IOAN MICULA, et al. ,
Petitioners,
v.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,
Respondent.
Civil No. 17-cv-02332 (APM)
","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":9,"blockId":2,"value":"IOAN","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":140.16,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 140, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":10,"blockId":2,"value":"MICULA,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.84,"y":140.16,"width":56.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 140, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":11,"blockId":2,"value":"et al.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":140.16,"width":26.95,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold, Italic","rectangle":"168, 140, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":12,"blockId":2,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.84,"y":140.16,"width":3.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"195, 140, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":199.32,"MarginBottom":152.16,"MarginTop":140.16,"Value":"IOAN MICULA, et al. ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":15,"blockId":2,"value":"Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":167.76,"width":58.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 167, 58, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":166.32,"MarginBottom":179.76,"MarginTop":167.76,"Value":"Petitioners,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":18,"blockId":2,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":195.36,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 195, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":144.0,"MarginRight":153.0,"MarginBottom":207.36,"MarginTop":195.36,"Value":"v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":22,"blockId":2,"value":"THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":222.96,"width":202.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 222, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":274.68,"MarginBottom":234.96,"MarginTop":222.96,"Value":"THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":25,"blockId":2,"value":"Respondent.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":250.56,"width":63.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 250, 63, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":171.72,"MarginBottom":262.56,"MarginTop":250.56,"Value":"Respondent."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":27,"blockId":2,"value":"_________________________________________","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":246.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 264, 246, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":318.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"_________________________________________"}],"Rectangle":"72, 140, 246, 136","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" IOAN MICULA, et al. ,\r\n Petitioners,\r\n v.\r\n THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,\r\n Respondent.\r\n _________________________________________\r\n","MarginRight":318.0}},"4":{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":29,"columnEnd":29,"text":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":null,"rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12","alignment":1,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":1,"id":29,"blockId":9,"value":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":193.08,"y":301.08,"width":225.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12"}],"MarginLeft":193.08,"MarginRight":418.8,"MarginBottom":313.08,"MarginTop":301.08,"Value":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER"}],"Rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12","MarginLeft":193.08,"Value":" MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\r\n","MarginRight":418.8}},"5":{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":30,"columnEnd":31,"text":" INTRODUCTION ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hI","paragraphId":"hI","paragraphLabel":"I.","rectangle":"72, 328, 132, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":30,"blockId":10,"value":"I.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":328.68,"width":7.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 328, 7, 12"},{"type":2,"id":31,"blockId":10,"value":"INTRODUCTION","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":328.68,"width":96.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 328, 96, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":204.0,"MarginBottom":340.68,"MarginTop":328.68,"Value":"I. INTRODUCTION"}],"Rectangle":"72, 328, 132, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" I. INTRODUCTION\r\n","MarginRight":204.0}},"6":{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":32,"columnEnd":66,"text":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”). In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa1.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa1.1","paragraphLabel":"1.1","rectangle":"72, 356, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”). In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now","averageFontSize":11.995061728395061,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":32,"blockId":11,"value":"The court is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":356.28,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 356, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":33,"blockId":11,"value":"compelled","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.76,"y":356.28,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 356, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":34,"blockId":11,"value":"once more","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.6,"y":356.28,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 356, 52, 12"},{"type":2,"id":35,"blockId":11,"value":"to revisit","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":285.48,"y":356.28,"width":44.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"285, 356, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":36,"blockId":11,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.56,"y":356.28,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 356, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":37,"blockId":11,"value":"seemingly never-ending","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":354.0,"y":356.28,"width":117.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"354, 356, 117, 12"},{"type":2,"id":38,"blockId":11,"value":"saga","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.28,"y":356.28,"width":21.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 356, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":39,"blockId":11,"value":"over an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.32,"y":356.28,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 356, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":368.28,"MarginTop":356.28,"Value":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":40,"blockId":11,"value":"international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":383.88,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 383, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":395.88,"MarginTop":383.88,"Value":"international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”)."},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":41,"blockId":11,"value":"In this latest installment,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":411.48,"width":119.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 411, 119, 12"},{"type":2,"id":42,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania seeks relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.28,"y":411.48,"width":101.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 411, 101, 12"},{"type":2,"id":43,"blockId":11,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.8,"y":411.48,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 411, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":44,"blockId":11,"value":"Federal Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":329.52,"y":411.48,"width":61.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"329, 411, 61, 12"},{"type":2,"id":45,"blockId":11,"value":"of Civil Procedure","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":394.8,"y":411.48,"width":89.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"394, 411, 89, 12"},{"type":2,"id":46,"blockId":11,"value":"60(b) from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.32,"y":411.48,"width":52.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 411, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":423.48,"MarginTop":411.48,"Value":"In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":47,"blockId":11,"value":"three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":439.08,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 439, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":451.08,"MarginTop":439.08,"Value":"three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":48,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":466.56,"width":367.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 466, 367, 12"},{"type":2,"id":49,"blockId":11,"value":"Taken together, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":446.28,"y":466.56,"width":93.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"446, 466, 93, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":478.56,"MarginTop":466.56,"Value":"Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":50,"blockId":11,"value":"Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":494.16,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 494, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":51,"blockId":11,"value":"(1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":127.44,"y":494.16,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"127, 494, 13, 12"},{"type":2,"id":52,"blockId":11,"value":"confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.56,"y":494.16,"width":394.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 494, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":506.16,"MarginTop":494.16,"Value":"Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":53,"blockId":11,"value":"under the International","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":521.76,"width":109.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 521, 109, 12"},{"type":2,"id":54,"blockId":11,"value":"Convention on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.04,"y":521.76,"width":71.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 521, 71, 12"},{"type":2,"id":55,"blockId":11,"value":"the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.68,"y":521.76,"width":280.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 521, 280, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":533.76,"MarginTop":521.76,"Value":"under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":56,"blockId":11,"value":"Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":549.36,"width":194.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 549, 194, 12"},{"type":2,"id":57,"blockId":11,"value":"“the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.92,"y":549.36,"width":19.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 549, 19, 12"},{"type":2,"id":58,"blockId":11,"value":"Convention”) and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.24,"y":549.36,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 549, 87, 12"},{"type":2,"id":59,"blockId":11,"value":"(2)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.6,"y":549.36,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"390, 549, 13, 12"},{"type":2,"id":60,"blockId":11,"value":"imposed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.92,"y":549.36,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 549, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":61,"blockId":11,"value":"sanctions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":456.0,"y":549.36,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"456, 549, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":62,"blockId":11,"value":"against","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":506.04,"y":549.36,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"506, 549, 33, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":561.36,"MarginTop":549.36,"Value":"Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":63,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":576.96,"width":388.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 576, 388, 12"},{"type":2,"id":64,"blockId":11,"value":"1","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":460.68,"y":576.36,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"460, 576, 4, 8"},{"type":2,"id":65,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.44,"y":576.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 576, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":66,"blockId":11,"value":"now","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.6,"y":576.96,"width":20.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 576, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":588.96,"MarginTop":576.36,"Value":"Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now"}],"Rectangle":"108, 356, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an\r\n international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”).\r\n In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from\r\n three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel\r\n Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the\r\n Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened\r\n under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and\r\n Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against\r\n Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"7":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":113,"columnEnd":118,"text":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":113,"blockId":12,"value":"asks the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":38.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":114,"blockId":12,"value":"court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.64,"y":71.16,"width":426.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 71, 426, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":115,"blockId":12,"value":"of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":116,"blockId":12,"value":"Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":117,"blockId":12,"value":"the Judgments.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":72.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":118,"blockId":12,"value":"The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.0,"y":153.96,"width":358.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"150, 153, 358, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":508.32,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber\r\n of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that\r\n Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from\r\n the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"8":{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":67,"columnEnd":108,"text":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I , this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"fn1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"fn1","paragraphLabel":"1","rectangle":"71, 626, 468, 90","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I , this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,","averageFontSize":9.99542857142857,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":67,"blockId":13,"value":"1","fontName":"Times","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":626.88,"width":3.29,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 626, 3, 6"},{"type":3,"id":68,"blockId":13,"value":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.88,"y":626.88,"width":262.19,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 626, 262, 9"},{"type":3,"id":69,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":342.94,"y":626.88,"width":139.91,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"342, 626, 139, 9"},{"type":3,"id":70,"blockId":13,"value":", 404 F. Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":482.86,"y":626.88,"width":57.14,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"482, 626, 57, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":636.84,"MarginTop":626.88,"Value":"1 The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":71,"blockId":13,"value":"3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) (","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":638.88,"width":97.56,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 638, 97, 9"},{"type":3,"id":72,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":169.55,"y":638.88,"width":35.05,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"169, 638, 35, 9"},{"type":3,"id":73,"blockId":13,"value":"),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":204.59,"y":638.88,"width":5.88,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"204, 638, 5, 9"},{"type":3,"id":74,"blockId":13,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":213.82,"y":638.88,"width":18.9,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"213, 638, 18, 9"},{"type":3,"id":75,"blockId":13,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":232.79,"y":638.88,"width":158.99,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 638, 158, 9"},{"type":3,"id":76,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":395.27,"y":638.88,"width":142.3,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"395, 638, 142, 9"},{"type":3,"id":77,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.58,"y":638.88,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 638, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":648.84,"MarginTop":638.88,"Value":"3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":78,"blockId":13,"value":"No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":650.41,"width":268.55,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 650, 268, 9"},{"type":3,"id":79,"blockId":13,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":342.94,"y":650.41,"width":18.9,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"342, 650, 18, 9"},{"type":3,"id":80,"blockId":13,"value":", No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":361.91,"y":650.41,"width":178.07,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"361, 650, 178, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":660.37,"MarginTop":650.41,"Value":"No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":81,"blockId":13,"value":"June 24, 2022) [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.98,"y":661.93,"width":109.