SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in the instant case because the BIT was implicitly
terminated by the conclusion of the TFEU on December 1, 2009, as per Article 59 of the VCLT.
The BIT and the TFEU fulfill the requirements of same subject matter, common intention and
incompatibility under Article 59 of the VCLT. Further, the procedure for termination has been
complied with.

2. The actions of Respondent do not violate the FET clause under Article 2 of the BIT. The
denial of license to Alfa does not violate the transparency obligation under the FET clause. The
reduction in tariff does not violate the legitimate expectations of Claimant, as Respondent’s
actions could not have given rise to any such expectation. In any event, Respondent’s actions
were a legitimate exercise of its regulatory powers, and hence, are justified. Finally, the refusal
to consult Claimant before termination does not violate the due process requirement because the
Amendment constituted a quasi-legislative action.

3. Respondent’s actions are precluded from wrongfulness as they were undertaken in pursuance
of its obligations under the TFEU. Respondent’s obligations under the TFEU had superseded its
obligations under the BIT by virtue of the operation of Article 30(3) of the VCLT, and the non-
applicability of Article 10 of the BIT. In any case, Respondent’s breach of obligations is
exempted under Article 11 of the BIT, and under the customary defence of necessity.

4. Restitution cannot be granted to Claimant for a breach of obligations under the BIT because
compensation, and not restitution, is the primary remedy in investor-State arbitration. In any
case, the remedy of restitution is precluded under Article 35 of the ILC Articles.

5. Compensation worth €2.1 million cannot be granted to Claimant. Claimant’s calculation in

this regard does not comply with established accounting and legal standards for calculation of
damages.

3!
!