Justifications. ANP undertakes to, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justify the act pursuant to the Applicable Laws and Regulations and the Best Practices of the Oil Industry.
Justifications. The National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels – ANP – undertakes to, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justify the act pursuant to Applicable Laws and Regulations and the Best Practices of the Oil industry.
Justifications. See general justification. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent reasonably believes that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because they would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of business given the importance attributed to the negotiations and interconnection agreement with Telmex.
Justifications. The ANP shall be committed, whenever it exercises its discretionary power, justifiably to act, according to the applicable Brazilian legislation, as well as the Best Practices of the Oil Industry.
Justifications. Mexico noted at paragraph 363 of the Statement of Defense that: “[n]either the Business Plan nor Xx. Xxxxxx’x email mentions Competitive Tandem Services at all. In fact, it appears that this line of business was conceived in 2017 –after the Claimants submitted their Notice of intent and Notice of Arbitration– in order to maximize the claim for damages.” Mexico went on to quote a document prepared in May 2017 that appears to support that view: It is important to point out that the final dimensions of the proposed project must be tied to a modeling study that reveals, in the light of the real fixed telephony traffic flowing between Telmex and the rest of the Public Telecommunications Networks (RPTs), what the final magnitude of this project will be and that it is within the legal and regulatory framework armor of what is proposed (this last [point] must be included in the modeling to be done). So that it can be incorporated in the end in the financial damages model in the NAFTA claim with the confidence that it is dully grounded and supported, which will contribute to increase the credibility of what is to be presented to the International Arbitral Panel and evidently will increase the amount of the claim. [Emphasis added] The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome as they will show: (i) whether or not there was a plan to offer Competitive Tandem Services in Mexico, and if so, (ii) whether contemporaneous projections, studies and analysis are consistent with the claim for damages arising from this line of business. They will also provide important insight into the legality of the intended line of business (also a contentious point) and how exactly it was intended to operate. This information will assist the Respondent’s damages and legal experts to further elaborate on their opinions to rebut the Claimants’ evidence. If Tele Fácil did in fact intend to offer these services (i.e., Competitive Tandem Services) it is reasonable to assume that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants as they would have been prepared and kept in the ordinary course of business. The requested documents are not in the Respondent’s custody or control.
Justifications. See general justification. The Respondent is not in possession of the requested documents. The Respondent believes that the requested Documents exist considering the relevance of the transaction and because they would have been kept in the ordinary course of business.
Justifications. 5.1.0 Xxxxxxx Xxxx South of Tsim Sha Tsui is the last flooding blackspot in the urban area due to the relatively low topography and the insufficient capacity of existing branch drainage system. Flooding incidents often occur during heavy rain. Flooding impacts on traffic, residential and business activities will cause significant economic losses and inconvenience to general public. In order to relieve the flood risk, the proposed drainage improvement works in the form of stormwater pumping scheme coupled with drainage upgrading and modification works are proposed.
5.1.2 The underground storage tank and stormwater pumping station were originally proposed at the open space of Hong Kong Science Museum (HKSM) in the Technical Feasibility Stage (TFS). During the design evolution of the project, HKSM expressed that the open space could not be released to DSD as the area concerned would be utilized for further development of HKSM. After deliberation with Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), the underground storage tank and pumping have been relocated to the existing location, i.e. beneath Urban Council Centenary Garden, whilst the extent of the associated drainage upgrading works remain nearly the same as in the TFS stage.
5.1.3 The alternative location for the proposed stormwater pumping station has been reviewed. However, it is concluded that the proposed location is the most suitable in the consideration of hydraulic performance, construction cost, recurrent cost, construction programme, traffic impact, social impact and environmental impact.
5.1.4 The proposed stormwater pumping station should be located in the vicinity of downstream of existing drainage system such that the length of rising main and the associated operation and maintenance costs could be minimized. The proposed location located nearby the existing downstream box culvert and the length of rising main that connecting to the box culvert is about 70m.
5.1.5 In the view of the current condition of the Site is an open space and covered with dense layers of lush vegetation, the landscape design of the site is aimed at maximising opportunities for greening and achieving pleasant and sheltered environment which could encourage people to enjoy the relaxing hours with aesthetically design.
5.1.6 The architectural design of proposed pumping station has strong relationship with the surrounding environment and the best echo with Tsim Sha Tsui layout context. Also, it provides a soothing yet dy...
Justifications. One of the Claimants’ key factual allegations in this case is that Tele Fácil and Telmex had a binding agreement on interconnection rates. This agreement was allegedly struck when Tele Fácil accepted in mid 2014 Telmex’s initial offer made in August 2013.
Justifications. Same justification as in Request 1.
Justifications. The Claimants argue that Mexico breached Article 1105 of the NAFTA by impeding the Claimants to file an appeal to an adverse xxxxxx ruling.12 The Claimants argue that the security officers of the Office of Correspondence of Common Correspondence did not allow Xx. Xxxxxxx to file the xxxxxx appeal on 11 February 2016 at 23:58 pm and refused to receive the xxxxxx appeal on 12 February 2016 at 8:40 am.13 The requested documents are relevant to the case and material to its outcome because they will provide important insight into the facts and circumstances that give rise to the claim of breach of Article 1105. In particular, whether the Claimants’ account of the events of 11 and 12 February 2016 is consistent with contemporaneous evidence of the same. The requested documents are not in the possession, custody or control of the Respondent. The Respondent reasonably believes that the requested documents exist and are in the possession, custody or control of the Claimants because Xx. Xxxxxxx’x inability to file the appeal (and the reasons thereof) would have been perceived as a significant event for the company and would have triggered internal communications and documents to inform Tele Fácil’s senior management/shareholders of the situation and discuss potential ways to remedy the same. 12 Reply, ¶ 386. 13 Reply, ¶372-373. Objections: Claimants have no documents responsive to this request. Reply: The Respondent finds it hard to believe that there are no responsive documents to this request, especially considering the significance that the Claimants ascribe to their inability to file their appeal. In any legal system, failing to meet a litigation deadline is a sensitive issue. It is thus reasonable to believe that Tele Fácil would have been informed immediately that Xx. Xxxxxxx (an associate of BGBG) was unable to file the xxxxxx appeal on the due date and that this significant event would have been discussed by Tele Fácil’s shareholders, managers and external advisors. The Respondent further observes that the Claimants have not asserted privilege over any documents. The Respondent requests the Tribunal to instruct the Claimants to confirm that no responsive documents exist.