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 661, 109, 9"},{"type":3,"id":82,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":184.18,"y":661.93,"width":37.74,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"184, 661, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":83,"blockId":13,"value":"]; and (3)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":221.86,"y":661.93,"width":37.79,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"221, 661, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":84,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":262.53,"y":661.93,"width":139.79,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"262, 661, 139, 9"},{"type":3,"id":85,"blockId":13,"value":", No. 17-cv-2332-APM,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":402.32,"y":661.93,"width":96.49,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"402, 661, 96, 9"},{"type":3,"id":86,"blockId":13,"value":"2021 WL","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":501.7,"y":661.93,"width":38.28,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 661, 38, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.98,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":671.89,"MarginTop":661.93,"Value":"June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":87,"blockId":13,"value":"5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.97,"y":673.45,"width":130.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 673, 130, 9"},{"type":3,"id":88,"blockId":13,"value":"appeal filed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":205.42,"y":673.45,"width":47.57,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"205, 673, 47, 9"},{"type":3,"id":89,"blockId":13,"value":"December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":255.55,"y":673.45,"width":181.93,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 673, 181, 9"},{"type":3,"id":90,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":440.12,"y":673.45,"width":40.98,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"440, 673, 40, 9"},{"type":3,"id":91,"blockId":13,"value":"].","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":481.16,"y":673.45,"width":5.88,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"481, 673, 5, 9"},{"type":3,"id":92,"blockId":13,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":492.32,"y":673.45,"width":8.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"492, 673, 8, 9"},{"type":3,"id":93,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":503.35,"y":673.45,"width":34.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"503, 673, 34, 9"},{"type":3,"id":94,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.56,"y":673.45,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 673, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.97,"MarginRight":539.9599999999999,"MarginBottom":683.4100000000001,"MarginTop":673.45,"Value":"5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":95,"blockId":13,"value":"this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.96,"y":684.86,"width":468.01,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 684, 468, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.96,"MarginRight":539.97,"MarginBottom":694.82,"MarginTop":684.86,"Value":"this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":96,"blockId":13,"value":"sum of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.96,"y":696.38,"width":27.72,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 696, 27, 9"},{"type":3,"id":97,"blockId":13,"value":"$331,557,687.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":102.44,"y":696.38,"width":57.48,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 696, 57, 9"},{"type":3,"id":98,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":165.44,"y":696.38,"width":28.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"165, 696, 28, 9"},{"type":3,"id":99,"blockId":13,"value":"I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":196.4,"y":696.38,"width":3.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"196, 696, 3, 9"},{"type":3,"id":100,"blockId":13,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":199.76,"y":696.38,"width":122.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 696, 122, 9"},{"type":3,"id":101,"blockId":13,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":327.19,"y":696.38,"width":8.28,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 696, 8, 9"},{"type":3,"id":102,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":338.23,"y":696.38,"width":37.62,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 696, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":103,"blockId":13,"value":", this court denied Romania’s request for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":375.91,"y":696.38,"width":164.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 696, 164, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.96,"MarginRight":539.94,"MarginBottom":706.34,"MarginTop":696.38,"Value":"sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":104,"blockId":13,"value":"relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.95,"y":707.9,"width":265.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 707, 265, 9"},{"type":3,"id":105,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":341.96,"y":707.9,"width":37.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"341, 707, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":106,"blockId":13,"value":", 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":379.03,"y":707.9,"width":115.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 707, 115, 9"},{"type":3,"id":107,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":496.88,"y":707.9,"width":40.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"496, 707, 40, 9"},{"type":3,"id":108,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.55,"y":707.9,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 707, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.95,"MarginRight":539.9499999999999,"MarginBottom":717.86,"MarginTop":707.9,"Value":"relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,"}],"Rectangle":"72, 626, 467, 90","MarginLeft":71.95,"Value":" 1 The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp.\r\n 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania ,\r\n No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir.\r\n June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL\r\n 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I ,\r\n this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the\r\n sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for\r\n relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"9":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":160,"columnEnd":174,"text":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay discovery. Micula III, 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions, and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 44","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay discovery. Micula III, 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions, and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .","averageFontSize":10.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":160,"blockId":14,"value":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":673.44,"width":468.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.03,"MarginBottom":683.4000000000001,"MarginTop":673.44,"Value":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":161,"blockId":14,"value":"discovery.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.84,"width":41.52,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 41, 9"},{"type":6,"id":162,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":118.32,"y":684.84,"width":40.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"118, 684, 40, 9"},{"type":6,"id":163,"blockId":14,"value":", 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":159.12,"y":684.84,"width":114.84,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"159, 684, 114, 9"},{"type":6,"id":164,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":278.76,"y":684.84,"width":34.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"278, 684, 34, 9"},{"type":6,"id":165,"blockId":14,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":315.33,"y":684.84,"width":14.43,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 684, 14, 9"},{"type":6,"id":166,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":332.17,"y":684.84,"width":37.44,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"332, 684, 37, 9"},{"type":6,"id":167,"blockId":14,"value":"were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":372.0,"y":684.84,"width":168.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 684, 168, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.03,"MarginBottom":694.8000000000001,"MarginTop":684.84,"Value":"discovery. Micula III , 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":168,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.01,"y":696.37,"width":41.34,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 696, 41, 9"},{"type":6,"id":169,"blockId":14,"value":"remains pending before the D.C. Circuit.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":115.78,"y":696.37,"width":165.87,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"115, 696, 165, 9"},{"type":6,"id":170,"blockId":14,"value":"Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":287.54,"y":696.37,"width":209.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"287, 696, 209, 9"},{"type":6,"id":171,"blockId":14,"value":"decisions,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":500.42,"y":696.37,"width":39.59,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"500, 696, 39, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.01,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions,"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":172,"blockId":14,"value":"and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.01,"y":707.89,"width":202.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 707, 202, 9"},{"type":6,"id":173,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":276.85,"y":707.89,"width":34.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"276, 707, 34, 9"},{"type":6,"id":174,"blockId":14,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":310.93,"y":707.89,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"310, 707, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.01,"MarginRight":313.33,"MarginBottom":717.85,"MarginTop":707.89,"Value":"and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I ."}],"Rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 43","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay\r\n discovery. Micula III , 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of\r\n Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions,\r\n and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .\r\n","MarginRight":540.03}},"10":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":119,"columnEnd":119,"text":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa1.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa1.2","paragraphLabel":"1.2","rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":119,"blockId":17,"value":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":181.56,"width":272.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":380.64,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":380.64}},"11":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":120,"columnEnd":121,"text":" BACKGROUND ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hII","paragraphId":"hII","paragraphLabel":"II.","rectangle":"72, 209, 123, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":120,"blockId":18,"value":"II.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":12.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":121,"blockId":18,"value":"BACKGROUND","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 209, 87, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":195.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"II. BACKGROUND"}],"Rectangle":"72, 209, 123, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" II. BACKGROUND\r\n","MarginRight":195.95999999999998}},"12":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":122,"columnEnd":138,"text":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions and will not be rehashed here. See e.g., Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2","paragraphLabel":"2.","rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions and will not be rehashed here. See e.g., Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":122,"blockId":19,"value":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":236.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 236, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":123,"blockId":19,"value":"and will not be rehashed here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":145.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 145, 12"},{"type":2,"id":124,"blockId":19,"value":"See e.g.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":224.04,"y":264.36,"width":37.15,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"224, 264, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":125,"blockId":19,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.24,"y":264.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 264, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":126,"blockId":19,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.6,"y":264.36,"width":167.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"267, 264, 167, 12"},{"type":2,"id":127,"blockId":19,"value":", 404 F.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.24,"y":264.36,"width":37.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 264, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":128,"blockId":19,"value":"Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":475.8,"y":264.36,"width":27.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"475, 264, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":129,"blockId":19,"value":"3d 265","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":506.76,"y":264.36,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"506, 264, 33, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"and will not be rehashed here. See e.g. , Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":130,"blockId":19,"value":"(D.D.C. 2019) (","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":77.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 77, 12"},{"type":2,"id":131,"blockId":19,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.0,"y":291.96,"width":41.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"150, 291, 41, 12"},{"type":2,"id":132,"blockId":19,"value":"),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.88,"y":291.96,"width":6.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 291, 6, 12"},{"type":2,"id":133,"blockId":19,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":202.68,"y":291.96,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"202, 291, 22, 12"},{"type":2,"id":134,"blockId":19,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.36,"y":291.96,"width":170.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 291, 170, 12"},{"type":2,"id":135,"blockId":19,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.32,"y":291.96,"width":47.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 291, 47, 12"},{"type":2,"id":136,"blockId":19,"value":"simply","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":454.44,"y":291.96,"width":32.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"454, 291, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":137,"blockId":19,"value":"recaps the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.04,"y":291.96,"width":48.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 291, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"(D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":138,"blockId":19,"value":"facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":206.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 206, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":278.64,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion."}],"Rectangle":"108, 236, 432, 95","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions\r\n and will not be rehashed here. See e.g. , Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265\r\n (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the\r\n facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"13":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":139,"columnEnd":143,"text":" Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.A","paragraphId":"h2.A","paragraphLabel":"A.","rectangle":"108, 347, 396, 25","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":139,"blockId":20,"value":"A.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 347, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":140,"blockId":20,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":347.16,"width":55.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 347, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":141,"blockId":20,"value":"Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.48,"y":347.16,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"204, 347, 249, 12"},{"type":3,"id":142,"blockId":20,"value":"Bilateral","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":459.36,"y":347.16,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"459, 347, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":504.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"A. Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":143,"blockId":20,"value":"Investment Treaty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":360.96,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 360, 95, 12"}],"MarginLeft":144.0,"MarginRight":239.04000000000002,"MarginBottom":372.96,"MarginTop":360.96,"Value":"Investment Treaty"}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 395, 25","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" A. Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral\r\n Investment Treaty\r\n","MarginRight":504.0}},"14":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":144,"columnEnd":153,"text":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.1","paragraphLabel":"2.A.1","rectangle":"72, 388, 468, 149","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":144,"blockId":21,"value":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":388.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 388, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":400.56,"MarginTop":388.56,"Value":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":145,"blockId":21,"value":"1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":416.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 416, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":428.16,"MarginTop":416.16,"Value":"1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":146,"blockId":21,"value":"a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":443.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 443, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":455.76,"MarginTop":443.76,"Value":"a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":147,"blockId":21,"value":"certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":471.36,"width":322.