magistrsko diplomsko delo
Povzetek
Tuj investitor, ki meni, da mu je država gostiteljica investicije kršila njegove pravice iz
investicijskega sporazuma lahko nasproti njej uveljavlja pravno varstvo pred mednarodno
investicijsko arbitražo. Tudi invesitorji, ki so v finančno slabem položaju ali celo insolventni,
lahko to storijo s pomočjo tretjih oseb (financerjev), ki so pripravljene financirati njihovo
tožbo ( TPF ). Z vidika tožene države je taka praksa problematična v primeru, da od
financiranega investitorja ob koncu postopka ne dobi povrnjenih stroškov. V primeru, ko
država v sporu uspe je običajno upravična, da je investitor povrne njene stroške postopka. V
kolikor ima tožena država nasproti investitorja z nezadostnimi sredstvi, katerega tožbo
financira tretja oseba, pa obstaja tveganje, da stroškov ne dobi povrnjenih, saj investitor sam
nima sredstev, financerjem pa običajno ni v interesu da se obvežejo kriti tudi stroške države,
v kolikor bi ta v sporu uspela. Država si lahko povrnitev stroškov zavaruje tako, da od
investitorja zahteva plačilo varščine za stroške. Pri tem pa se pojavita dva problema, ki bosta
analizirana v nadaljevanju. Prvič, država ne ve da investitorjevo tožbo financira tretja oseba
in zato od arbitražnega senata ne zahteva odreditve varščine za stroške. Drugič, država mora
izkazati, da so izpolnjeni pogoji, ki utemeljujejo naložitev varščine. Slednje pomeni, da mora
dokazati predvsem tveganje, da ji investitor ne bo zmožen povrniti njenih stroškov postopka.
Obenem so investicijski arbitražni senati pri odrejanju varščine precej zadržani in jo naložijo
le v izjemnih okoliščinah. Okoliščina, da investitorjevo tožbo financira tretja oseba lahko
pomeni, da investitor sam nima zadostnih sredstev ter posledično tveganje, da bo državi
nezmožen povrniti stroške. Vendar pa se vse pogosteje za pridobitev zunanjega financiranja
tožbe, iz drugih razlogov kot potrebe, odločijo tudi finančno zdrava podjetja, ki bi bila
zmožna povrnitve stroškov. V nadaljevanju bo analizirano, kakšen pomen so okoliščini TPF
pri odrejanju varščine za stroške pripisali investicijski arbitražni senati in teoretiki, ter kakšne
spremembe napovedujejo predlogi sprememb ICSID arbitražnih pravil.
Ključne besede
financiranje tožbe s strani tretje osebe;varščina za stroške;cautio iudicatum solvi;ICSID;investicijska arbitraža;magistrske diplomske naloge;
Podatki
Jezik: |
Slovenski jezik |
Leto izida: |
2019 |
Tipologija: |
2.09 - Magistrsko delo |
Organizacija: |
UL PF - Pravna fakulteta |
Založnik: |
[A. Gabrovšek] |
UDK: |
347(043.2) |
COBISS: |
16981073
|
Št. ogledov: |
864 |
Št. prenosov: |
202 |
Ocena: |
0 (0 glasov) |
Metapodatki: |
|
Ostali podatki
Sekundarni jezik: |
Angleški jezik |
Sekundarni naslov: |
Effect of third-party funding on security for costs applications in international investment arbitration |
Sekundarni povzetek: |
In international investment arbitration context foreign investors usually bring a claim against
the state that hosts the investment, challenging the state's actions that have allegedly
undermined its investment. I mpecunious or insolvent investors, which want to pursue a claim
against the state, might turn to third parties asking to fund the cost and expenses of their
claim. From the respondent’s state perspective, one of the issues is the risk that even if it
prevails on the merits and is therefore a warded reimbursement of their costs, it will not be
able to enforce such cost awards against the investors. Impecunious investors, funded by a
third party lack sufficient assets and third-party funder usually do not agree to cover adverse
costs award against the investor. To avoid a situation in which the prevailing state is unable
to recover its costs, state might seek security for costs. If ordered, investor has to pay an
amount into an escrow account or provide some other form of security out of which state can
later satisfy its costs. There are two concerns with security for costs applications against
funded investors, which are dealt with in this thesis. First, that states are not aware of the fact
that the investor is funded and consequently don’t apply for security for costs. In this regard
trends towards broader obligations to disclose might help tackle the mentioned concern.
Second, a state has to establish that conditions for ordering security for costs are met, which
mainly means to prove that claimant will not be able to recover states’ costs if it prevails on
the merits. Investment tribunals were in the past sceptical about ordering security and had
only rarely granted it. The fact that an investor is funded might mean that it is without funds
and will therefore not be able to cover states’ costs, however this is not necessarily correct, as
even financially stable companies are increasingly seeking third party funding for other
reasons. In the following it will be analysed how investment tribunals approached TPF in
investment arbitration when ordering security for costs |
Sekundarne ključne besede: |
third-party funding;security for costs;investment arbitration; |
Vrsta dela (COBISS): |
Magistrsko delo/naloga |
Študijski program: |
0 |
Konec prepovedi (OpenAIRE): |
1970-01-01 |
Komentar na gradivo: |
Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak. |
Strani: |
45 f. |
ID: |
11237279 |