Investor Presentaiton
Al-Warraq vs Indonesia (2012) On UNCITRAL - Cont'd
the Tribunal finds that moral damages are generally awarded only if
illegal action was motivated or maliciously induced (see for instance
Inmaris v. Ukraine ICSID Case No: ARB/08/8 - Award of 1.3.2012
para 428; see also in a later award the Rompetrol Group v. Romania
ICSID Case No: ARB/06/3 - Award dated 6.5.2013:
"The Claimant assetls in its Post-Hearing submissions that "moral
damages cover non-pecuniary injury for which monetary value
cannot be mathematically assessed and ... must be determined by
the tribunal with a certain amount of discretion." This would conform
to the approach taken by the only two IC'SID tribunals that have
hitherto awarded moral damages. A leading commentary draws as
its conclusion from the cases that tribunals seem to enjoy "an almost
absolute discretion in the matter of determining the amount of moral
damages. The very fact, however, that this alternative claim for
damages is both notional and widely discretionary prompts a
considerable degree of caution on the part of the present Tribunal in
facing the proposition that compensable 'moral' damage can be
suffered by a corporate inveslor.
"View entire presentation