals Third Decision on the Payment Claim of 26 May 2016 and other decisions on pending matters, the Tribunals