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 471, 322, 12"},{"type":2,"id":148,"blockId":21,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.68,"y":471.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"400, 471, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":149,"blockId":21,"value":"at 270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.64,"y":471.36,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 471, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":150,"blockId":21,"value":"Petitioners Viorel","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.16,"y":471.36,"width":84.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 471, 84, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":483.36,"MarginTop":471.36,"Value":"certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":151,"blockId":21,"value":"and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":498.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 498, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":510.96,"MarginTop":498.96,"Value":"and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":152,"blockId":21,"value":"the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":526.56,"width":307.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 526, 307, 12"},{"type":2,"id":153,"blockId":21,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.2,"y":526.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"385, 526, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":398.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":538.56,"MarginTop":526.56,"Value":"the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 388, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December\r\n 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including\r\n a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided\r\n certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel\r\n and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on\r\n the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"15":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":154,"columnEnd":159,"text":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.2","paragraphLabel":"2.A.2","rectangle":"72, 554, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":154,"blockId":22,"value":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":554.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 554, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":566.16,"MarginTop":554.16,"Value":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":155,"blockId":22,"value":"(“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":581.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 581, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":593.76,"MarginTop":581.76,"Value":"(“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":156,"blockId":22,"value":"invested in the other country.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":609.36,"width":152.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 609, 152, 12"},{"type":3,"id":157,"blockId":22,"value":"Id","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.48,"y":609.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"234, 609, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":158,"blockId":22,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.44,"y":609.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"244, 609, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":159,"blockId":22,"value":"As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.16,"y":609.36,"width":282.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 609, 282, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":621.36,"MarginTop":609.36,"Value":"invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT"}],"Rectangle":"108, 554, 432, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden\r\n (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who\r\n invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"16":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":180,"columnEnd":183,"text":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":180,"blockId":23,"value":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":181,"blockId":23,"value":"either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":182,"blockId":23,"value":"the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":291.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 291, 12"},{"type":3,"id":183,"blockId":23,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.84,"y":126.36,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"369, 126, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":401.88,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before\r\n either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of\r\n the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"17":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":184,"columnEnd":194,"text":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state- sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects they had planned.” Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.3","paragraphLabel":"2.A.3","rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state- sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects they had planned.” Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":184,"blockId":24,"value":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":153.96,"width":332.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 153, 332, 12"},{"type":3,"id":185,"blockId":24,"value":"Romania took that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":153.96,"width":91.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 153, 91, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":186,"blockId":24,"value":"action as part of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":82.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":187,"blockId":24,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":159.96,"y":181.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"159, 181, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":188,"blockId":24,"value":"process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.64,"y":181.56,"width":360.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 181, 360, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.92,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":189,"blockId":24,"value":"sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":350.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 350, 12"},{"type":3,"id":190,"blockId":24,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.32,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"427, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":191,"blockId":24,"value":"Romania’s decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":445.56,"y":209.16,"width":94.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"445, 209, 94, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":192,"blockId":24,"value":"caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":193,"blockId":24,"value":"they had planned.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 90, 12"},{"type":3,"id":194,"blockId":24,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.24,"y":264.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"168, 264, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":181.20000000000002,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"they had planned.” Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that\r\n action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-\r\n sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision\r\n caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects\r\n they had planned.” Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"18":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":195,"columnEnd":196,"text":" Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.B","paragraphId":"h2.B","paragraphLabel":"B.","rectangle":"108, 291, 345, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":195,"blockId":25,"value":"B.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":196,"blockId":25,"value":"Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":291.96,"width":309.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 291, 309, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":453.72,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"B. Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU"}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 345, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" B. Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU\r\n","MarginRight":453.72}},"19":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":197,"columnEnd":231,"text":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.B.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.B.1","paragraphLabel":"2.B.1","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":197,"blockId":26,"value":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":198,"blockId":26,"value":"Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":199,"blockId":26,"value":"ICSID tribunal.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":75.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 75, 12"},{"type":2,"id":200,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.68,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"154, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":201,"blockId":26,"value":"In January 2007, while","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.08,"y":374.76,"width":111.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 374, 111, 12"},{"type":2,"id":202,"blockId":26,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.76,"y":374.76,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 374, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":203,"blockId":26,"value":"arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.12,"y":374.76,"width":230.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 374, 230, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":204,"blockId":26,"value":"formally joined the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 95, 12"},{"type":2,"id":205,"blockId":26,"value":"EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":171.6,"y":402.36,"width":18.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"171, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":206,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.68,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"199, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":207,"blockId":26,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.64,"y":402.36,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 402, 35, 12"},{"type":2,"id":208,"blockId":26,"value":"In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":402.36,"width":279.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 402, 279, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":209,"blockId":26,"value":"Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":210,"blockId":26,"value":"(the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.96,"y":429.96,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 429, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":211,"blockId":26,"value":"“Final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":155.16,"y":429.96,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"155, 429, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":212,"blockId":26,"value":"Decision”)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.88,"y":429.96,"width":51.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 429, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":213,"blockId":26,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.44,"y":429.96,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 429, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":214,"blockId":26,"value":"awarded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":274.32,"y":429.96,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"274, 429, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":215,"blockId":26,"value":"them","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.72,"y":429.96,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 429, 24, 12"},{"type":2,"id":216,"blockId":26,"value":"monetary","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.32,"y":429.96,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"352, 429, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":217,"blockId":26,"value":"damages","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":404.16,"y":429.96,"width":42.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"404, 429, 42, 12"},{"type":2,"id":218,"blockId":26,"value":"plus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.88,"y":429.96,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"452, 429, 20, 12"},{"type":2,"id":219,"blockId":26,"value":"interest","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.52,"y":429.96,"width":35.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 429, 35, 12"},{"type":2,"id":220,"blockId":26,"value":"(the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.4,"y":429.96,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 429, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":221,"blockId":26,"value":"“Award”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":50.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":222,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.04,"y":457.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"131, 457, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":223,"blockId":26,"value":"at 270–71.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":147.0,"y":457.56,"width":53.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"147, 457, 53, 12"},{"type":2,"id":224,"blockId":26,"value":"Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.52,"y":457.56,"width":303.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 457, 303, 12"},{"type":2,"id":225,"blockId":26,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":517.44,"y":457.56,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"517, 457, 22, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"“Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":226,"blockId":26,"value":"Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":383.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 383, 12"},{"type":2,"id":227,"blockId":26,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":458.04,"y":485.16,"width":30.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"458, 485, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":228,"blockId":26,"value":"the ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.4,"y":485.16,"width":48.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 485, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":229,"blockId":26,"value":"tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":176.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 176, 12"},{"type":2,"id":230,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.04,"y":512.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"254, 512, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":231,"blockId":26,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.0,"y":512.76,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 512, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":302.64,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the\r\n Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an\r\n ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania\r\n formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of\r\n Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the\r\n “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after\r\n Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID\r\n tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"20":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":232,"columnEnd":256,"text":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.B.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.B.2","paragraphLabel":"2.B.2","rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":232,"blockId":4,"value":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 540, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":233,"blockId":4,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":234,"blockId":4,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.08,"y":567.96,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 567, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":235,"blockId":4,"value":"advised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.16,"y":567.96,"width":36.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 567, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":236,"blockId":4,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.0,"y":567.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 567, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":237,"blockId":4,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.56,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"283, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":238,"blockId":4,"value":"implementing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.8,"y":567.96,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 567, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":239,"blockId":4,"value":"or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":380.88,"y":567.96,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"380, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":240,"blockId":4,"value":"executing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.08,"y":567.96,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":241,"blockId":4,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.0,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":242,"blockId":4,"value":"Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.88,"y":567.96,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 567, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":243,"blockId":4,"value":"would","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.76,"y":567.96,"width":30.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"509, 567, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":244,"blockId":4,"value":"constitute impermissible new state aid”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":198.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":245,"blockId":4,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.64,"y":595.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":246,"blockId":4,"value":"issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.32,"y":595.56,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 595, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":247,"blockId":4,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.84,"y":595.56,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 595, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":248,"blockId":4,"value":"“suspension","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.52,"y":595.56,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 595, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":249,"blockId":4,"value":"injunction”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.88,"y":595.56,"width":54.