CIADI - Laudo Caso ARB 15-1 de 2019

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES

In the arbitration proceeding between

STADTWERKE MÜNCHEN GMBH, RWE INNOGY GMBH,

AND OTHERS

Claimants

and

KINGDOM OF SPAIN

Respondent

ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1

AWARD

Members of the Tribunal Professor Jeswald W. Salacuse, President Professor Kaj Hobér Professor Zachary Douglas QC

Secretary of the Tribunal Mr. Marco Tulio Montañés-Rumayor

Date of dispatch to the Parties: 2 December 2019i

REPRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES

Representing Stadtwerke München GmbH, RWE Innogy GmbH, and others:

Representing the Kingdom of Spain: Ms. Marie Stoyanov Mr. Antonio Vázquez-Guillén Ms. Virginia Allan Mr. David Ingle Ms. Agustina Álvarez Olaizola Mr. Pablo Torres Mr. Alexandre Fichaux Mr. Tomasz Hara Ms. Stephanie Hawes Mr. Gonzalo Jiménez-Blanco Allen & Overy LLP Pedro de Valdivia, 10 28006 Madrid Spain

and

Mr. Jeffrey Sullivan Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Telephone House 2-4 Temple Avenue London EC4Y 0HB United Kingdom

Mr. José Manuel Gutiérrez Delgado Ms. María José Ruiz Sánchez Mr. Pablo Elena Abad Mr. Rafael Gil Nievas Mr. Alberto Torró Molés Mr. Luis Vacas Chalfoun Ms. Elena Oñoro Sainz Mr. Juan Antonio Quesada Navarro

Ms. María José Ruiz Sánchez Mr. Pablo Elena Abad Mr. Rafael Gil Nievas Mr. Alberto Torró Molés Mr. Luis Vacas Chalfoun Ms. Elena Oñoro Sainz Mr. Juan Antonio Quesada Navarro Ms. Gloria de la Guardia Limeres Ms. Ana María Rodríguez Esquivias Mr. Javier Comerón Herrero Ms. Eugenia Cediel Bruno Mr. Roberto Fernández Castilla Ms. Patricia Froehlingsdorf Nicolás Ms. Estibaliz Hernández Marquínez Mr. Javier Torres Gella Mrs. Amaia Rivas Kortazar Mr. Antolín Fernández Antuña Mr. Javier Castro López Mr. Álvaro Navas López Mrs. Mónica Moraleda Saceda

Abogacía General del Estado Dpto. Arbitrajes Internacionales c/ Marqués de la Ensenada, 14-16, 2ª planta 28004, Madrid Spainii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Commencement of the Arbitration .........................................................................................1 Tribunal’s Constitution ...........................................................................................................2 Tribunal’s Preliminary Matters and the Parties’ Pleadings ....................................................3 European Commission’s Application to Intervene .................................................................5 The Hearing on Jurisdiction and the Merits ............................................................................7 Post-Hearing Matters ..............................................................................................................9 Background ...........................................................................................................................13 Spain’s Creation of a Legal Framework for Renewable Energy Production ........................14 Law 54/1997 .................................................................................................................. 14 The Hierarchy of Norms in the Spanish Legal System.................................................. 16 Royal Decree 2818/1998................................................................................................ 16 Royal Decree 436/2004.................................................................................................. 17 The 2005-2010 Renewable Energy Plan........................................................................ 19 Royal Decree Law 7/2006 ............................................................................................. 20 Royal Decree 661/2007.................................................................................................. 21 The Claimants’ Investment ...................................................................................................23

