Vpliv financiranja tožbe s strani tretje osebe na naložitev plačila varščine za stroške v mednarodni investicijski arbitraži

Gabrovšek, Anja (author), Galič, Aleš (mentor)

Tuj investitor, ki meni, da mu je država gostiteljica investicije kršila njegove pravice iz investicijskega sporazuma lahko nasproti njej uveljavlja pravno varstvo pred mednarodno investicijsko arbitražo. Tudi invesitorji, ki so v finančno slabem položaju ali celo insolventni, lahko to storijo s pomočjo tretjih oseb (financerjev), ki so pripravljene financirati njihovo tožbo ( TPF ). Z vidika tožene države je taka praksa problematična v primeru, da od financiranega investitorja ob koncu postopka ne dobi povrnjenih stroškov. V primeru, ko država v sporu uspe je običajno upravična, da je investitor povrne njene stroške postopka. V kolikor ima tožena država nasproti investitorja z nezadostnimi sredstvi, katerega tožbo financira tretja oseba, pa obstaja tveganje, da stroškov ne dobi povrnjenih, saj investitor sam nima sredstev, financerjem pa običajno ni v interesu da se obvežejo kriti tudi stroške države, v kolikor bi ta v sporu uspela. Država si lahko povrnitev stroškov zavaruje tako, da od investitorja zahteva plačilo varščine za stroške. Pri tem pa se pojavita dva problema, ki bosta analizirana v nadaljevanju. Prvič, država ne ve da investitorjevo tožbo financira tretja oseba in zato od arbitražnega senata ne zahteva odreditve varščine za stroške. Drugič, država mora izkazati, da so izpolnjeni pogoji, ki utemeljujejo naložitev varščine. Slednje pomeni, da mora dokazati predvsem tveganje, da ji investitor ne bo zmožen povrniti njenih stroškov postopka. Obenem so investicijski arbitražni senati pri odrejanju varščine precej zadržani in jo naložijo le v izjemnih okoliščinah. Okoliščina, da investitorjevo tožbo financira tretja oseba lahko pomeni, da investitor sam nima zadostnih sredstev ter posledično tveganje, da bo državi nezmožen povrniti stroške. Vendar pa se vse pogosteje za pridobitev zunanjega financiranja tožbe, iz drugih razlogov kot potrebe, odločijo tudi finančno zdrava podjetja, ki bi bila zmožna povrnitve stroškov. V nadaljevanju bo analizirano, kakšen pomen so okoliščini TPF pri odrejanju varščine za stroške pripisali investicijski arbitražni senati in teoretiki, ter kakšne spremembe napovedujejo predlogi sprememb ICSID arbitražnih pravil.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: f inanciranje tožbe s strani tretje osebe, varščina za stroške, cautio iudicatum solvi, ICSID, investicijska arbitraža
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2019
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-111463
• COBISS.SI-ID: 16981073
• Publication date in RUL: 02.10.2019

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: Effect of third-party funding on security for costs applications in international investment arbitration

Abstract

In international investment arbitration context foreign investors usually bring a claim against the state that hosts the investment, challenging the state's actions that have allegedly undermined its investment. I mpecunious or insolvent investors, which want to pursue a claim against the state, might turn to third parties asking to fund the cost and expenses of their claim. From the respondent’s state perspective, one of the issues is the risk that even if it prevails on the merits and is therefore a warded reimbursement of their costs, it will not be able to enforce such cost awards against the investors. Impecunious investors, funded by a third party lack sufficient assets and third-party funder usually do not agree to cover adverse costs award against the investor. To avoid a situation in which the prevailing state is unable to recover its costs, state might seek security for costs. If ordered, investor has to pay an amount into an escrow account or provide some other form of security out of which state can later satisfy its costs. There are two concerns with security for costs applications against funded investors, which are dealt with in this thesis. First, that states are not aware of the fact that the investor is funded and consequently don’t apply for security for costs. In this regard trends towards broader obligations to disclose might help tackle the mentioned concern. Second, a state has to establish that conditions for ordering security for costs are met, which mainly means to prove that claimant will not be able to recover states’ costs if it prevails on the merits. Investment tribunals were in the past sceptical about ordering security and had only rarely granted it. The fact that an investor is funded might mean that it is without funds and will therefore not be able to cover states’ costs, however this is not necessarily correct, as even financially stable companies are increasingly seeking third party funding for other reasons. In the following it will be analysed how investment tribunals approached TPF in investment arbitration when ordering security for costs

• Keywords: t hird-party funding, security for costs, cautio iudicatum solvi, investment arbitration, ICSID