Stans Energy Corp V.HRE.H

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Before you let Kahliak frighten you !

[opencurtain]

Back to the Ontario court , WHERE FAIRNESS AND HONESTY AND A PROPER DUDICIAL SYSTEM IS CARRIED OUT , I am very hopeful that Stans Energy will win the shares for illegal exporiation of our investment .
4.4. Expropriation 4.4.1. Definition of expropriation International legal definition of the term “expropriation” in contemporary public law is contained in Article 11 “a)ii)” of the 1985 Seoul Convention Establishing Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency: “i) Expropriation and similar measures are any legislative action or administrative action or omission attributable to the host government which has the effect of depriving the holder of a guarantee of his ownership or control of , or a substantial benefit from, his investment…” (Exhibit C-14). Thus, expropriation: 1) are the measures which are attributable to к, кроме the host state; 2) such measures can be expressed both in the form of a normative legal act (legislative measures) and an individual act (administrative measures); 3) such measures result in deprivation of the Investor of the ownership of its investment, control thereof or a substantial benefit therefrom. In the case concerned there is an actual deprivation of the Investor of its right to carry out subsoil activity by way of actual deprivation of its license which entitles it to carry out such activity. What we have here is a deprivation of the Investor of its control over investments and future income from investments.
4.4.2.Character of expropriation Contemporary international law recognizes two types of expropriation – lawful and unlawful. In line with provisions of international law in case of lawful expropriation of foreign property the state should observe the following criteria. The state shall: 1) act in public interests; 2) prevent discrimination; 3) take measures in accordance with due legal process; 4) pay a prompt, adequate and effective compensation. Similar provisions are found in Article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Investor’s Rights: “Investments shall not be a subject to nationalization and may not be a subject to requisition except in exclusive cases . calamities, incidents, epidemic or epizootic outbreaks and other circumstances of extreme character) provided for by the national legislation of the Parties when such measures are taken in public interests stipulated by the Basic Law (Constitution) of the recipient country. Nationalization or requisition may not be implemented without paying to the investor the adequate compensation. Decisions on nationalization or requisition of investments shall be taken according to the procedure established by the national legislation of the recipient country.” (Exhibit C-4). Non-observance of the mentioned criteria makes expropriation unlawful. Therefore, the expropriation of investments which took place during the events described above (due to both actions and inaction of the Kyrgyz Republic authorities) which led to deprivation of the Investor of its control over investments and future income qualifies as internationally wrongful acts (not least because it was not accompanied by payment of compensation). 4.4.3.Responsibility of the state in case of unlawful expropriation Expropriation which does not meet the above criteria of lawful expropriation is considered illegal. If expropriation was illegal the state becomes liable under international law. In 2001the UN International Law Commission adopted Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereinafter referred to as the Draft Articles). This document is a codification of customary rules of law governing international responsibility of states. In accordance with Chapter 2 Part 2  . Draft Articles2 the forms of compensation for the damage are restitution (reinstatement of initial position), compensation and satisfaction. There is a certain interrelationship between them. Each of them can be used either by itself or in conjunction with other forms. Restitution has been acknowledged as a principal and optimal means of compensation. Compensation should come second after restitution and take place in that case if restitution is incommensurable with inflicted damage. This conclusion is proved by judicial practice. The most widely cited judicial decision which upholds this conclusion is the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the matter of Factory at Chorzow.3 Compensation primarily suggests reimbursement of damages. Convention for the Protection of Investor’s Rights proceeds from legitimacy of compensation for damages in case of unlawful expropriation. Basing on Article 9 of this Convention, the Investor has the right for reimbursement of the damage caused to him by decisions and actions (omissions) of state bodies or officials contradicting legislation of the recipient country and norms of international law (Exhibit C- 4). In accordance with Article 10 of the Convention, “compensation for causing damage to the Investor shall be paid in the currency in which investments were made. The procedure for determination of the amount of compensation and the procedure of its payment shall be established by the national legislation of the recipient country. Reimbursement of the damage in case specified in part four of Article 9 of this Convention shall be made in accordance with the norms of the national legislation of the recipient country.”4 Under satisfaction is meant compensation of moral damage. The issue of compensation of moral damage arises in case where the claim for compensation of damage is filed in case of loss of