The Admc Agreement For Services Does Not Address Client Modifications

It is argued and does not effectively dispute that ADC- ADMC Management played a perfectly legitimate and legitimate role in the project. In February 1997, it entered into the terminal management agreement with ATAA and the project company; it provided pre-payment services and followed the project through the efforts of Mr. Huang and others; it submitted annual reports and accounts from Cyprus on the provision of administrative services; he was paid a management fee in accordance with the terminal management agreement and had a Hungarian subsidiary “ADC – ADMC Management Hungary Limited” which employed the terminal manager`s employees who took over the day-to-day work of the terminals. The Hungarian subsidiary employed about eight people. The IPSLA report does not show data when the sysup time reaches the maximum limit. Since the “public interest” invoked is not proven and the Tribunal`s curiosity is not satisfied, the Tribunal must reject the respondent`s arguments in this regard. In any event, the subsequent privatization and the agreement with BAA, as the court has already pointed out, renders the whole debate a little unnecessary. The Tribunal supports the applicants` “substance” approach when considering this issue. While particular attention should be paid to the ILO`s wording with respect to “investments”, the Tribunal considers that it is the content of the transaction that reveals the answer to the question of whether an investment has been made. On the basis of a thorough review of the facts and a careful review of the applicable legislation, the Tribunal concludes that the applicants have made investments in Hungary, so that this litigation is the result of an investment under the ILO and ICSID conventions. Here too, it is necessary to take into account the impact of all project agreements. The project documents are clear: an investment of $16,765 million has been made.

With regard to the administrative royalty argument, the Tribunal is satisfied, with respect to the evidence it possesses and the right, that the source of income from the administrative services agreement has been protected by the ILO and is also under the ICSID agreement. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the parties to these agreements intended that the administrative services agreement should compensate the applicants for the work and services provided prior to the start of the transaction. The investment argument has been abandoned. It is clear, therefore, that when an investment was made, as the court found, the amount was $16.765 million. As noted above, the respondent withdrew the argument that the investment should be valued without the value of the bonds. In addition, the payment balancing method means that investors who enter into an agreement can be excluded almost the morning after signing. Article 4.5 of the quota agreement also does not appear to support the respondent`s proposed method, as it provides that the ATA “I can conclude with our prayers of relief, but very briefly discussed. They were exposed in contributions and letters. In their memorial, the applicants stress that it is “necessary to refer to the Cyprus-Hungary bit” to find what an “investment” is, since the ICSID convention does not provide for a specific definition of “investments”. Following a brief review of ILO Article 1, the applicants conclude that their investment in the airport and their corresponding revenues, i.e. ADC Affiliate`s 34% quota shareholding in the project company, aDC-ADMC Management, which is entitled to 3% of the airport`s net revenue per year, is considered an “investment” under the ILO and the agreement.