Abstract
This chapter explores the use of evidence obtained by states in investment arbitration. In particular, it examines whether a state may use information it obtains through special powers of supervision, investigation and seizure granted to the antitrust agency, to defend itself against an investor’s claim in an investment arbitration. The chapter finds that such use of a state’s special powers constitutes a misuse of power under domestic law and a violation of due process in investment arbitration. Further, the treatment of a state as a single body for the purpose of establishing standing for international claims, does not entitle the state to blur domestic divisions of state powers to allow a special power to be used in a way that would contradict its intended purpose under domestic law. States should use the proper procedure for obtaining documents in an international arbitration: document production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
One can imagine certain variations to this fact pattern that will give rise to the same question, i.e. the antitrust state agency conducts its investigation and seizes documents once the arbitration has started.
- 2.
https://www.cnmc.es. All websites included in the Chapter were last accessed on 4 May 2019.
- 3.
Article 1(2) of Law 3/2013, on the creation of the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia: “La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia tiene por objeto garantizar, preservar y promover el correcto funcionamiento, la transparencia y la existencia de una competencia efectiva y de una regulación eficiente en todos los mercados y sectores productivos, en beneficio de los consumidores y usuarios”.
- 4.
Articles 27, 28 and 29 of Law 3/2013, on the creation of the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia:
Artículo 27 Facultades de inspección
-
1.
El personal funcionario de carrera de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, debidamente autorizado por el director correspondiente, tendrá la condición de agente de la autoridad y podrá realizar cuantas inspecciones sean necesarias en las empresas y asociaciones de empresas para la debida aplicación de esta Ley.
-
2.
El personal habilitado a tal fin tendrá las siguientes facultades de inspección:
-
a)
Acceder a cualquier local, instalación, terreno y medio de transporte de las empresas y asociaciones de empresas y al domicilio particular de los empresarios, administradores y otros miembros del personal de las empresas. Asimismo podrán controlar los elementos afectos a los servicios o actividades que los operadores o quienes realicen las actividades a las que se refiere esta Ley, de las redes que instalen o exploten y de cuantos documentos están obligados a poseer o conservar.
-
b)
Verificar los libros, registros y otros documentos relativos a la actividad de que se trate, cualquiera que sea su soporte material, incluidos los programas informáticos y los archivos magnéticos, ópticos o de cualquier otra clase.
-
c)
Hacer u obtener copias o extractos, en cualquier formato, de dichos libros o documentos.
-
d)
Retener por un plazo máximo de diez días los libros o documentos mencionados en la letra b).
-
e)
Precintar todos los locales, libros o documentos y demás bienes de la empresa durante el tiempo y en la medida en que sea necesario para la inspección.
-
f)
Solicitar a cualquier representante o miembro del personal de la empresa o de la asociación de empresas explicaciones sobre hechos o documentos relacionados con el objeto y la finalidad de la inspección y guardar constancia de sus respuestas […].
-
a)
Artículo 28 Requerimientos de información, deber de secreto y acceso a los registros estatales
-
1.
Toda persona física o jurídica y los órganos y organismos de cualquier Administración Pública quedan sujetos al deber de colaboración con la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia en el ejercicio de la protección de la libre competencia y están obligados a proporcionar, a requerimiento de ésta y en plazo, toda clase de datos e informaciones de que dispongan y que puedan resultar necesarias para el desarrollo de las funciones de dicha Comisión […].
Artículo 29 Potestad sancionadora
-
1.
La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia ejercerá la potestad de inspección y sanción […]. Martinez Sánchez and Rodríguez Ordóñez (2015), pp, 293–303.
-
1.
- 5.
Article 6 of the Law 3/2013, on the creation of the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia: “Los datos e informaciones obtenidos sólo podrán ser utilizados por la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia para las finalidades previstas en esta Ley y en la Ley 15/2007, de 3 de julio”. Also Guerra Fernández and Vélez Fraga (2013), pp. 33–34. Guillén Caramés (2015), pp. 41–89.
