Micula & Ors v Romania [2017] EWHC 1430 (Comm) (15 June 2017)

Micula & Ors v Romania [2017] EWHC 1430 (Comm) (15 June 2017)

The court refused to order Romania to provide security as a condition of the stay because, despite the persuasive case for security, there is a material risk that such an order would conflict with the European Commission's Final Decision prohibiting payment of the Award, and the practical consequences of non-compliance could place Romania in an untenable legal position. The balance of factors at this time is against making the stay conditional on security, though this may be revisited in the future. Permission to appeal is granted to the claimants as both limbs of CPR r.52.6(1) are satisfied.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1430 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Viorel Micula; Claimant/applicant: Ioan Micula; Claimant/applicant: S. C. European Food S. A; Claimant/applicant: S. C. Starmill S. R. L.; Claimant/applicant: S. C. Multipack S. R. L.; Defendant/respondent: Romania; Intervener: European Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (post Arbitral Award Enforcement) / Post Judgment Applications for Security and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted; application for security as a condition of stay refused.
Legal Topics
ICSID Award Enforcement, Security for Stay of Enforcement, EU State Aid Law, Jurisdiction of English Courts, Interim Relief, Interaction Between EU Law and Arbitration Awards
Arbitration European Union Law Commercial Law ICSID Award Enforcement Security for Stay of Enforcement EU State Aid Law Jurisdiction of English Courts Interim Relief +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viorel Micula

Claimant/applicant

Ioan Micula

Claimant/applicant

S. C. European Food S. A

Claimant/applicant

S. C. Starmill S. R. L.

Claimant/applicant

S. C. Multipack S. R. L.

Claimant/applicant

Romania

Defendant/respondent

European Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (post Arbitral Award Enforcement) / Post Judgment Applications for Security and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order Romania to provide security as a condition of the stay of enforcement of an ICSID Award
  2. 2 Whether permission to appeal should be granted to the claimants
  3. 3 Whether ordering security would violate EU law given the European Commission's Final Decision prohibiting payment of the Award

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to order Romania to provide security as a condition of the stay because, despite the persuasive case for security, there is a material risk that such an order would conflict with the European Commission's Final Decision prohibiting payment of the Award, and the practical consequences of non-compliance could place Romania in an untenable legal position. The balance of factors at this time is against making the stay conditional on security, though this may be revisited in the future. Permission to appeal is granted to the claimants as both limbs of CPR r.52.6(1) are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted; application for security as a condition of stay refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to claimants on draft grounds.
  • Application for security as a condition of the stay refused.