德列维诉秘鲁共和国仲裁案评析

德列维诉秘鲁共和国仲裁案是法国投资者德列维女士援引《法国-秘鲁双边投资条约》(APPRI)向国际投资争端解决中心(ICSID)提起的国际投资仲裁案件。该案历时三年多,裁决于2014年作出,仲裁庭多数意见裁决驳回投资者德列维女士的仲裁请求,认定秘鲁金融监管机构的行为没有违反公平与公正待遇原则、国民待遇原则以及充分的保护和安全条款。本案的裁决不是一致性裁决,申请人指定的仲裁员Morales教授提出了不同意见,认为秘鲁国家机关的行为导致了银行BNM的解散,违反了投资条约的规定。仲裁庭多数意见则认为,虽然BNM受到了秘鲁经济危机的影响,但其股东和管理层对此可以预见,并且由于管理层存在决策失误和不当行为等,导致BNM资不抵债,而秘鲁金融监管机构有责任对其进行干预并解散BNM,因而秘鲁不需要为此承担责任。本文在梳理案件背景的基础上,对主要法律争议进行了分析,包括仲裁庭的管辖权、公平与公正待遇原则、国民待遇原则以及充分的保护和安全条款等。最后,针对本案中涉及的拒绝司法问题和仲裁员Morales教授提出的少数意见进行了评析。

Renée Rose Levy de Levi v.Republic of Peru is an international investment arbitration case brought by a French investor,Renée Rose Levy de Levi(hereinafter referred to as Ms.de Levi or the Claimant),before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID),invoking the France-Peru BIT(APPRI).After more than three years,the award of this case was rendered in 2014 and ruled against the investor’s request,finding that the Peruvian financial regulator had not acted in violation of the standard of fair and equitable treatment,national treatment,and full protection and security clauses.The award in this case was not a unanimous one,and the Claimant-appointed arbitrator,Professor Morales,made a dissenting opinion,arguing that the actions of the Peruvian State organs had led to the dissolution of the bank,BNM,in contravention of the provisions of the investment treaty.The majority opinion of the tribunal held that although BNM was affected by the economic crisis in Peru,its shareholders and management could have foreseen it and that it was the responsibility of the Peruvian financial regulator to intervene and dissolve BNM due to,amongst other things,poor decision-making and misconduct on the part of the management,which led to its insolvency,and that Peru was not liable for this.Going through the background of the case,this paper analyses the main legal issues,including the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal,the fair and equitable treatment principle,the national treatment principle,and the full protection and security clause.Comments are also made on the denial of justice involved in the case and the objections raised by the arbitrator,Professor Morales,at the end.