- 6.
- 7.
Similar to what occurs in Spain, some antitrust competencies are regulated at the EU level.
- 8.
Article L450-1 of the French Code of Commerce: “I.-Les agents des services d’instruction de l’Autorité de la concurrence habilités à cet effet par le rapporteur général peuvent procéder à toute enquête nécessaire à l’application des dispositions des titres II et III du présent livre. Ils peuvent également, pour l’application du titre VI du présent livre, mettre en œuvre les pouvoirs d’enquête définis à l’article L. 450-3. […]
II.-Des fonctionnaires habilités à cet effet par le ministre chargé de l’économie peuvent procéder aux enquêtes nécessaires à l’application des dispositions du présent libre […]”.
- 9.
Article L450-3 of the French Code of Commerce: “Les agents peuvent exiger la communication et obtenir ou prendre copie, par tout moyen et sur tout support, des livres, factures et autres documents professionnels de toute nature, entre quelques mains qu’ils se trouvent, propres à faciliter l’accomplissement de leur mission. Ils peuvent exiger la mise à leur disposition des moyens indispensables pour effectuer leurs vérifications. Ils peuvent également recueillir, sur place ou sur convocation, tout renseignement, document ou toute justification nécessaire au contrôle”. Nicinski (2009), pp. 1237–1247. Laigneau (2013), repère 2.
- 10.
Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, complete text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019L0001&from=EN#d1e633-3-1.
- 11.
For an analysis on the limits of the European Commission’s requests for information see: González and Contreras (2016), pp. 331–338.
- 12.
Article 6 of the Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market.
- 13.
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (2017), Antitrust Laws and You, https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you.
- 14.
Section 45(a)(1)-(2) of the U.S. Code Title 15.
- 15.
Section 46(a) of the U.S. Code Title 15.
- 16.
Section 46(k)(1) of the U.S. Code Title 15: “Whenever the Commission obtains evidence that any person, partnership, or corporation, either domestic or foreign, has engaged in conduct that may constitute a violation of Federal criminal law, to transmit such evidence to the Attorney General, who may institute criminal proceedings under appropriate statutes. Nothing in this paragraph affects any other authority of the Commission to disclose information.”
- 17.
Section 6201 of the U.S. Code Title 15.
- 18.
Section 6202 of the U.S. Code Title 15.
- 19.
Article 2(E) of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia on Mutual Antitrust Enforcement Assistance.
- 20.
Section 6203(a) of the U.S. Code Title 15.
- 21.
Section 46(k)(2) of the U.S. Code Title 15: “The Commission shall endeavor to ensure, with respect to memoranda of understanding and international agreements it may conclude, that material it has obtained from foreign law enforcement agencies acting to investigate or pursue the enforcement of foreign criminal laws may be used for the purpose of investigation, prosecution, or prevention of violations of United States criminal laws.” (Emphasis added)
- 22.
- 23.
Section 155 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “[…] if the Commission, the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson has reason to believe that a person is capable of furnishing information, producing documents or giving evidence relating to a matter that constitutes, or may constitute, a contravention of this Act […] a member of the Commission may, by notice in writing served on that person, require that person: (a) to furnish to the Commission, by writing signed by that person or, in the case of a body corporate, by a competent officer of the body corporate, within the time and in the manner specified in the notice, any such information; (b) to produce to the Commission, or to a person specified in the notice acting on its behalf, in accordance with the notice, any such documents; or (c) to appear before the Commission, or before a member of the staff assisting the Commission who is an SES employee or an acting SES employee and who is specified in the notice, at a time and place specified in the notice to give any such evidence, either orally or in writing, and produce any such documents.”
- 24.
Section 154(E) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “(1) The inspector or an assistant may do any of the following after entering premises under this Division:
-
(a)
search the premises, and anything on the premises, for the evidential material;
-
(b)
make copies of the evidential material found on the premises;
-
(c)
operate electronic equipment at the premises to see whether the evidential material is accessible by doing so;
-
(d)
remove the evidential material from the premises with the consent of the owner of the material;
-
(e)
secure the evidential material, pending the obtaining of a search warrant to seize it;
-
(f)
take equipment and material onto the premises, and use it, for any of the above purposes”.