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"407, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":250,"blockId":4,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":467.4,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"467, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":251,"blockId":4,"value":"prohibited","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.8,"y":595.56,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 595, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":252,"blockId":4,"value":"Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":253,"blockId":4,"value":"whether the Award constituted state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":204.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 204, 12"},{"type":3,"id":254,"blockId":4,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":284.64,"y":650.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"284, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":255,"blockId":4,"value":"On March 30, 2015, the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.0,"y":650.76,"width":234.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 650, 234, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":256,"blockId":4,"value":"issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the\r\n European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would\r\n constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited\r\n Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on\r\n whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission\r\n issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"21":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":262,"columnEnd":268,"text":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”), which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”), which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":262,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":242.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":263,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.16,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"320, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":264,"blockId":5,"value":"Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.88,"y":71.16,"width":201.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"338, 71, 201, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":265,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":266,"blockId":5,"value":"which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":267,"blockId":5,"value":"Union (“CJEU”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":83.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":268,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.28,"y":153.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"161, 153, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":174.24,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Union (“CJEU”). Id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid\r\n Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),\r\n which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European\r\n Union (“CJEU”). Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"22":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":269,"columnEnd":270,"text":" General Court Decision ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.C","paragraphId":"h2.C","paragraphLabel":"C.","rectangle":"108, 181, 157, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" General Court Decision ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":269,"blockId":6,"value":"C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":181.56,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 181, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":270,"blockId":6,"value":"General Court Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":181.56,"width":121.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 181, 121, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":265.32,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"C. General Court Decision"}],"Rectangle":"108, 181, 157, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" C. General Court Decision\r\n","MarginRight":265.32}},"23":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":271,"columnEnd":302,"text":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.” Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General Court Decision to the CJEU. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.C","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.C","paragraphLabel":"2.C","rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.” Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General Court Decision to the CJEU. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":271,"blockId":7,"value":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":272,"blockId":7,"value":"State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":233.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 233, 12"},{"type":2,"id":273,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":312.96,"y":236.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"312, 236, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":274,"blockId":7,"value":"at 274.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.92,"y":236.76,"width":34.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 236, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":275,"blockId":7,"value":"The General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":370.92,"y":236.76,"width":91.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"370, 236, 91, 12"},{"type":2,"id":276,"blockId":7,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.32,"y":236.76,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"466, 236, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":277,"blockId":7,"value":"“that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":516.72,"y":236.76,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"516, 236, 23, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":278,"blockId":7,"value":"EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":279,"blockId":7,"value":"thus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 20, 12"},{"type":2,"id":280,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":99.36,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"99, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":281,"blockId":7,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":121.32,"y":291.96,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"121, 291, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":282,"blockId":7,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":174.6,"y":291.96,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"174, 291, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":283,"blockId":7,"value":"“lacked","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.76,"y":291.96,"width":36.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 291, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":284,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":286.56,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"286, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":285,"blockId":7,"value":"‘competence’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.64,"y":291.96,"width":65.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 291, 65, 12"},{"type":2,"id":286,"blockId":7,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.12,"y":291.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 291, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":287,"blockId":7,"value":"declare","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.8,"y":291.96,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 291, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":288,"blockId":7,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":439.92,"y":291.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"439, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":289,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.24,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":290,"blockId":7,"value":"investment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.2,"y":291.96,"width":52.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 291, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":291,"blockId":7,"value":"incentives—which Romania offered","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":174.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 174, 12"},{"type":2,"id":292,"blockId":7,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":249.84,"y":319.56,"width":30.65,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"249, 319, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":293,"blockId":7,"value":"acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.44,"y":319.56,"width":256.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"283, 319, 256, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":294,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 347, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":295,"blockId":7,"value":"at 275.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.96,"y":347.16,"width":32.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 347, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":296,"blockId":7,"value":"The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.72,"y":347.16,"width":413.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"126, 347, 413, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":297,"blockId":7,"value":"state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":298,"blockId":7,"value":"for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":287.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 287, 12"},{"type":2,"id":299,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.44,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"367, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":300,"blockId":7,"value":"Romania appealed the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.8,"y":402.36,"width":151.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 402, 151, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":301,"blockId":7,"value":"Court Decision to the CJEU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":137.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 137, 12"},{"type":2,"id":302,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.64,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"215, 429, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":228.6,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Court Decision to the CJEU. Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s\r\n State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that\r\n EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and\r\n thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment\r\n incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”\r\n Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal\r\n state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners\r\n for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General\r\n Court Decision to the CJEU. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"24":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":303,"columnEnd":304,"text":" The Judgments ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.D","paragraphId":"h2.D","paragraphLabel":"D.","rectangle":"108, 457, 114, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The Judgments ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":303,"blockId":8,"value":"D.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 457, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":304,"blockId":8,"value":"The Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":457.56,"width":78.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 457, 78, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":222.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"D. The Judgments"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 114, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" D. The Judgments\r\n","MarginRight":222.95999999999998}},"25":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":305,"columnEnd":346,"text":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.1","paragraphLabel":"2.D.1","rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":305,"blockId":9,"value":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":485.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 485, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":306,"blockId":9,"value":"granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":231.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 231, 12"},{"type":2,"id":307,"blockId":9,"value":"Id","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.72,"y":512.76,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"309, 512, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":308,"blockId":9,"value":". at 285.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.8,"y":512.76,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 512, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":309,"blockId":9,"value":"This court determined that it had the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.92,"y":512.76,"width":175.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 512, 175, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":310,"blockId":9,"value":"subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":311,"blockId":9,"value":"Immunities Act (“FSIA”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":126.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 126, 12"},{"type":2,"id":312,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.96,"y":567.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"204, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":313,"blockId":9,"value":"at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.92,"y":567.96,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 567, 33, 12"},{"type":2,"id":314,"blockId":9,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.88,"y":567.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":315,"blockId":9,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.56,"y":567.96,"width":17.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 567, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":316,"blockId":9,"value":"argued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.08,"y":567.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 567, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":317,"blockId":9,"value":"that jurisdiction was improper","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.96,"y":567.96,"width":145.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 567, 145, 12"},{"type":2,"id":318,"blockId":9,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.64,"y":567.96,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 567, 27, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":319,"blockId":9,"value":"the FSIA arbitration exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":150.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 150, 12"},{"type":2,"id":320,"blockId":9,"value":"because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.2,"y":595.56,"width":313.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 595, 313, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":321,"blockId":9,"value":"invalid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":36.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":322,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.68,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"118, 623, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":323,"blockId":9,"value":"at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.64,"y":623.16,"width":36.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 623, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":324,"blockId":9,"value":"Romania’s argument was predicated on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":182.04,"y":623.16,"width":218.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 623, 218, 12"},{"type":2,"id":325,"blockId":9,"value":"CJEU’s decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.6,"y":623.16,"width":97.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 623, 97, 12"},{"type":2,"id":326,"blockId":9,"value":"Slovak","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.84,"y":623.16,"width":32.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"507, 623, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":327,"blockId":9,"value":"Republic v. Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":99.55,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 650, 99, 12"},{"type":2,"id":328,"blockId":9,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":171.6,"y":650.76,"width":3.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"171, 650, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":329,"blockId":9,"value":"which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.76,"y":650.76,"width":360.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 650, 360, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":330,"blockId":9,"value":"“under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":331,"blockId":9,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.04,"y":678.36,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 678, 29, 12"},{"type":2,"id":332,"blockId":9,"value":"an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.84,"y":678.36,"width":11.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 678, 11, 12"},{"type":2,"id":333,"blockId":9,"value":"investor","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.52,"y":678.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"161, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":334,"blockId":9,"value":"from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":205.68,"y":678.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"205, 678, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":335,"blockId":9,"value":"one","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.36,"y":678.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 678, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":336,"blockId":9,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.16,"y":678.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 678, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":337,"blockId":9,"value":"those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":272.64,"y":678.36,"width":25.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"272, 678, 25, 12"},{"type":2,"id":338,"blockId":9,"value":"Member","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":303.48,"y":678.36,"width":40.