Royal Decree 436/2004.................................................................................................. 17 The 2005-2010 Renewable Energy Plan........................................................................ 19 Royal Decree Law 7/2006 ............................................................................................. 20 Royal Decree 661/2007.................................................................................................. 21 The Claimants’ Investment ...................................................................................................23 Spain’s Alteration of the Legal Framework Applicable to Renewable Energy Production .27 Law 15/2012 .................................................................................................................. 28 Royal Decree Law 2/2013 ............................................................................................. 28 Royal Decree Law 9/2013 ............................................................................................. 29 Law 24/2013 .................................................................................................................. 29 Royal Decree 413/2014.................................................................................................. 30 The Intra-EU Objection ........................................................................................................34 The Parties’ Positions .................................................................................................... 34 a. The Respondent’s Position ..................................................................................... 34iii

b. The Claimants’ Position ......................................................................................... 38 The Tribunal’s Analysis ................................................................................................. 41 The Taxation Objection ........................................................................................................51 The Parties’ Positions .................................................................................................... 51 a. The Respondent’s Position ..................................................................................... 51 b. The Claimants’ Position ......................................................................................... 55 The Tribunal’s Analysis ................................................................................................. 57 Applicable Law .....................................................................................................................63 The Claimants’ Claims .........................................................................................................64

First Claim: Failure to Provide Stable, Equitable, Favourable and Transparent Conditions for Investors ................................................................................................................... 65

a. The Parties’ Positions ............................................................................................. 65 The Claimants’ Position .................................................................................. 65 The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 67 b. The Tribunal’s Analysis ......................................................................................... 69 c. The Tribunal’s Conclusion on the Claimants’ First Claim .................................... 71

Second Claim: Failure to Accord the Claimants’ Investment Fair and Equitable Treatment ....................................................................................................................... 71

a. The Parties’ Positions ............................................................................................. 71 The Claimants’ Position .................................................................................. 71 The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 81 b. The Tribunal’s Analysis ......................................................................................... 90

Treatment ....................................................................................................................... 71 a. The Parties’ Positions ............................................................................................. 71 The Claimants’ Position .................................................................................. 71 The Respondent’s Position ............................................................................. 81 b. The Tribunal’s Analysis ......................................................................................... 90 Failure to Create and Maintain a Stable Regulatory Regime for Investment . 90 Frustration of the Claimants’ Legitimate and Reasonable Expectations ........ 93 Failure to Act Transparently ......................................................................... 110 Failure to Enact Reasonable Measures ......................................................... 113 Failure to Take Proportionate Measures ....................................................... 116 Conclusion on the Second Claim .................................................................. 127

Third Claim: Impairment of the Claimants’ Investment by Unreasonable Measures . 127

a. The Parties’ Positions ........................................................................................... 127 The Claimants’ Position ................................................................................ 127 The Respondent’s Position ........................................................................... 128 b. The Tribunal’s Analysis ....................................................................................... 129iv

Fourth Claim: Failure of Spain to Observe Obligations it Has Entered Into With the Claimants or Their Investments ................................................................................... 130

a. The Parties’ Positions ........................................................................................... 130 The Claimants’ Position ................................................................................ 130 The Respondent’s Position ........................................................................... 133 b. The Tribunal’s Analysis ....................................................................................... 135

A. The Claimants’ Cost Submission .....................................................................................138

B. The Respondent’s Cost Submission.................................................................................138

The Costs of the Proceeding ............................................................................................139 The Tribunal’s Decision on Costs....................................................................................139v

TABLE OF SELECTED ABBREVIATIONS/DEFINED TERMS

1997 Electricity Law Law 54/1997 of 27 November 1997 2005-2010 Energy Plan or Energy Plan The Renewable Energy Plan in Spain 2005-2010 2010 Press Release

Press release issued by the Government recording what the Claimants characterized as the July 2010 Agreement to refrain from making retrospective changes to the RD 661/2007 economic regime 2011 Resolution Resolution by the Directorate General for Energy Policy and Mines in respect of the

Press release issued by the Government recording what the Claimants characterized as the July 2010 Agreement to refrain from making retrospective changes to the RD 661/2007 economic regime 2011 Resolution Resolution by the Directorate General for Energy Policy and Mines in respect of the Andasol 3 Plant dated 2 February 2011 Achmea Judgment Judgment of the European Court of Justice dated 6 March 2018 , in Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV , Case No. C -284/16,