-
(a)
- 25.
Section 154F of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “(1) If: (a) an inspector or an assistant enters premises under this Division; and (b) he or she believes on reasonable grounds that any data accessed by operating electronic equipment at the premises (including data not held at the premises) might constitute evidential material; he or she may do only 1 of 2 things.
Removal of documents
(2) One thing he or she may do is operate the equipment or other facilities at the premises to put the data in documentary form and remove the documents so produced from the premises.
Removal of disk, tape or other storage device
(3) The other thing he or she may do is operate the equipment or other facilities at the premises to transfer the data to a disk, tape or other storage device that: (a) is brought to the premises for the exercise of the power; or (b) is at the premises and the use of which for the purpose has been agreed to in writing by the occupier of the premises; and remove the disk, tape or other storage device from the premises.”
- 26.
Section 154R of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
- 27.
Section 154L of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
- 28.
See for example, Section 154 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “This Part sets out an enforcement regime for the purposes of finding out whether there has been a contravention of this Act”, and Section 155 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “[I]f the Commission, the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson has reason to believe that a person is capable of furnishing information, producing documents or giving evidence relating to a matter that constitutes, or may constitute, a contravention of this Act […] a member of the Commission may, by notice in writing served on that person, require that person:
-
(a)
to furnish to the Commission, by writing signed by that person or, in the case of a body corporate, by a competent officer of the body corporate, within the time and in the manner specified in the notice, any such information;
-
(b)
to produce to the Commission, or to a person specified in the notice acting on its behalf, in accordance with the notice, any such documents […]
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the matter must be a matter that: (a) constitutes, or may constitute, a contravention of: (i) this Act […]”.
-
(a)
- 29.
- 30.
See examples cited in Sect. 2 above.
- 31.
- 32.
Hauriou (1921), p. 455. Aucoc (1878), pp. 197, 531. Laferriere (1896), p. 548. Décision - Ministre de l’agriculture c/ Dame Lamotte Accueil, 17 février 1950 (http://www.conseil-etat.fr/Decisions-Avis-Publications/Decisions/Les-decisions-les-plus-importantes-du-Conseil-d-Etat/17-fevrier-1950-Ministre-de-l-agriculture-c-Dame-Lamotte).
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
Conseil d’Etat, 25 février 1864, Lesbats, rec. p. 210.
- 36.
French Conseil d’Etat, session of 15 February 1864, Sirey, refont T 9, III, p. 46 cited in López Mendoza (2013), pp. 299–315.
- 37.
Municipal Statute of 8 March 1924 (Real Decreto Ley de 8 de marzo de 1924), which states in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Law “la actividad de los Ayuntamientos, si careciese de cauce y freno preventivos, cuando toca a los intereses particulares de contribuyentes, podría degenerar en peligrosa arbitrariedad, difícilmente subsanable a posteriori con recursos judiciales que a lo sumo corregirán el caso individual, nunca el error de principio o el absurdo técnico.”
- 38.
Article 70(2) of the Act 29/1998 of 13 July.
- 39.
López Mendoza (2013), pp. 313–315.
- 40.
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012/C 326/01).
- 41.
Coughlin (2001–2002), p. 92.
- 42.
Since the factual topic that inspires this article is fictional, the authors have been unable to find domestic jurisprudence with a similar factual pattern. However, the review of administrative acts based on a misuse of powers is well established also with regards to antitrust agencies. See for example the webpage of the CNMV where the agency makes available several judicial decisions dealing with a misuse of power by the agency: https://www.cnmv.es/portal/legislacion/LibroJurisprudencia/ArbolSentencias.aspx?id=2&page=440.
- 43.
- 44.
Cementownia “Nowa Huta” S.A. v. Turkey, ICSID Case ARB(AF)/06/2, Award (17 September 2009), para. 153.
- 45.
Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Turkey, ICSID Case ARB/06/8, Decision on Preliminary Issues (23 June 2008), para. 78.
- 46.
Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005), para. 54, Part II—Chapter I—p. 26.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
Appeals Chamber ICTY, Judgment of 15 July 1999, paras 51–52.
- 50.
Appeals ICTY, Judgment of 15 July 1999, para. 48, citing Kaufman v. Belgium, 50 DR 115.
- 51.
Appeals Chamber ICTY, Judgment of 15 July 1999, para. 48.
- 52.
Wälde (2010b), p. 1087.
- 53.
Wälde (2010b), p. 1087; Appeals Chamber ICTY, Judgment of 15 July 1999, paras 51–52.
- 54.
Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005), para. 54, Part II—Chapter I—p. 26.
- 55.
Article 9.2(g) of the IBA Rules.
- 56.
The IBA Rules were adopted by a resolution of the IBA Council on the 29 May 2010, are considered to be an “almost universally recognized […] international standard for and effective … document production regime”; Blackaby et al. (2009), para. 6.107.
- 57.
Foreword of IBA Rules, p. 2.
- 58.
Rule 34(1) of the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (the ICSID Arbitration Rules).
- 59.
Working Paper #2 was discussed at a meeting of State experts in Washington, DC on April 7–9, 2019. The Center hopes to propose a final text in the summer of 2019. The amendment process can be followed at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/amendments.
- 60.
The proposed text of the Rule is as follows: “Rule 2 General Duties (1) The parties shall conduct the proceeding and implement the Tribunal’s orders and decisions in good faith. (2) The Tribunal shall treat the parties equally and provide each party with a reasonable opportunity to present its case. (3) The Tribunal and the parties shall conduct the proceeding in an expeditious and cost-effective manner”.
- 61.
Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules—Working Paper # 1 Comment to Rule 11, paras 185–186, available here https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/III.Amendments_Vol_3_AR.pdf.
- 62.
Wälde (2010a), p. 163.
- 63.
Wälde (2010b), p. 1087.
- 64.
It should be noted that this conclusion is focused on the use of evidence obtained by a state’s antitrust agencies, but may additionally extend to other administrative agencies with similar special powers (such as, tax agencies or securities and exchange commissions). However, the authors have not included an analysis of the consequences of a state obtaining evidence through criminal proceedings, which has had a different treatment in ICSID jurisprudence, with most tribunals acknowledging that the state is free to conduct a criminal investigation and that evidence gathered therein may be of interest to the arbitral tribunal. The authors also clarify that documents and information obtained by the state during antitrust investigations that indicate behaviour which may constitute a criminal offence, should be handed over to the relevant authorities (Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Bolivia, ICSID Case ARB/06/2, Decision on Provisional Measures (26 February 2010), para. 123).
- 65.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, p. 2, para. 385; Articles 2 and 4 of the ILC Articles; Crawford (2006), p. 1; Hobér (2008), pp. 550 and 554; Momtaz (2010), p. 237; Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 216.
- 66.
Crawford (2006), p. 1.
- 67.
Commentary to Article 2 of the ILC Articles, p. 35, para. 5.
- 68.
- 69.
Commentary to Article 2 of the ILC Articles, p. 35, para. 6.
- 70.
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case ARB/97/3, Award (21 November 2011), para. 49 and references cited therein.
- 71.
Crawford (2012), p. 540.
- 72.
Crawford (2012), pp. 437–438.
- 73.
France and Mexico: Mixed Claims Commission (1929).
- 74.
Gertrude Parker Massey (USA) v. Mexico, RIAA iv. 155 (15 April 1927), p. 159, para. 18.
- 75.
Crawford (2012), pp. 437 and 445.
- 76.
Article I, Sections 8–10 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
- 77.
Article 1 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
- 78.
Article 61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
- 79.
Article 71 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
- 80.
Articles 5–19 of the French Constitution.