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"303, 678, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":339,"blockId":9,"value":"States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.44,"y":678.36,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 678, 28, 12"},{"type":2,"id":340,"blockId":9,"value":"may,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":383.52,"y":678.36,"width":23.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"383, 678, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":341,"blockId":9,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.68,"y":678.36,"width":9.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 678, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":342,"blockId":9,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.56,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":343,"blockId":9,"value":"event","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.6,"y":678.36,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 678, 26, 12"},{"type":2,"id":344,"blockId":9,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.04,"y":678.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 678, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":345,"blockId":9,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.52,"y":678.36,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 678, 5, 12"},{"type":2,"id":346,"blockId":9,"value":"dispute","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.2,"y":678.36,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 678, 34, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"“under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute"}],"Rectangle":"108, 485, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court\r\n granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the\r\n subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign\r\n Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under\r\n the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was\r\n invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak\r\n Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States\r\n “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"26":{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":352,"columnEnd":378,"text":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":352,"blockId":10,"value":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":353,"blockId":10,"value":"State before an arbitral tribunal.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":159.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 159, 12"},{"type":3,"id":354,"blockId":10,"value":"Mem. of L. in Opp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.2,"y":98.76,"width":94.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 98, 94, 12"},{"type":3,"id":355,"blockId":10,"value":"to Pet.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.36,"y":98.76,"width":30.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 98, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":356,"blockId":10,"value":"to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":370.68,"y":98.76,"width":169.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"370, 98, 169, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":357,"blockId":10,"value":"Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":283.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 283, 12"},{"type":3,"id":358,"blockId":10,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.56,"y":126.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"358, 126, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":359,"blockId":10,"value":"] ¶ 60;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":126.36,"width":30.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 126, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":360,"blockId":10,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":431.28,"y":126.36,"width":40.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"431, 126, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":361,"blockId":10,"value":", 404 F. Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.2,"y":126.36,"width":67.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 126, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":362,"blockId":10,"value":"3d at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":47.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":363,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania maintained that under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.64,"y":153.96,"width":150.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 153, 150, 12"},{"type":3,"id":364,"blockId":10,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.48,"y":153.96,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"279, 153, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":365,"blockId":10,"value":"the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.24,"y":153.96,"width":218.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 153, 218, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":366,"blockId":10,"value":"BIT was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":41.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":367,"blockId":10,"value":"void","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":181.56,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 181, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":368,"blockId":10,"value":"as of Romania’s accession to the EU in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.0,"y":181.56,"width":190.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 181, 190, 12"},{"type":3,"id":369,"blockId":10,"value":"January 2007,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.32,"y":181.56,"width":67.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 181, 67, 12"},{"type":3,"id":370,"blockId":10,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.12,"y":181.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 181, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":371,"blockId":10,"value":"thus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":425.64,"y":181.56,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"425, 181, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":372,"blockId":10,"value":"the court could not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":181.56,"width":91.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 181, 91, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":373,"blockId":10,"value":"rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":374,"blockId":10,"value":"view shared by the European Commission, which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 249, 12"},{"type":3,"id":375,"blockId":10,"value":"appeared as amicus curiae.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":326.88,"y":236.76,"width":134.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"326, 236, 134, 12"},{"type":3,"id":376,"blockId":10,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":471.12,"y":236.76,"width":42.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"471, 236, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":377,"blockId":10,"value":", 404","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":513.96,"y":236.76,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"513, 236, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":378,"blockId":10,"value":"F. Supp. 3d at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":90.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":162.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"F. Supp. 3d at 277."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member\r\n State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and\r\n Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp.\r\n 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not\r\n rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a\r\n view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404\r\n F. Supp. 3d at 277.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"27":{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":379,"columnEnd":423,"text":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons. Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.” Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet. To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.2","paragraphLabel":"2.D.2","rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 343","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons. Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.” Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet. To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":13,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":379,"blockId":11,"value":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":217.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 291, 217, 12"},{"type":3,"id":380,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.84,"y":291.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 291, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":381,"blockId":11,"value":"-related arguments for three reasons.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.48,"y":291.96,"width":173.52,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"366, 291, 173, 24"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":315.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":382,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":383,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.96,"y":319.56,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 319, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":384,"blockId":11,"value":"First,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.04,"y":319.56,"width":24.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"128, 319, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":385,"blockId":11,"value":"the court found","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.36,"y":319.56,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 319, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":386,"blockId":11,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":233.64,"y":319.56,"width":36.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"233, 319, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":387,"blockId":11,"value":"facts of this case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.0,"y":319.56,"width":80.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 319, 80, 12"},{"type":3,"id":388,"blockId":11,"value":"were","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.88,"y":319.56,"width":23.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"356, 319, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":389,"blockId":11,"value":"“materially different” than those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":383.4,"y":319.56,"width":156.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"383, 319, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":390,"blockId":11,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":391,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":84.6,"y":347.16,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"84, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":392,"blockId":11,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":123.12,"y":347.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"123, 347, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":393,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":132.6,"y":347.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"132, 347, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":394,"blockId":11,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.16,"y":347.16,"width":9.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"152, 347, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":395,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":165.24,"y":347.16,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"165, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":396,"blockId":11,"value":"“both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":207.0,"y":347.16,"width":333.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"207, 347, 333, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":397,"blockId":11,"value":"proceeding commenced,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":118.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 118, 12"},{"type":3,"id":398,"blockId":11,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.48,"y":374.76,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"195, 374, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":399,"blockId":11,"value":"the Slovak Republic","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":222.72,"y":374.76,"width":100.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"222, 374, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":400,"blockId":11,"value":"entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.72,"y":374.76,"width":212.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 374, 212, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":401,"blockId":11,"value":"action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":288.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 288, 12"},{"type":3,"id":402,"blockId":11,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.6,"y":402.36,"width":30.65,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"363, 402, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":403,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania acceded to the EU.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":402.36,"width":142.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 402, 142, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":404,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 429, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":405,"blockId":11,"value":"Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":90.72,"y":429.96,"width":449.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"90, 429, 449, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":406,"blockId":11,"value":"application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":291.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 291, 12"},{"type":3,"id":407,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.6,"y":457.56,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"366, 457, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":408,"blockId":11,"value":"” because the governing law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.24,"y":457.56,"width":134.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 457, 134, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":409,"blockId":11,"value":"was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":312.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 312, 12"},{"type":3,"id":410,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.88,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"389, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":411,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":485.16,"width":134.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 485, 134, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":412,"blockId":11,"value":"To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":413,"blockId":11,"value":"Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":414,"blockId":11,"value":"this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":163.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 163, 12"},{"type":3,"id":415,"blockId":11,"value":"Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.4,"y":567.96,"width":294.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 567, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":416,"blockId":11,"value":"controlled, this court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":100.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":417,"blockId":11,"value":"reasoned that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":176.04,"y":595.56,"width":64.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"176, 595, 64, 12"},{"type":3,"id":418,"blockId":11,"value":"the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.6,"y":595.56,"width":296.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 595, 296, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":419,"blockId":11,"value":"way that implicates the core rationale of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":192.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 192, 12"},{"type":3,"id":420,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.48,"y":623.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"267, 623, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":421,"blockId":11,"value":".”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.12,"y":623.16,"width":8.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 623, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":422,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.52,"y":623.16,"width":40.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"320, 623, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":423,"blockId":11,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":361.44,"y":623.16,"width":118.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"361, 623, 118, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":479.52,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280."}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 432, 344","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons.\r\n Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those\r\n in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration\r\n proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant\r\n action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.”\r\n Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or\r\n application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law\r\n was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet.\r\n To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter\r\n Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for\r\n this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT\r\n controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a\r\n way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"28":{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":424,"columnEnd":438,"text":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which, as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.3","paragraphLabel":"2.D.3","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which, as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":424,"blockId":12,"value":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":425,"blockId":12,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":426,"blockId":12,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":88.44,"y":678.36,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"88, 678, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":427,"blockId":12,"value":"above,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.6,"y":678.36,"width":31.