The Tribunal rendered its Final Award on 3 August 2022 (the "Final Award").

On 24 August 2022, Moldova submitted a request for corrections of the Final Award, pursuant to Article 47 of the SCC Rules. On that same date, the Tribunal invited Komaksavia to submit comments on the Respondent's request by 31 August 2022. Komaksavia did not submit any comments, by that date or subsequently.

In the below, the Tribunal sets out its decisions on the corrections requested by Moldova.

Article 47 of the SCC provides in its entirety:

The scope of a tribunal's power to decide on corrections is limited to "clerical, typographical or computational" errors in an award. As further explained by the authors of A Guide to the SCC Rules, "[t]he intention is to provide an opportunity to adjust clear mistakes of an administrative nature. Thus, it is not possible for the Arbitral Tribunal to reassess its decision on the merits [...]".1

With this in mind, the Tribunal now tums to Moldova's requests for corrections.

Moldova has requested that the Tribunal make 17 corrections. Having carefully reviewed the requests, it is evident that nine2 of the 17 requests are for corrections that undoubtedly fall within the scope of Article 47 of the SCC Rules. These are all either typographical errors (such as a few stray letters added to the street name of the Respondent's counsel in paragraph 4, and the two references to "3 September 2000" instead of "3 September 2020" in paragraphs 7 and 14), or of a clerical nature (such as the inconsistent reference to Moldova's post-hearing brief in footnote 71, and the misnaming of three corporate entities in paras. 60 and 63). Requests No 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 are therefore granted.

Seven requests3 concern the manner in which the Tribunal has referred to Moldova's two cost submissions. On two separate instances, the Tribunal has in the main body of the Final Award referred generically to Moldova's submissions, without using a defined term, and in five instances the Tribunal has referred to the same submissions with the defined terms "Respondent's First Cost Submission" and "Respondent's Second Cost Submission," respectively. Moldova now seeks to "correct" this by asking the Tribunal to instead refer to the two submissions in a different manner, using different defined terms. While these requests conceivably may fall within the scope of Article 47 of the SCC Rules, as granting them would not involve changing a decision on the merits but rather a change of a clerical nature, the Tribunal does not share Moldova's view that the Tribunal's references need to be "corrected." It is squarely within a tribunal's discretion to use (or not use) defined terms in an award, notwithstanding that a party may prefer a different defined term to be used. Requests 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 are therefore denied.

The one remaining request, Request No. 3, calls for a bit more consideration. In paragraph 60 of the Final Award, the Tribunal stated at the end of a sentence that Mr. Modris Karklinsh "from 23 December 2019 was the holder of 30% of Komaksavia shares." Moldova has requested that this part of the sentence be deleted, as the provided information is incorrect. On first glance, this request could be viewed as going to the merits of the Tribunal's determinations as to an issue of fact. However, as is made clear from reading the Final Award in its entirety — and as Moldova has pointed out — the Tribunal refers in two other instances to the correct information, i.e., that it was Mr. Andrey Goncharenko who was the holder of 30% of Komaksavia shares from 23 December 2019. Consequently, it is clear that the sentence referred to in Request No. 3 is a mistake of a clerical nature. Request No. 3 is therefore granted.

For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal decides that the Final Award is corrected in the following ways: