STREET ART - WordPresscom
commencerons par définir les origines du Street art Dans une deuxième partie nous étudierons le Street art comme un nouveau moyen d’expression Pour finir, nous nous pencherons sur l’impact de cette forme d’art sur le vécu urbain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2
ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE WILLIAM J KAYATTA, JR , ESQ On behalf of the Petitioner ORAL ARGUMENT OF G STEVEN ROWE, ESQ On behalf of the Respondent 32 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JEFFREY P MINEAR, ESQ For the United States, as amicus curiae, Supporting the Respondent 51 2 1111 14th Street, NW Suite 400 Alderson Reporting Company Washington, DC 20005
Essential, Illustrative, or Just Propaganda? Rethinking John
culate a conclusive argument based on these new data (Koch and Denike 2006) The Deptford study was similarly suggestive but inconclu-sive The Broad Street outbreak, therefore, was the only study in which Snow could rigorously construct a precise and fine-grained argument, one based on street-by-street
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
entered; the court then held oral argument on the emergency motion, and, on December 15, 2014, granted a stay of the vacate provisionpending appeal (leaving the remainder of the CPO in place) tera v RamirezSalvat, 105 A 3d 1003, 1009 (D C 2014) (Salvattera I“ ”) On March 26, 2015, this court decided the appeal, ( continued)
Terrorist Events and Attitudes toward Immigrants: A Natural
backpack, triggering a wave of fear and causing guests to pour out on the street The safety of the open pavement would only last a few seconds, however; a powerful car bomb was soon detonated by another suicide bomber on the crowed street in front of the nightclub
A QUICK GUIDE TO SOVEREIGN CITIZENS
3 citizen to make sure you know you are no longer dealing with the enslaved strawman or a federal citizen with limited rights, you now have the real common law flesh and blood sovereign citizen in front of you
PS – PowerSchool Basic Student Searching and Exporting
search argument (See a list of Search Comparators on page 3) The search argument is the specific information for which you are searching For example, if you are searching for all of the students with the last name Smith, then Smith is the search argument The search argument is always the last part of the search command
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES
Ms Elitza Popova-Talty, and Mr Edward Baldwin (until May 21, 2014) Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP 1850 K Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, D C 20006
Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference
Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference Audre Lorde Paper delivered at the Copeland Colloquium, Amerst College, April 1980 Reproduced in: Sister Outsider Crossing Press, California 1984
Public amnesty international
Cour constitutionnelle a rejeté, en février 1995, l'argument du caractère dissuasif de la peine de mort pour fonder sa décision selon laquelle la peine de mort constituait un traitement cruel, inhumain et dégradant De même, au Nigéria, le Gouverneur de l'État d'Oyo a proposé, en juin 2001, que « le
[PDF] accompagnement éducatif
[PDF] devoirs maison eduscol
[PDF] chateau fort au moyen age
[PDF] description chateau fort
[PDF] exposé sur les chateaux forts
[PDF] les différentes parties d'un chateau fort
[PDF] chateau fort moyen age 5ème
[PDF] chateau fort moyen age cm1
[PDF] plan d'un chateau fort au moyen age
[PDF] schéma d'un chateau fort
[PDF] mot d'entrée dans un dictionnaire
[PDF] comment lire un article de dictionnaire
[PDF] étudier un article de dictionnaire
[PDF] comment manipuler un dictionnaire
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES W
ASHINGTON, D.C.
In the arbitration proceeding between
FRAPORT AG FRANKFURT AIRPORT SERVICES WORLDWIDE
Claimant
and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent
ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12
AWARDMembers of the Tribunal
Professor Piero Bernardini, President
Mr. Stanimir A. Alexandrov
Professor Albert Jan van den Berg
Secretary of the Tribunal
Ms. Aurélia Antonietti
Date of dispatch to the Parties: December 10, 2014REPRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES
Representing Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport
Services Worldwide:
Mr. Michael D. Nolan
Ms. Elitza Popova-Talty, and
Mr. Edward Baldwin (until May 21, 2014)
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP
1850 K Street, NW
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20006
U.S.A.
and until March 12, 2014Dr. Sabine Konrad
Steuerberater LLP
Feldbergstra
ȕe 35
60323 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
andMs. Lisa M. Richman
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
-1531U.S.A.
Representing the Republic of the Philippines:
Hon.Florin T. Hilbay
Mr. Bernard G. Hernandez
Mr. Eric Remegio O. Panga
Ms. Ellaine Sanchez-Corro
Ms. Myrna S. Agno, and
Ms. Jane E. Yu
Office of the Solicitor General of the Philippines134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City, 1229,
Philippines
andJustice Florentino P. Feliciano
224 University Avenue
Ayala Alabang Village
Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila,
Philippines
andMs. Carolyn B. Lamm
Ms. Abby Cohen Smutny
Mr. Francis A. Vasquez Jr.
