Magnifier Search

Feldman v. Mexico

Type of decisionAward
Date of decision16 December 2002
Tribunal
Konstantinos D. Kerameus (President)
David A. Gantz
Jorge Covarrubias Bravo (dissenting)
Legal instrumentNorth American Free Trade Agreement
Related decision(s)Interim Decision on Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues, 6 December 2000
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
The exhaustion of local remedies rule of customary international law may be altered by treaty
There may be cases in which a state is estopped from resorting to a limitation defence, for example after an acknowledgment of the claim under dispute by the competent organ in the form prescribed by law or after a long, uniform, consistent, and effective behaviour of the state organs recognizing at least the existence of the claim
Remarks regarding possibility of suspension of time periods as a general principle
Regulations can constitute an indirect expropriation
General remarks regarding the conflict of regulatory interests by the state and protection of investors
Protection against indirect expropriation includes protection against creeping expropriation
Business problems caused by the states’ normal exercise of regulatory power do not necessarily amount to an expropriation
“Indirect expropriation” and “measure tantamount to expropriation” are functionally equivalent
A tribunal has to distinguish between whether an expropriatory action took place and the requirements imposed on such actions by the treaty
The concept of discrimination requires distinctions between foreign and domestic investors in like circumstances to be unreasonable
The exhaustion of local remedies rule of customary international law may be altered in any way by IIT
Despite the waiver, the claimant may continue to pursue local remedies inasmuch as they concern the question of whether the state measure was in compliance with local law
General remarks regarding shift of burden of proof and prima facie evidence
Lack of transparency alone does not constitute a violation of NAFTA
Article 1102 NAFTA does not require a claimant to demonstrate explicitly that a distinction is a result of the his or her foreign nationality
The concept of discrimination requires distinctions between foreign and domestic investors in like circumstances, and for those distinctions to be unreasonable
Generally, Article 1105 NAFTA is not applicable in tax cases, but it may be relevant due to the cross-reference in Article 1110(1)(c) NAFTA
Generally, Article 1105 NAFTA is not applicable in tax cases, but it may be relevant due to the cross-reference in Article 1110(1)(c) NAFTA
A tribunal must distinguish between the question whether there an expropriatory action took place and the requirements imposed on such actions by the treaty
General remarks regarding the conflict of regulatory interests by the state and protection of investors
Protection against indirect expropriation includes protection against creeping expropriations
Regulations can constitute an indirect expropriation
Tax regulations can constitute an expropriation within the meaning of Article 1110 NAFTA
Business problems caused by the state’s normal exercise of regulatory power do not necessarily amount to an expropriation
“Indirect expropriation” and “measure tantamount to expropriation” are functionally equivalent
A tribunal must distinguish between the question whether an expropriatory action took place and the requirements imposed on such actions by the treaty
The purely declaratory character of the relief sought by the claimant is not necessarily inconsistent with Article 1116(1) and Article 1117(1) NAFTA
Article 1117(2) NAFTA does not permit a suspension of the limitation period
There may be cases in which a state is estopped from resorting to the limitation defence, for example, after an acknowledgment of the claim under dispute by the competent organ in the form prescribed by law or after a long, uniform, consistent, and effective behaviour of the state organs recognizing at least the existence of the claim
Articles 1121(2) and (3) NAFTA derogate from the exhaustion of local remedies rule of customary international law and, therefore, must be regarded as a special rule on the relationship between domestic and international judicial proceedings
Despite the waiver, the claimant may continue to pursue local remedies inasmuch as they concern the question of whether the state measure was in compliance with local law
Tax regulations can constitute an expropriation within the meaning of Article 1110 NAFTA
Generally, Article 1105 NAFTA is not applicable in tax cases, but it may be relevant in such cases due to the cross-reference in Article 1110(1)(c) NAFTA

Feedback

Above you will find 29 statement(s) from this decision. Please note that when viewing the statements in their context, the same statement may appear multiple times if it is relevant for more than one topic. Did we miss something? Feel free to send us your suggestions!