ECLI:EU:C:2018:158

AES Summit v. Hungary award Award rendered in AES Summit Generation Limited and AES Tisza Eromu Kft. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23 dated 23 September 2010 Antin v. Spain award Award rendered in Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l and Antin Energia Termosolar B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31 dated 15 June 2018 Arbitration Rules ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings of 2006 Brattle First Quantum Report First Brattle’s Damages Expert Report dated 8 July 2016 Brattle First Regulatory Report First Brattle’s Regulatory Expert Report dated 8 July 2016 Brattle Second Quantum Report Brattle’s Rebuttal Damages Expert Report dated 21 March 2017 Brattle Second Regulatory Report Brattle’s Re buttal Regulatory Expert Report dated 21 March 2017vi

C-[#] Claimants’ Exhibit Charanne v. Spain award Award rendered in Charanne B .V. and Construction Investment S.A.R.L. v. The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Arbitration V 062/2012 dated 21 January 2016 CJEU or Court of Justice Court of Justice of the European Union Cl. Reply on Achmea Claimants’ Responsi ve Submission on the

Construction Investment S.A.R.L. v. The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Arbitration V 062/2012 dated 21 January 2016 CJEU or Court of Justice Court of Justice of the European Union Cl. Reply on Achmea Claimants’ Responsi ve Submission on the Achmea Judgment dated 23 April 2018 CL-[#] Claimants’ Legal Authority Claimants’ Rejoinder Claimants’ Rejoinder on Jurisdiction dated 3 July 2017 CNE “Comisión Nacional de Energía” , the Spanish National Energy Commission CNMC “Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia”, the National Markets and Competition Commission Counter-Memorial Respondent’s Counter-Memorial on the Merits and Memorial on Jurisdiction dated 4 October 2016 CPI Consumer Price Index CSP Concentrated Solar Power Dutch-Slovak BIT Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic of 1992 EC Decision European Commission’s Decision on the Spanish State Aid Framework for Renewable Sources dated 10 November 2017 EC or Commission European Commission EC’s Application European Commission’s Application for Leave to Intervene as a Non-Disputing Party dated 16 January 2017vii

EC’s Communication EC’s Communication on the Protection of intraEU Investment, COM (2018) 547/2 of July 2018 EC’s Request for Reconsideration EC’s Request to Alter Procedural Order No. 3 submitted on 9 March 2017 Econ One First Report First Econ One Research Inc. Expert Report dated 4 October 2016 Econ One Second Report Second Econ One Research Inc. Expert Report dated 19 May 2017 ECT Energy Charter Treaty signed in December 1994 and in force since 16 April 1998 FET Fair and Equitable Treatment FIT Feed-in Tariffs

dated 4 October 2016 Econ One Second Report Second Econ One Research Inc. Expert Report dated 19 May 2017 ECT Energy Charter Treaty signed in December 1994 and in force since 16 April 1998 FET Fair and Equitable Treatment FIT Feed-in Tariffs Hearing Hearing on Jurisdiction and the Merits held on 31 July – 5 August 2017 ICSID Convention

Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States dated 18 March 1965 ICSID or the Centre International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes IDAE Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía Institution Rules ICSID’s Rules of Procedure for the Institution of Conciliation and Arbitration Proceedings IRR Internal Rate of Return Isolux v. Spain award Award rendered in Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands, B.V . v. Kingdom of Spain , Arbitration SCC V2013/153 dated 12 July 2016 June 2014 Order Ministerial Order IET/1045/2014 of 16 June 2014 Marquesado Marquesado Solar S.L.viii

Masdar v. Spain award Award rendered in Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v . Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1 dated 16 May 2018 Memorial Claimants’ Memorial on the Merits dated 8 July 2016 Ministry Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce New Regime New Regime put in place under RDL 9/2013 and Law 24/2013 Novenergia II v. Spain award Final award rendered in Novenergia II – Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. Kingdom of Spain dated 15 February 2018 Occidental v. Ecuador award Award rendered in Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of

Final award rendered in Novenergia II – Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. Kingdom of Spain dated 15 February 2018 Occidental v. Ecuador award Award rendered in Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467 dated 1 July 2004 Ordinary Regime Regime applicable to non -renewable energy producers Plama v. Bulgaria award Award rendered in Plama Consortium Limited