Mr. Hansel T. Pham
Ms. Anne
D. SmithMr. Frank Panopoulos, and
Mr. Brody
K. Greenwald
White & Case LLP
701 13th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
U.S.A.
iTABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES .................................................................................................... 1
II. OVERVIEW OF THE CASE AND PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR RELIEF ..................................... 1III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 5
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 25
A. The NAIA Terminal 3 Project and the Concession Agreements .............................................. 25
B. Fraport's Investment in the Terminal 3 Project ........................................................................ 38
C. Attempts to Renegotiate Terminal 3 Concession Agreement ................................................... 44
D. Nullification of the Terminal 3 Concession .............................................................................. 46
E. Further 2003/2004 Proceedings ................................................................................................ 52
F. The Government's Taking of NAIA Terminal 3 ...................................................................... 53
V. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES' POSITIONS ............................................................................... 61
V.I RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY .......................... 61A. Respondent's Basis for its Objections to Jurisdiction and Inadmissibility ............................... 62
B. Fraport Knowingly Based its Investment on a Concession that had been Illegally Obtained andthat was Invalid under Philippine Law ..................................................................................... 63
C. Fraport Violated the Anti-Dummy Law .................................................................................... 64
1.The Philippine Anti-Dummy Law ............................................................................................ 64
2.Fraport's Alleged ADL Violations ........................................................................................... 66
D. Fraport's Corruption and Unlawful Conduct Render its Claims Inadmissible ......................... 67
1.The Four "Liongson Schemes" to Procure Government Approvals ......................................... 67
2.The EPC Contract Schedule 7 Kickback Scheme ..................................................................... 69
3.Improper Receipt of Funds by Fraport Officials ....................................................................... 70
4.Fraport's Responses .................................................................................................................. 70
5. Respondent's Argument Relating to Fraport's Ultimate Use of the Funds Put in theProject ....................................................................................................................................... 72
V.IISUMMARY OF FRAPORT'S CLAIMS AND RELIEFS ............................................................... 74
A. Fraport's Claims for Expropriation ........................................................................................... 74
1.The Alleged Acts of Expropriation ........................................................................................... 74
2. Respondent's Defense of the Invalidation of the Terminal 3 Concession Agreements ............ 75 3.Failure to Pay Compensation .................................................................................................... 78
4.Public Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 80
B. Unfair and Inequitable Treatment ............................................................................................. 81
1.Legitimate Expectations ............................................................................................................ 82
2.Bad Faith ................................................................................................................................... 83
3.Denial of Justice ........................................................................................................................ 85
4.Lack of Transparency................................................................................................................ 86
iiC. Impairment by Arbitrary and Discriminatory Measures ........................................................... 86
D. Failure to Afford Full Protection and Security ......................................................................... 87
E. Breach of Umbrella Clause ....................................................................................................... 88
F. Compensation under Theories of Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit ............................ 89
V.III THE PHILIPPINES' COUNTERCLAIMS ...................................................................................... 89
VI. JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................................ 91
A. Governing Law and Burden of Proof ........................................................................................ 91
B. The "Investment" under the BIT ............................................................................................... 93
1.The Parties' Positions ............................................................................................................... 93
1.1Respondent's Position ................................................................................................... 93
1. 2Claimant's Position........................................................................................................ 95
2.The Tribunal's Analysis ............................................................................................................ 98
C. Respondent's Jurisdictional Objections .................................................................................. 103
1.Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 103
2.Jurisdictional Objection 1: Fraport Violated the Anti-Dummy Law ...................................... 105
2.1Introduction to the Anti-Dummy Law ......................................................................... 105
2.2The Parties' Arguments ............................................................................................... 106
a) Respondent's Position ......................................................................................... 106
b) Claimant's Position ............................................................................................. 115
2.3The Tribunal's Analysis .............................................................................................. 120
a) Interpretation of the ADL .................................................................................... 122
(i) Whether the ADL Applied Prior to the Operation of Terminal 3 ........................ 122(ii) Shareholder Conduct under the ADL .................................................................. 125
(iii) Whether the ADL Prohibits Planning a Prohibited Act without More ................ 128 (iv) Whether a Violation Requires "Knowledge" ...................................................... 131(v) Whether a Violation Can Be Cured ..................................................................... 133
(vi)Good Faith as a Defense ..................................................................................... 134
b) Assessment of Fraport's Alleged ADL Violation ............................................... 139 3. Jurisdictional Objection 2: There is no Jurisdiction and all of Fraport's Claims areInadmissible as a Result of Fraport's Corruption and Fraud .................................................. 148
4.quotesdbs_dbs4.pdfusesText_8