Merits. The owner can decide whether to start or shelve the project knowing the total lumpsum price quoted by different contractors.
Merits. In this type of contract, additional staff for recording detailed measurements of original item of work is not required for making payment to the contractor.
Merits. First, there was no expropriation as Claimant retains full control over its investment. Second, and only if Tribunal were to find that Xxxxxxxx’s investment was expropriated by introducing the KEA and the Decree, Claimant is not entitled to compensation as Respondent acted within its police powers. The KEA and the Decree were adopted in good faith and aimed at protecting public health and the environment. In addition, the measures adopted by Respondent were also non-discriminatory and proportional to the pursued aim.
Merits. An Employee shall receive a merit increase in increments ofone step each year on July 1 ifthe Employee receives a "meets expectations" or better performance review on the anniversary date ofhis or her employment during the previous period of July 1 through June 30.
Merits. 41. Taking the parties’ submissions into due consideration, the main issues to be resolved by the Panel are: - Is the Appellant obliged to pay the transfer fee in the total amount of EUR 3,200,000? - If the Appellant failed to pay the transfer fee in due time, is the contractual penalty in the amount of EUR 500,000 proportionate and due?
A. Transfer fee
42. The Appellant deems itself not bound by the Agreement, making reference to article 4, which holds that the Agreement shall be null and void in case the Player and the Appellant cannot reach an agreement by 16 June 2014. Indeed, the Appellant and the Player reached an agreement only after this date, which is undisputed by both parties. Despite these circumstances, the Appellant paid the first instalment in due time without any reservation. The Panel deems it evident that by paying and accepting the first instalment, the parties implicitly agreed that the resolutive condition (article 4 of the Agreement) shall not apply. Therefore, the Panel considers that the Appellant’s argument shall not be accepted, as it violates the principle of “venire contra factum proprium”. Since the Appellant does not provide further evidence or arguments why the Agreement should not be binding, the Panel concludes that the Agreement is valid. The Agreement is signed by the Appellant’s President and each page of the Agreement is initialled by both parties.
43. The Panel considers that the wording of the Agreement is clear and cannot be misinterpreted. Article 2 para. 3 defines the meaning of the agreed transfer fee as “net” being the amount after all legal deductions, including but not limited to solidarity contributions. The Panel therefore recognizes, that the parties actually agreed on a net transfer fee of EUR 3,200000, which corresponds to a gross amount of EUR 3,368,421, inclusive of the amount to be distributed as solidarity contribution.
44. With respect to the question whether the parties may agree on a “net” transfer fee, the Panel adopts the decision rendered in the case CAS 2012/A/2707, which holds that there is no legal obstacle preventing clubs from agreeing that the new club shall bear the solidarity contribution in addition to the transfer fee. As long as the new club remains responsible for paying the solidarity contribution, an internal agreement such as that in the case at hand is not prohibited by the RSTP (also see CAS 2013/A/3403-3404 & 3405, para. 7.3; CAS 2008/A/1544, para. 71 and 72; CAS/2009/A/1773 & 1...
Merits. The Appellant claims that the Transfer Agreement was signed on its behalf whereas the Respondent argues that Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx entered into the contract exclusively in its own name and for its own account.
Merits. The parties appear to be in general agreement as to the three questions to be addressed. These are (a) what is the nature of Article 5 of the Termination Agreement, and specifically, is it a penalty clause; (b) is this clause valid and, if so, is it “exclusive” or “cumulative” with respect to meeting the other payment obligations provided for in the Termination Agreement, and (c) to the extent the clause is deemed valid, is the amount it provides for excessive, and if so, to what extent should it be reduced?
Merits. Respondent unlawfully expropriated Xxxxxxxx’s investment and therefore is in breach of Article 7 BIT. First, Respondent not only introduced KEA and the Decree rendering Claimant’s investment redundant but also confiscated Claimant’s property. Second, expropriation was unlawful as measures introduced by Respondent fell outside public purpose, were discriminatory against Xxxxxxxx’s investment and introduced in breach of due process of law. In addition, Respondent failed to pay due compensation.
Merits. No merit increases shall be paid during the term of this agreement.