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 678, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":428,"blockId":12,"value":"overturned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.64,"y":678.36,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 678, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":429,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.08,"y":678.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":430,"blockId":12,"value":"State","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.32,"y":678.36,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 678, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":431,"blockId":12,"value":"Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.8,"y":678.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"289, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":432,"blockId":12,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.4,"y":678.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"314, 678, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":433,"blockId":12,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.48,"y":678.36,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 678, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":434,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.96,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":435,"blockId":12,"value":"grounds","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.08,"y":678.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":436,"blockId":12,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.32,"y":678.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":437,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.8,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":438,"blockId":12,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.92,"y":678.36,"width":46.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 678, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,\r\n as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"29":{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":444,"columnEnd":468,"text":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 260","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":10,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":444,"blockId":13,"value":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":445,"blockId":13,"value":"compatibility with EU state aid law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":179.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 179, 12"},{"type":3,"id":446,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.12,"y":98.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"258, 98, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":447,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":274.08,"y":98.76,"width":169.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"274, 98, 169, 12"},{"type":3,"id":448,"blockId":13,"value":"The General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":98.76,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 98, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":449,"blockId":13,"value":"determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":450,"blockId":13,"value":"law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":451,"blockId":13,"value":"2007,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":32.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":452,"blockId":13,"value":"and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.88,"y":181.56,"width":267.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 181, 267, 12"},{"type":3,"id":453,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.08,"y":181.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 181, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":454,"blockId":13,"value":"“infringements committed by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":181.56,"width":142.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 181, 142, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":455,"blockId":13,"value":"Romania” occurred before 2007.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":162.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 162, 12"},{"type":3,"id":456,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.2,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"244, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":457,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.16,"y":209.16,"width":187.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 209, 187, 12"},{"type":3,"id":458,"blockId":13,"value":"Furthermore, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":457.68,"y":209.16,"width":82.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"457, 209, 82, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":459,"blockId":13,"value":"General Court found that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":122.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 122, 12"},{"type":3,"id":460,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.12,"y":236.76,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"198, 236, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":461,"blockId":13,"value":"did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":240.36,"y":236.76,"width":299.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"240, 236, 299, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":462,"blockId":13,"value":"Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":385.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 385, 12"},{"type":3,"id":463,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.8,"y":264.36,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"466, 264, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":464,"blockId":13,"value":"This court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.56,"y":264.36,"width":52.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 264, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":465,"blockId":13,"value":"determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":426.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 426, 12"},{"type":3,"id":466,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":291.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 291, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":467,"blockId":13,"value":"did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":358.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 358, 12"},{"type":3,"id":468,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":436.92,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"436, 319, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":449.88,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 260","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s\r\n compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court\r\n determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU\r\n law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January\r\n 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by\r\n Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the\r\n General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the\r\n Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court\r\n determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea\r\n did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"30":{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":469,"columnEnd":470,"text":" CJEU Decisions ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.E","paragraphId":"h2.E","paragraphLabel":"E.","rectangle":"108, 347, 118, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" CJEU Decisions ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":469,"blockId":14,"value":"E.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 347, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":470,"blockId":14,"value":"CJEU Decisions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":347.16,"width":82.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 347, 82, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":226.32,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"E. CJEU Decisions"}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 118, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" E. CJEU Decisions\r\n","MarginRight":226.32}},"31":{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":471,"columnEnd":507,"text":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”). See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU; and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112– 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.1","paragraphLabel":"2.E.1","rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”). See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU; and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112– 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":471,"blockId":15,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":374.76,"width":50.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 374, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":472,"blockId":15,"value":"reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.0,"y":374.76,"width":378.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 374, 378, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”)."},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":473,"blockId":15,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":16.61,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 402, 16, 12"},{"type":2,"id":474,"blockId":15,"value":"Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.56,"y":402.36,"width":448.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 402, 448, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":475,"blockId":15,"value":"Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":476,"blockId":15,"value":"that (1) the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":166.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 166, 12"},{"type":2,"id":477,"blockId":15,"value":"had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.52,"y":457.56,"width":297.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 457, 297, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":478,"blockId":15,"value":"which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":479,"blockId":15,"value":"and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":480,"blockId":15,"value":"Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":408.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 408, 12"},{"type":2,"id":481,"blockId":15,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.36,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"486, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":482,"blockId":15,"value":"¶¶ 112–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.08,"y":540.36,"width":37.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 540, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112–"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":483,"blockId":15,"value":"15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":2,"id":484,"blockId":15,"value":"In other words,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":94.8,"y":567.96,"width":74.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"94, 567, 74, 12"},{"type":2,"id":485,"blockId":15,"value":"if the ICSID tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.28,"y":567.96,"width":102.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 567, 102, 12"},{"type":2,"id":486,"blockId":15,"value":"“granted”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.6,"y":567.96,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":487,"blockId":15,"value":"the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.12,"y":567.96,"width":51.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 567, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":488,"blockId":15,"value":"after Romania joined the EU in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.2,"y":567.96,"width":154.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"385, 567, 154, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":489,"blockId":15,"value":"January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":490,"blockId":15,"value":"of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":248.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 248, 12"},{"type":2,"id":491,"blockId":15,"value":"The General Court had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":329.4,"y":623.16,"width":114.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"329, 623, 114, 12"},{"type":2,"id":492,"blockId":15,"value":"concluded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":623.16,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 623, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":493,"blockId":15,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.68,"y":623.16,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 623, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":494,"blockId":15,"value":"Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":495,"blockId":15,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":496,"blockId":15,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":678.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 678, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":497,"blockId":15,"value":"occurred","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":140.28,"y":678.36,"width":41.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"140, 678, 41, 12"},{"type":2,"id":498,"blockId":15,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.64,"y":678.36,"width":30.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"188, 678, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":499,"blockId":15,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.72,"y":678.36,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 678, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":500,"blockId":15,"value":"joined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.52,"y":678.36,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 678, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":501,"blockId":15,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":312.0,"y":678.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"312, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":502,"blockId":15,"value":"EU,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.24,"y":678.36,"width":18.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":503,"blockId":15,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":504,"blockId":15,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.8,"y":678.36,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 678, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":505,"blockId":15,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.36,"y":678.36,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 678, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":506,"blockId":15,"value":"was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.68,"y":678.36,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":507,"blockId":15,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":524.76,"y":678.36,"width":15.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"524, 678, 15, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not"}],"Rectangle":"108, 374, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”).\r\n See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter\r\n Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned\r\n that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania\r\n which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;\r\n and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid\r\n Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112–\r\n 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in\r\n January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment\r\n of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the\r\n Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and\r\n because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"32":{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":513,"columnEnd":537,"text":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151. The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151. The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":513,"blockId":16,"value":"competent to render the State Aid Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":219.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":514,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.24,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"297, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":515,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 126.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":313.32,"y":71.16,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"313, 71, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":516,"blockId":16,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":71.16,"width":51.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 71, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":517,"blockId":16,"value":"disagreed.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.88,"y":71.16,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"407, 71, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":518,"blockId":16,"value":"It held that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.08,"y":71.16,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"466, 71, 73, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":519,"blockId":16,"value":"Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":520,"blockId":16,"value":"“was actually granted after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":109.2,"y":98.76,"width":133.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"109, 98, 133, 12"},{"type":3,"id":521,"blockId":16,"value":"[Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.8,"y":98.76,"width":292.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"247, 98, 292, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":522,"blockId":16,"value":"arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":223.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 223, 12"},{"type":3,"id":523,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.92,"y":126.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"301, 126, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":524,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 134.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":318.12,"y":126.36,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"318, 126, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":525,"blockId":16,"value":"Because the CJEU determined that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":354.0,"y":126.36,"width":168.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"354, 126, 168, 12"},{"type":3,"id":526,"blockId":16,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.24,"y":126.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 126, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":527,"blockId":16,"value":"Award was “granted” after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":131.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":528,"blockId":16,"value":"Romania joined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":207.24,"y":153.96,"width":77.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"207, 153, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":529,"blockId":16,"value":"the EU, it reversed the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":288.24,"y":153.96,"width":184.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"288, 153, 184, 12"},{"type":3,"id":530,"blockId":16,"value":"Decision and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.16,"y":153.96,"width":63.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 153, 63, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":531,"blockId":16,"value":"held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":413.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 413, 12"},{"type":3,"id":532,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.8,"y":181.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"493, 181, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":533,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 151.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":510.72,"y":181.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"510, 181, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":534,"blockId":16,"value":"The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":535,"blockId":16,"value":"the “General Court did not examine.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":179.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 179, 12"},{"type":3,"id":536,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.88,"y":236.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"257, 236, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":537,"blockId":16,"value":"¶¶ 154–55.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.84,"y":236.76,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 236, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":326.88,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the\r\n Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the\r\n arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the\r\n Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and\r\n held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151.\r\n The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that\r\n the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"33":{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":538,"columnEnd":579,"text":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.2","paragraphLabel":"2.E.2","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":538,"blockId":17,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":50.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":539,"blockId":17,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.24,"y":264.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 264, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":540,"blockId":17,"value":"further","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.32,"y":264.36,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 264, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":541,"blockId":17,"value":"stated that the General Court was wrong to find that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.44,"y":264.36,"width":253.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"244, 264, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":542,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":264.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 264, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":543,"blockId":17,"value":"was “irrelevant” to the instant case.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":173.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 173, 12"},{"type":3,"id":544,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":253.56,"y":291.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"253, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":545,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 137.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.36,"y":291.96,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 291, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":546,"blockId":17,"value":"In the CJEU’s view, because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.56,"y":291.96,"width":141.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 291, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":547,"blockId":17,"value":"Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.88,"y":291.96,"width":51.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"452, 291, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":548,"blockId":17,"value":"sought","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.08,"y":291.96,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 291, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":549,"blockId":17,"value":"damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":550,"blockId":17,"value":"in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":551,"blockId":17,"value":"Court had suggested.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":99.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":552,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.0,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"177, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":553,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 140. Accordingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":192.72,"y":374.76,"width":97.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"192, 374, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":554,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.68,"y":374.76,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"292, 374, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":555,"blockId":17,"value":"had some applicability.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.84,"y":374.76,"width":110.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 374, 110, 12"},{"type":3,"id":556,"blockId":17,"value":"The CJEU rejected","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":374.76,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 374, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":557,"blockId":17,"value":"Micula’s argument that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":112.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 112, 12"},{"type":3,"id":558,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":187.8,"y":402.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"187, 402, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":559,"blockId":17,"value":"was wholly irrelevant because of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":229.68,"y":402.36,"width":159.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"229, 402, 159, 12"},{"type":3,"id":560,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":392.04,"y":402.36,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"392, 402, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":561,"blockId":17,"value":"consent to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.24,"y":402.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 402, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":562,"blockId":17,"value":"arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.92,"y":402.36,"width":40.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 402, 40, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":563,"blockId":17,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":564,"blockId":17,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":102.96,"y":429.96,"width":220.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 429, 220, 12"},{"type":3,"id":565,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.36,"y":429.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 429, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":566,"blockId":17,"value":"any consent to arbitration given by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":368.88,"y":429.96,"width":171.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"368, 429, 171, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":567,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":385.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 385, 12"},{"type":3,"id":568,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.08,"y":457.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"466, 457, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":569,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 145.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.36,"y":457.56,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 457, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":570,"blockId":17,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.28,"y":457.56,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 457, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":571,"blockId":17,"value":"CJEU did not make a final ruling on how","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":215.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 215, 12"},{"type":3,"id":572,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.56,"y":485.16,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"292, 485, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":573,"blockId":17,"value":"should be applied, holding only that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.48,"y":485.16,"width":203.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 485, 203, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":574,"blockId":17,"value":"European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":292.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 292, 12"},{"type":3,"id":575,"blockId":17,"value":"Decision and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.44,"y":512.76,"width":63.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 512, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":576,"blockId":17,"value":"remanding the case to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.04,"y":512.76,"width":105.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 512, 105, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":577,"blockId":17,"value":"the General Court for further proceedings.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 202, 12"},{"type":3,"id":578,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.56,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"280, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":579,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 156.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":296.52,"y":540.36,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"296, 540, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":326.03999999999996,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea\r\n was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought\r\n damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined\r\n in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General\r\n Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected\r\n Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate\r\n under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by\r\n Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The\r\n CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the\r\n European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to\r\n the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"34":{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":580,"columnEnd":601,"text":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2 [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.3","paragraphLabel":"2.E.3","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2 [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":580,"blockId":18,"value":"On","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":581,"blockId":18,"value":"September","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.64,"y":567.96,"width":51.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"128, 567, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":582,"blockId":18,"value":"21,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.88,"y":567.96,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":583,"blockId":18,"value":"2022,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":206.88,"y":567.96,"width":27.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"206, 567, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":584,"blockId":18,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.88,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":585,"blockId":18,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":567.96,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":586,"blockId":18,"value":"issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":295.2,"y":567.96,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"295, 567, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":587,"blockId":18,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":331.2,"y":567.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"331, 567, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":588,"blockId":18,"value":"second","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.36,"y":567.96,"width":33.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 567, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":589,"blockId":18,"value":"relevant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.48,"y":567.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":590,"blockId":18,"value":"ruling (“Second","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.12,"y":567.96,"width":79.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"426, 567, 79, 12"},{"type":3,"id":591,"blockId":18,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.32,"y":567.96,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 567, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":592,"blockId":18,"value":"Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":593,"blockId":18,"value":"Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.04,"y":595.56,"width":405.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 595, 405, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":594,"blockId":18,"value":"[hereinafter Second CJEU Decision].","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":181.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":595,"blockId":18,"value":"In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.6,"y":623.16,"width":278.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 623, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"[hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":596,"blockId":18,"value":"EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":349.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 349, 12"},{"type":3,"id":597,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.36,"y":650.76,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"426, 650, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":598,"blockId":18,"value":"¶¶ 42–43. The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.08,"y":650.76,"width":97.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 650, 97, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":599,"blockId":18,"value":"so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":420.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 420, 12"},{"type":3,"id":600,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":498.12,"y":678.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"498, 678, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":601,"blockId":18,"value":"¶¶ 1–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":513.96,"y":678.36,"width":25.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"513, 678, 25, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 431, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU\r\n Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2\r\n [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under\r\n EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court\r\n so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"35":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":607,"columnEnd":615,"text":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":607,"blockId":19,"value":"2, 27–28.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":44.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":608,"blockId":19,"value":"The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.28,"y":71.16,"width":417.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"122, 71, 417, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":609,"blockId":19,"value":"consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":610,"blockId":19,"value":"BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":611,"blockId":19,"value":"its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":612,"blockId":19,"value":"to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":613,"blockId":19,"value":"Member State.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":70.51,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 70, 12"},{"type":3,"id":614,"blockId":19,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":148.56,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"148, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":615,"blockId":19,"value":"¶¶ 34–43.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.52,"y":209.16,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"164, 209, 47, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":211.56,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its\r\n consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in\r\n its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined\r\n to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a\r\n Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"36":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":616,"columnEnd":617,"text":" LEGAL STANDARD ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIII","paragraphId":"hIII","paragraphLabel":"III.","rectangle":"72, 236, 147, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" LEGAL STANDARD ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":616,"blockId":20,"value":"III.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":17.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 236, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":617,"blockId":20,"value":"LEGAL STANDARD","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":236.76,"width":111.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 236, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":219.72,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"III. LEGAL STANDARD"}],"Rectangle":"72, 236, 147, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" III. LEGAL STANDARD\r\n","MarginRight":219.72}},"37":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":618,"columnEnd":627,"text":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.1","paragraphLabel":"3.1","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":618,"blockId":21,"value":"According to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":63.