1. The Republic of Bulgaria , ICSID Case No.

ARB/03/24 dated 27 August 2008 PO1 Procedural Order No. 1 dated 16 March 2016, concerning procedural matters PO3 Procedural Order No. 3 dated 2 March 2017, concerning the EC’s Application R-[#] Respondent’s Exhibit RAIPRE Administrative Registry of Production Installations in the Special Regime (in Spanish) RD 2818/1998 Royal Decree 2818/1998 issued by the Spanish Government on 23 December 1998 RD 413/2014 Royal Decree 413/2014 issued by the Spanish Government on 6 June 2014ix

RD 436/2004 Royal Decree 436/2004 issued by the Spanish Government on 12 March 2004 RD 661/2007 Royal Decree 661/2007 issued by the Spanish Government on 25 May 2007 RDL 2/2013 Royal Decree Law issued by the Spanish Government on 2 February 2013 RDL 6/2009 Royal Decree Law 6/2009 issued by the Spanish Government on 30 April 2009 RDL 7/2006 Royal Decree Law issued by the Spanish Government on 23 June 2006 RDL 9/2013 Royal Decree Law issued by the Spanish Government on 12 July 2013 RDLs Royal Decree Laws

Government on 30 April 2009 RDL 7/2006 Royal Decree Law issued by the Spanish Government on 23 June 2006 RDL 9/2013 Royal Decree Law issued by the Spanish Government on 12 July 2013 RDLs Royal Decree Laws RDs Royal Decrees REIO Regional Economic Integration Organization Rejoinder Respondent’s Rejoinder on the Merits and Reply on Jurisdiction dated 22 May 2017 Reply Claimants’ Reply the Merits and CounterMemorial on Jurisdiction dated 21 March 2017 Request for Reconsideration European Commission’s Request to Alter Procedural Order No. 3 dated 9 March 2017 Resp. Comments on Achmea Respondent’s Comments on the Achmea Judgment dated 3 April 2018 Resp. PHB Respondent’s Post Hearing Brief dated 12 October 2017 RfA Request for Ar bitration from Stadtwerke München GmbH, RWE Innogy GmbH, and others, against Spain dated 19 December 2014 RL-[#] Respondent’s Legal Authority Saluka v. Czech Republic award Partial Award rendered in Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL dated 17 March 2006x

Special Payment “Specific remuneration” for qualifying installations under the New Regime Special Regime Regime applicable to qualified producers using renewable energy SWM Stadtwerke München GmbH Tecmed v. Mexico award Award rendered in Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v . The United Mexican States , ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2 dated 29 May 2003 TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TMR Methodology for the approval or modification of the Average Reference Tariff Transcript Day [#]/ [page number/lines] Transcript of the Hearing Tribunal Arbitral Tribunal constituted on 16 December 2015

2003 TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TMR Methodology for the approval or modification of the Average Reference Tariff Transcript Day [#]/ [page number/lines] Transcript of the Hearing Tribunal Arbitral Tribunal constituted on 16 December 2015 VCLT Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties1

INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES This case concerns a dispute submitted to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID” or the “Centre”) on the basis of the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), which entered into force with respect to Spain and Germany on 16 April 1998, and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID Convention”), which entered into force with respect to Spain on 17 September 1994 and Germany on 18 May 1969. The Claimants are (1) Stadtwerk e München GmbH (“SWM”); (2) RWE Innogy GmbH; (3) Rheinenergie AG; (4) AS 3 Beteiligungs GmbH; (5) Ferrostaal Industrial Projects GmbH; (6) Ferranda GmbH; (7) Andasol Fonds GmbH & Co. KG; (8) Andasol 3 Kraftwerks GmbH; and (9) Marquesado Solar S.L. (togethe r, the “ Claimants”). The Claimants are private limited liability companies incorporated under the laws of Germany, except for Marquesado Solar S.L. (“Marquesado”), which is incorporated under the laws of Spain. SWM, AS 3 Beteiligungs GmbH, and Andasol 3 Kr aftwerks GmbH own the entire share capital of Marquesado. RWE Innogy GmbH, Rheinenergie AG, Ferrostaal Industrial Projects GmbH, and Andasol Fonds GmbH & Co. KG, have indirect debt interests and equity participations in Marquesado. The Respondent is the Kingdom of Spain (“Spain” or the “Respondent”).