- 81.
Articles 20–23 of the French Constitution.
- 82.
Articles 24–33 of the French Constitution.
- 83.
Articles 64–66(1) of the French Constitution.
- 84.
- 85.
Article 4 of the ILC Articles; Crawford (2012), pp. 437–438; Gertrude Parker Massey (USA) v. Mexico, RIAA iv. 155 (15 April 1927), p. 159, para. 18.
- 86.
Commentary to Article 4 of the ILC Articles, p. 41, para. 9.
- 87.
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case ARB/97/3, Award (21 November 2011), para. 49 and references cited therein.
- 88.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963).
- 89.
LaGrand (Germany v. US), ICJ Reports (2001), pp. 446 and 514; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. US), ICJ Reports (2014), pp. 12 and 65–66.
- 90.
Article 4 of the ILC Articles; Commentary to Article 4 of the ILC Articles, pp. 40–42; Commentary to Article 2 of the ILC Articles, p. 35, paras 5–6; Hobér (2008), pp. 550, 554; Momtaz (2010), p. 237; Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 216; Crawford (2006), p. 1; Crawford (2012), pp. 437–439; Higgins (1995), p. 147; France and Mexico: Mixed Claims Commission (1929); Gertrude Parker Massey (USA) v. Mexico, RIAA iv. 155 (15 April 1927), p. 159, para. 18.
- 91.
Higgins (1995), p. 146.
- 92.
It is important to note that the situation can occur in the reverse. A claimant investor may request the production of documents in possession of the state obtained by virtue of the legitimate use of its anti-trust powers. However, the state may use its domestic administrative law as a defence for the production of the documents, based on the fact that it is not empowered to transfer documents obtained by one state agency to another. This can be rebutted by the claimant investor with the argument that the state is considered as a single body under international law, and therefore has an obligation to produce the documents.
- 93.
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, formulated in Washington, on March 18, 1965 (the ICSID Convention): “Article 43: Except as the parties otherwise agree, the Tribunal may, if it deems it necessary at any stage of the proceedings, (a) call upon the parties to produce documents or other evidence […]”.
- 94.
ICSID Arbitration Rules:
Rule 34 Evidence: General Principles
-
(1)
The Tribunal shall be the judge of the admissibility of any evidence adduced and of its probative value.
-
(2)
The Tribunal may, if it deems it necessary at any stage of the proceeding:
-
(a)
call upon the parties to produce documents, witnesses and experts; and
-
(b)
visit any place connected with the dispute or conduct inquiries there.
-
(a)
-
(3)
The parties shall cooperate with the Tribunal in the production of the evidence and in the other measures provided for in paragraph (2). The Tribunal shall take formal note of the failure of a party to comply with its obligations under this paragraph and of any reasons given for such failure.
-
(4)
Expenses incurred in producing evidence and in taking other measures in accordance with paragraph (2) shall be deemed to constitute part of the expenses incurred by the parties within the meaning of Article 61(2) of the Convention.
-
(1)
- 95.
Articles 3.3(b) and 9.2(a) of the IBA Rules.
- 96.
Article 3.3(c) (i) and (ii) of the IBA Rules.
- 97.
Article 9.2(b) and 9.3 (b) of the IBA Rules.
- 98.
Article 9.2(e) of the IBA Rules.
- 99.
Article 9.2(f) of the IBA Rules.
- 100.
Article 9.2(g) of the IBA Rules.
