Investor Presentaiton
149
ARB/03/24), the claimant's legal costs amounted to US$4.6 million,
while the respondent's legal costs were US$13.2 million. The
tribunal ordered the claimant to pay all arbitration costs and half of
the respondent's legal fees.
In Pey Casado v. Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2), the
claimant's legal fees totaled approximately US$11 million, while
the respondent's legal fees amounted to US$4.3 million. The
respondent was ordered to pay 75 per cent of the arbitration costs
and $2 million of the claimant's legal fees.
In ADC v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16), the tribunal
ordered the respondent State, which had been found to have
breached its BIT obligations, to pay the full costs of the arbitration
totaling US$7.6 million. This included the investor's legal fees.
In Siag and Vecchi v. Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15), the
tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to receive from Egypt
the amount of US $6 million to cover their legal fees, expert costs
and other expenses.
3. Cost allocation: IIA provisions
Few investment treaties address arbitration costs or attorneys'
fees. The allocation of costs and fees is thus left to tribunals to
decide on a case-by-case basis, subject to any directives contained in
the applicable arbitral rules. Some recent IIAs have added
provisions regarding the allocation of fees and costs in the context
of frivolous claims allegations (see section II.H above). Thus, the
Belgium/Luxembourg-Colombia BIT (2009) provides in Article
XII:
"14.1 When deciding about the objection of the
respondent, the Tribunal may rule on the costs and fees of
UNCTAD Series on International Investment Agreements IIView entire presentation