SAMPLE SPEECH FOR CLAIMANT MERITS:

Madam/Mr. President, Members of the Tribunal, counsels for the Respondent, good evening.
My name is Angelica Elmido, the second counsel for the Claimant, Fenoscadia Limited.

We submit that Respondent indirectly expropriated Claimant’s investment because PD 2424

substantially and permanently deprived Claimant of the use and economic benefit of its
investment.

The case of Tecmed v. Mexico is helpful to determine whether an investor has been
substantially deprived of its investment. 1 The Tribunal in the said case ruled that the mere
cancellation of the operating permit amounted to indirect expropriation because there was a
deprivation of the use of the property and economic benefit. These are both evident in the
present case.

Here, the mining site is the only area within Respondent’s territory where lindoro can be found2,
and where Claimant can extract lindoro pursuant to the Concession Agreement. Unfortunately,
Claimant’s facilities for the exploitation of lindoro were rendered useless when Respondent
enacted PD 2424.3 Claimant was also forced by circumstances to dismiss its 200 employees,
who are all Kronian citizens, because Claimant cannot operate within Respondent’s territory
anymore.4

Moreover, there was a deprivation of the use of the property when Respondent confiscated the
extracted lindoro from Claimant’s premises. Article 4 of PD 2424 provides, and I quote, “by way
of such security for such compensation, all extracted lindoro owned by such companies shall be
seized.” Considering these circumstances, the enactment PD 2424 deprived Claimant of the
use of its property.

There is also a deprivation of the economic benefit because Claimant could no longer derive
profits from its useless facilities. Claimant was not able to honor its contractual obligations to its
purchasers and suppliers when Respondent enacted PD 2424.

Another factor to determine indirect expropriation is the permanence of the deprivation.5 In

the present case, Claimant had tried to negotiate with Respondent for a solution.6 To Claimant’s
disappointment, Respondent refused to settle the issue amicably and has not communicated
with Claimant ever since.7 The Government spokesperson also announced that PD 2424 would
not be revoked.8

We would also like to emphasize that PD 2424 took effect in September 2016. Respondent still
did not revoke PD 2424 when Claimant filed its Notice of Arbitration before the Arbitration

1
In this case, Tecmed is a company incorporated in Spain. It acquired facilities and other assets relating to a controlled landfill of
hazardous industrial waste. A license was required to operate the landfill. The issuing authority, which is the National Ecology
Institute of Mexico, refused to extend the authorization to operate the landfill due to environmental and health reasons. The tribunal
held here that Respondent’s decision not to renew the license constituted indirect expropriation. The tribunal also stated that the
investment was permanently deprived of economic value and could not be exploited despite the fact that the legal ownership of
assets did not pass to third parties or to the Mexican government.
2
UF, par. 11, p. 33.
3
UF, par. 23, p. 36.
4
UF, par. 23 & 27, p. 36.
5
Quiborax v. Bolivia (2015).
6
UF, par. 24, page 36.
7
UF, par. 27, page 36.
8
UF, par. 28, page 36.
Institute of the SCC in November 2017. Thus, the lapse of 14 months clearly shows that
Respondent permanently deprived Claimant of its investment.
Considering these circumstances, Respondent indirectly expropriated Claimant’s investment
because PD 2424 substantially and permanently deprived Claimant of the use and economic
benefit of its investment

Unless there are any further questions, I thank you Madam/Mr. President, Members of the
Tribunal, for your time and indulgence.