References
Aucoc L (1878) Conférences sur l’ administración et le droit administratif. 3rd edn. vol I. Paris
Bédard J, Nelson T, Raymond Kalantirsky A (2010) Arbitrating in good faith and protecting the integrity of the arbitral process. Paris J Int Arbitr 2010(3):737–756
Blackaby N et al (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York
Coughlin JJ (2001–2002) The history of the judicial review of administrative power and the future of regulatory governance. Idaho Law Rev 38:89–133. Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/736
Crawford J (2006) State responsibility, Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press
Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Euler D (2016) Transparency rules and the Mauritius Convention: a favourable haircut of the state’s sovereignty in investment arbitration? ASA Bull 34(2):355–374
Fierro Rodríguez D (2014) La desviación de poder en el derecho administrativo. El Jurista. Available at: http://www.eljurista.eu/2014/12/01/la-desviacion-de-poder-en-el-derecho-administrativo/
García de Enterría E, Fernández TR (2011) Curso de derecho administrativo I, 15th edn. S.L. Civitas, Madrid
González H, Contreras M (2016) Límites a los requerimientos de información de la Comisión Europea (II). In: Recuerda Cirela M-A(Dtr) Problemas prácticos y actualidad del Derecho de la Competencia [Anuario de Derecho de la Competencia 2016], pp 331–338
Guerra Fernández A, Vélez Fraga M (2013) Guía práctica de la Ley 3/2013, de 4 de junio, de creación de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, Uría Menéndez, pp 33–34. Available at: https://www.uria.com/documentos/publicaciones/3842/documento/guiaPractica4Junio2013.pdf?id=4641
Guillén Caramés J (2015) Régimen jurídico de los requerimientos de información efectuados por las autoridades de competencia. Revista de Administración Pública 197:41–89
Hauriou M (1921) Précis de droit administratif et de droit public à l’usage des étudiants en licence (2e et 3e années) et en doctorat, Librairie de la Société du Recueil Sirey, Paris
Higgins R (1995) Problems and process: international law and how we use it. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hobér K (2008) State responsibility and attribution. In: Muchlinski PT, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 549–582
Laferriere E (1896) Traité de la jurisdiction administrative et des recours contentieux. 2nd edn. vol II. Paris Nancy: Berger-Levrault, Paris
Laigneau M (2013) Inspections surprise des autorités de concurrence (“Dawn raid”): l’expérience d’EDF. Revue juridique de l’économie publique 705, repère 2
López Mendoza JA (2013) La desviación de poder. In: Alonso Regueira EM (ed) Estudios de derecho público. Asociación de Docentes UBA, Buenos Aires, pp 299–315. Available at http://www.derecho.uba.ar/docentes/pdf/estudios-de-derecho/003-edp-2-lopez-mendoza.pdf
Martínez Sánchez A, Rodríguez Ordóñez J (2015) Inspecciones de competencia y consentimiento informado de la empresa investigada (comentario a la STS de 15/6/2015, “Montibello”) Comunicaciones en propiedad industrial y derecho de la competencia 76 (septiembre-diciembre):293–303
Martínez Useros E (1955) Desviación de poder. Anales de la Universidad de Murcia (Derecho), 1955–1956, pp D5–D65. Available at http://www.derecho.uba.ar/docentes/pdf/estudios-de-derecho/003-edp-2-lopez-mendoza.pdf
Momtaz D (2010) Attribution of conduct to the state: state organs and entities empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S, Parlett K (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 237–246
Newcombe A (2010) The obligation to arbitrate fairly and in good faith in investment treaty arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, April 19. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2010/04/19/the-obligation-to-arbitrate-fairly-and-in-good-faith-in-investment-treaty-arbitration/
Nicinski S (2009) L’autorité de la concurrence. Revue française de droit administrative 25(6):1237–1247
Sipiorski E (2016) Evidence and the principle of good faith in investment arbitration: finding meaning in public international law. In: Moura Vicente D (ed) Towards a universal justice? Putting international courts and jurisdictions into perspective. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 347–362
Wälde T (2010a) Equality of arms in investment arbitration: procedural challenges. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements: a guide to key issues. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 161–188
Wälde T (2010b) Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role of the state: asymmetries and tribunals’ duty to ensure, pro-actively, the equality of arms. Arbitr Int 26(1):3–42
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baptista, K.M., McDonnell, B.M. (2020). The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust Powers in Investment Arbitration. In: Fach Gómez, K., Gourgourinis, A., Titi, C. (eds) International Investment Law and Competition Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33915-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33916-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)