Claimant has not asserted a prima facie claim ofexpropriation

原告沒有權利去獲得研究方面的索賠

Respondent alleges in the Memorial on Jurisdiction thatClaimant has not filed a prima facie claim that qualifies as anexpropriation under Article 4 of the BIT. 原告聲稱在BIT“第4條規定的征收條款中，在管轄范圍內，被告沒有提交一份關于權利要求限定的立案。
Respondent argued that thisis a requirement of objective nature and its assessment may requirea definitive interpretation of the corresponding article in the BIT.According to Respondent, the Tribunal has to determine if theviolations alleged by the Claimant meet the requirements of thetreaty and therefore allow the Tribunal to have rationae materiaejurisdiction.

The Respondent also argues that Claimant must prove thatPeru interfered with his investment so that it has substantiallydeprived Claimant from the economic value, use or enjoymentthereof. Respondent added that such interference must be of a sucha magnitude that is tantamount to an effective takeover of property.Respondent believes that SUNAT measures did not bankrupt theinvestment or destroyed or halted the economic viability andbusiness activities of the company. On the contrary, Respondentmaintains that TSG conducted exports after SUNAT's measures andthat in Claimant's application with INDECOPI for a “PreventiveBankruptcy Proceeding” clearly stated TSG maintained its economicviability.http://ukthesis.org/fvxzy/

Claimant's Arguments原告的討論
Claimant explains in his pleading that he believes the Tribunalshould decide on this matter during the trial of the merits.
原告陳述了他的懇求，他認為法庭應該在這個問題上作出決定，這是在審訊過程中應該做出的決定。
However,Claimant proceeded to provide arguments explaining what hebelieves was the expropriatory impact of SUNAT's measures. Firstof all, Claimant affirms that the production activities of TSG didbecame halted as a result of SUNAT measures. Claimant explainsthat exports completed thereafter were existing inventories tocomply with contract commitments obligations. Secondly, Claimantexplains that TSG representations regarding the economic viabilityof its business are a legal requirements of the PreventiveBankruptcy Proceeding and that in any case they referred to thecompany's capacity of meeting its existing liabilities then.(61)115. Claimant explains that SUNAT tax lien measures were takenarbitrarily based on a purported tax debt whose enforcement hadbeen impugned. Claimant explains that the impact of SUNAT'smeasures consisted in preventing TSG to continue with theirproductive activities.原告解釋說的關于防止TSG繼續他們的生產活動的SUNAT措施的反響。

Considerations of the Tribunal116. The Tribunal will consider first Respondent's position. In theiropinion, for the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction, the expropriation claim must –at least prima facie– qualify under the requirementsestablished in Article 4 of the BIT.

 Article 4(1) of the BIT establishes as follows:a. Neither Contracting Party shall expropriate, nationalise or takesimilar measures (hereinafter referred to as “expropriation”)against investments of investors of the other Contracting Party inits territory, unless the following conditions are met:(1) for the public interest;(2) under domestic legal procedure;(3) without discrimination;(4) against compensation118. Respondent emphasises that Article is objective legislationand an assessment thereof may require a definitive interpretationthereof. The Tribunal realises that, in this preliminatry stage, neitherthe BIT nor the ICSID Convention and Arbitration Rules require theTribunal to provide a defninitive interpretation of the scope of Article4. On the contrary, Article 41 of the Convention provides as follows:與此相反，“公約”第41條規定如下：

a. The Tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence.b. Any objection by a party to the dispute that that dispute is notwithin the jurisdiction of the Centre, or for other reasons is notwithin the competence of the Tribunal, shall be considered bythe Tribunal which shall determine whether to deal with it as apreliminary question or to join it to the merits of the dispute.119. Similarly, Arbitration Rule 41(4) also provides that the Tribunal“may deal with the objection as a preliminary question or join it to themerits of the dispute.”120. Once this has been established with regard to Respondent'sobjection under Article 4, the Tribunal understands that it is theirduty to abide by the requirements of Article of the ICSID Convention,as it verifies that the claim is a dispute of legal nature that arisesdirectly out of the investment.121. As a matter of fact, according to Article 44 of the ICSIDConvention, the Tribunal may decide on any question of procedurenot covered thereby. The Tribunal is not alien to the approachadopted by numerous tribunals following the opinion maintained byJudge Rosalyn Higgins in her particular vote to the decision of theInternational Court of Justice in the Case Case Oil Platforms dated12 December 1996.122. According to such an opinion, the Tribunal may provisionallyaccept as true the facts as described by Claimant and assesswhether the same would reasonably violate Article 4 of the BIT.Bearing this in mind, and for the purposes of this preliminary stage,the Tribunal believes that prima facie the facts as described byClaimant may, by virtue of its nature, violate Article of the BIT. It remains to be seen if in the stage of the merits, Claimant willproduce sufficient evidence thereof and proves how they effectivelyviolate such provision.以上所說的問題還有待觀察，如果在這個階段，需要以他們自身的情況來判定，并且原告將列出足夠的證據證明它們是如何違反這些規定的。