Industrial Projects GmbH, and Andasol Fonds GmbH & Co. KG, have indirect debt interests and equity participations in Marquesado. The Respondent is the Kingdom of Spain (“Spain” or the “Respondent”). The Claimant s and the Respondent are collectively referred to as the “ Parties.” The Parties’ representatives and their addresses are listed above on page (i). PROCEDURAL HISTORY COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION On 29 December 2014, ICSID received a Request for Arbitration, which was supplemented on 7 January 2015, from SWM, RWE Innogy GmbH, and others, against Spain (“ RfA”). The RfA concerned the Claimants’ investments in a concentrated solar power in stallation2

in southern Spain for the production and sale of electricity and a series of acts and omissions by Spain allegedly in violation of Spain’s obligations toward such investments under the ECT and international law. On 7 January 2015, the Secretary-General of ICSID registered the RfA in accordance with Article 36 of the ICSID Convention and Rules 6 and 7 of ICSID’s Rules of Procedure for the Institution of Conciliation and Arbitration Proceedings (“ Institution Rules”). In the Notice of Registration, the Secretary-General invited the Parties to proceed to constitute an arbitral tribunal as soon as possible in accordance with Rule 7(d) of the Institution Rules, noting that the Claimants had suggested a method for appointing arbitrators in its RfA. TRIBUNAL’S CONSTITUTION On 25 March 2015, the Claimants, in a letter to ICSID reporting that the Parties had not been able to agree on a method for the appointment of arbitrators, invoked Article 37(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention, according to which the Tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each party and the third, who shall be the President of the Tribunal, appointed by agreement of the parties. On 26 March 2015, the Centre informed the Parties that the Tribunal was to be constituted

one arbitrator appointed by each party and the third, who shall be the President of the Tribunal, appointed by agreement of the parties. On 26 March 2015, the Centre informed the Parties that the Tribunal was to be constituted in accordance with Article 37(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention. On 15 April 2015, following appointment by the Claimants, Professor Kaj Hobér, a national of Sweden, accepted his appointment as arbitrator. On 20 May 2015, following appointment by the Respondent, Professor Zachary Douglas, a national of Australia, accepted his appointment as arbitrator. On 3 June 2015, the Parties informed the Centre of their agreement concerning the appointment of the President of the Tribunal. Under their agreement, the Parties would first try to agree on a President of the Tribunal. In case of disagreement, either Party could ask the Centre to initiate a ballot procedure. Finally, in case the ballot procedure did not result in a mutually agreeable candidate, the Secretary -General would appoint the President of the Tribunal.3

On 29 September 2015, the Parties, unable to agree on a President, requested the Centre to initiate the ballot procedure for the appointment of the President of the Tri bunal. On 24 November 2015, the Secretary-General of ICSID sent the Parties ballots to complete and return by 3 December 2015. On 4 December 2015, the Centre informed the Parties that the ballot did not result in a mutually agreeable candidate. On 4 December 2015, the Secretary-General of ICSID, following the Parties’ agreed upon procedure, therefore proposed Professor Jeswald W. Salacuse, a national of the United States of America, as the President of the Tribunal. On 16 December 2015, the Secretary-General, in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (“Arbitration Rules”), notified the Parties that all three arbitrators had accepted their appointments and that the Tribunal was therefore deemed to have been constituted on that date. The Tribunal is thus composed of Professor

Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (“Arbitration Rules”), notified the Parties that all three arbitrators had accepted their appointments and that the Tribunal was therefore deemed to have been constituted on that date. The Tribunal is thus composed of Professor Jeswald W. Salacuse, a national of the United States of America, President, appointed by the Secretary -General; Professor Kaj Hobér, a national of Sweden, appointed by the Claimants; and Profe ssor Zachary Douglas, a national of Australia, appointed by the Respondent. Mr. Marco Tulio Montañés-Rumayor, ICSID Legal Counsel, was designated to serve as Secretary of the Tribunal. TRIBUNAL’S PRELIMINARY MATTERS AND THE PARTIES’ PLEADINGS In accordance with ICSID Arbitration Rule 13(1), the Tribunal held a first session with the Parties on 16 March 2016, by teleconference. During the session, the Parties confirmed their agreement that the Tribunal had been properly constituted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Arbitration Rules and that they did not have any objections in this respect. The Parties also agreed on a number of procedural matters concerning the proceedings in the case. On 28 March 2016, the Trib unal issued Procedural Order No. 1 (“ PO1”) recording the agreement of the Parties on the aforementioned procedural matters and the decision of the Tribunal on disputed issues. PO1 provides, inter alia, that the applicable Arbitration Rules would be those i n effect from 10 April 2006, that the procedural languages would be4

English and Spanish, and that the place of proceeding would be Washington D.C., United States of America. PO1 also sets out a schedule for the jurisdictional/merits phase of the proceedings, attached to the Order as Annex A. In accordance with PO1, the Claimants filed their Memorial on the Merits on 8 July 2016 (“Memorial”), accompanied by the witness statements of Dr. Klaus Lesker, Mr. Christian

proceedings, attached to the Order as Annex A. In accordance with PO1, the Claimants filed their Memorial on the Merits on 8 July 2016 (“Memorial”), accompanied by the witness statements of Dr. Klaus Lesker, Mr. Christian Beltle, Mr. Dieter Hassel, Mr. Hans Bünting, and Mr. Martin Riffeser; the Brattle Group’s Damages (“ Brattle First Quantum Report ”) and Regulatory (“ Brattle First Regulatory”) Expert Reports; Factual Exhibits C-1 to C-177; and Legal Authorities CL-1 to CL-94. On 4 October 2016, the Respondent filed its Counter -Memorial on the Merits and a Memorial on Jurisdiction (“ Counter-Memorial”) accompanied by the witness statement of Mr. Carlos M ontoya; the Econ One Research Inc. Expert Report (“ Econ One First Report”); Factual Exhibits R -1 to R -247; and Legal Authorities RL -1 to RL -67. Its Counter-Memorial raised two specific objections to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this case. First that the Claimants were not protected investors under the ECT, and second that the 7% levy enacted by Spain’s Law/15/2012 was a ‘Taxation Measure’ under the ECT and, therefore, a matter that according to ECT Article 21 did not create obligations under the ECT. On 20 December 2016, the Parties filed a Joint Document Production Application with its corresponding Redfern Schedules in accordance with Sections 15.2.3.3 and 15.3 of PO1. On 9 February 2017, the Parties agreed to modify the procedural calendar, extending t he deadlines of further submissions. On 16 February 2017, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 2 concerning the Parties’ Joint Document Production Application of 20 December 2016. On 21 March 2017, the Claimants filed a Reply on the Merits and a Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction (“Reply”) accompanied by the second witness statements of Dr. Klaus Lesker,

Order No. 2 concerning the Parties’ Joint Document Production Application of 20 December 2016. On 21 March 2017, the Claimants filed a Reply on the Merits and a Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction (“Reply”) accompanied by the second witness statements of Dr. Klaus Lesker, Mr. Christian Beltle and Mr. Martin Riffeser ; Brattle’s Rebuttal Damages (“ Brattle Second Quantum Report ”) and Regulatory (“ Brattle Second Regulatory Re port”)5

Expert Reports; Renovetec’s Useful Life Expert Report; Factual Exhibits C-178 to C-273; and Legal Authorities CL-95 to CL-161. On 22 May 2017, the Respondent filed its Rejoinder on the Merits and a Reply on Jurisdiction (“Rejoinder”) accompanied by the second witness statement of Mr. Carlos Montoya; the witness statement of Mr. Daniel Lacalle ; the expert report of Prof. Jorge Servert; the second expert report by Econ One (“Econ One Second Report ”); Factual Exhibits R-248 to R-519; and Legal Authorities RL-69 to RL-93. On 3 July 2017, the Claimants filed a Rejoinder on Jurisdiction (“Rejoinder Jurisdiction”) accompanied by Factual Exhibits C -274 to C -276, and Leg