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 63, 12"},{"type":2,"id":619,"blockId":21,"value":"Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.32,"y":264.36,"width":46.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 264, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":620,"blockId":21,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.36,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":621,"blockId":21,"value":"CJEU Decisions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.72,"y":264.36,"width":79.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 264, 79, 12"},{"type":2,"id":622,"blockId":21,"value":"mean","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.12,"y":264.36,"width":25.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 264, 25, 12"},{"type":2,"id":623,"blockId":21,"value":"“that the agreement to arbitrate in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.76,"y":264.36,"width":183.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"356, 264, 183, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":624,"blockId":21,"value":"BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":274.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 274, 12"},{"type":2,"id":625,"blockId":21,"value":"Romania Mot. at 1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":291.96,"width":92.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 291, 92, 12"},{"type":2,"id":626,"blockId":21,"value":"It seeks relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":291.96,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 291, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":627,"blockId":21,"value":"the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":156.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":228.84,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"the Judgments under Rule 60(b)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 431, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the\r\n BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from\r\n the Judgments under Rule 60(b).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"38":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":628,"columnEnd":660,"text":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.2","paragraphLabel":"3.2","rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","averageFontSize":11.983695652173912,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":628,"blockId":22,"value":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 347, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":629,"blockId":22,"value":"judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":391.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 391, 12"},{"type":3,"id":630,"blockId":22,"value":"United Student","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":468.84,"y":374.76,"width":71.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"468, 374, 71, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":631,"blockId":22,"value":"Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 402, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":632,"blockId":22,"value":"Funds,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":96.96,"y":402.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"96, 402, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":633,"blockId":22,"value":"Inc.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.24,"y":402.36,"width":18.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":634,"blockId":22,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.88,"y":402.36,"width":8.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"164, 402, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":635,"blockId":22,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":181.44,"y":402.36,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"181, 402, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":636,"blockId":22,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.6,"y":402.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 402, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":637,"blockId":22,"value":"559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":236.88,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"236, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":638,"blockId":22,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":263.16,"y":402.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"263, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":639,"blockId":22,"value":"260,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.8,"y":402.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"292, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":640,"blockId":22,"value":"269","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.08,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"322, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":641,"blockId":22,"value":"(2010)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.36,"y":402.36,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 402, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":642,"blockId":22,"value":"(internal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.68,"y":402.36,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 402, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":643,"blockId":22,"value":"quotations","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":437.64,"y":402.36,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"437, 402, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":644,"blockId":22,"value":"omitted);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.96,"y":402.36,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 402, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted);"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":645,"blockId":22,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":646,"blockId":22,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":432.48,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 432, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":647,"blockId":22,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":429.96,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 429, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":648,"blockId":22,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":432.48,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 432, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":649,"blockId":22,"value":". P. 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":429.96,"width":47.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 429, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":650,"blockId":22,"value":"The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":183.84,"y":429.96,"width":356.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"183, 429, 356, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96000000000004,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":651,"blockId":22,"value":"of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":652,"blockId":22,"value":"of all the facts.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":78.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 78, 12"},{"type":3,"id":653,"blockId":22,"value":"Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":158.04,"y":485.16,"width":201.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"158, 485, 201, 12"},{"type":3,"id":654,"blockId":22,"value":", 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":359.4,"y":485.16,"width":148.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"359, 485, 148, 12"},{"type":3,"id":655,"blockId":22,"value":"1980)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.04,"y":485.16,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 485, 27, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980)"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":656,"blockId":22,"value":"(cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":62.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":657,"blockId":22,"value":"District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":140.16,"y":512.76,"width":399.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"140, 512, 399, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"(cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":658,"blockId":22,"value":"grant a Rule 60(b) motion.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":132.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 132, 12"},{"type":3,"id":659,"blockId":22,"value":"Twelve John Does v. D.C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":210.96,"y":540.36,"width":124.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"210, 540, 124, 12"},{"type":3,"id":660,"blockId":22,"value":", 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.0,"y":540.36,"width":190.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 540, 190, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":526.6800000000001,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final\r\n judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student\r\n Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted);\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity\r\n of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light\r\n of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980)\r\n (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to\r\n grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"39":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":661,"columnEnd":680,"text":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270; F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.3","paragraphLabel":"3.3","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270; F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","averageFontSize":11.973741794310722,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":661,"blockId":23,"value":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":242.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":662,"blockId":23,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.24,"y":567.96,"width":182.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 567, 182, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":663,"blockId":23,"value":"relieve a party from a final judgment if","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":198.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":664,"blockId":23,"value":"‘the judgment is void.’”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.52,"y":595.56,"width":119.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 595, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":665,"blockId":23,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":404.64,"y":595.56,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"404, 595, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":666,"blockId":23,"value":", 559 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.8,"y":595.56,"width":51.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 595, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":667,"blockId":23,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.2,"y":595.56,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 595, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":668,"blockId":23,"value":"270;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":518.52,"y":595.56,"width":21.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"518, 595, 21, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270;"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":669,"blockId":23,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":670,"blockId":23,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":625.68,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 625, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":671,"blockId":23,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":623.16,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 623, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":672,"blockId":23,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":625.68,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 625, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":673,"blockId":23,"value":". P. 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":623.16,"width":61.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 623, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":674,"blockId":23,"value":"“[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.48,"y":623.16,"width":341.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"198, 623, 341, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":675,"blockId":23,"value":"the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":330.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 330, 12"},{"type":3,"id":676,"blockId":23,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.8,"y":650.76,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"409, 650, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":677,"blockId":23,"value":", 559 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":453.84,"y":650.76,"width":49.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"453, 650, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":678,"blockId":23,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.0,"y":650.76,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 650, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":679,"blockId":23,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.24,"y":650.76,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 650, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":680,"blockId":23,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to\r\n relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270;\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that\r\n the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270.\r\n Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"40":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":686,"columnEnd":734,"text":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32, 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32, 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).","averageFontSize":11.955963302752293,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":686,"blockId":24,"value":"reversed, or vacated.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":107.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 107, 12"},{"type":3,"id":687,"blockId":24,"value":"Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.16,"y":71.16,"width":161.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"188, 71, 161, 12"},{"type":3,"id":688,"blockId":24,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.8,"y":71.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 71, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":689,"blockId":24,"value":"Case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.12,"y":71.16,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 71, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":690,"blockId":24,"value":"No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.84,"y":71.16,"width":155.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 71, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":691,"blockId":24,"value":"8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":219.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":692,"blockId":24,"value":"NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.72,"y":98.76,"width":181.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"294, 98, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":693,"blockId":24,"value":"215 F.3d 32,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.16,"y":98.76,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 98, 60, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":694,"blockId":24,"value":"35 (D.C. Cir. 2000);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":99.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":695,"blockId":24,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.68,"y":126.36,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 126, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":696,"blockId":24,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":182.28,"y":128.88,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 128, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":697,"blockId":24,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.88,"y":126.36,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 126, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":698,"blockId":24,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":222.96,"y":128.88,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"222, 128, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":699,"blockId":24,"value":". P. 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":232.92,"y":126.36,"width":61.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 126, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":700,"blockId":24,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.16,"y":126.36,"width":128.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 126, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":701,"blockId":24,"value":"provision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.4,"y":126.36,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 126, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":702,"blockId":24,"value":"that “grants","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.6,"y":126.36,"width":56.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 126, 56, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":703,"blockId":24,"value":"federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":704,"blockId":24,"value":"courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.64,"y":153.96,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 153, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":705,"blockId":24,"value":"broad","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.32,"y":153.96,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 153, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":706,"blockId":24,"value":"authority","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":178.2,"y":153.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"178, 153, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":707,"blockId":24,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.92,"y":153.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":708,"blockId":24,"value":"relieve","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":241.68,"y":153.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"241, 153, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":709,"blockId":24,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.72,"y":153.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 153, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":710,"blockId":24,"value":"party","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.4,"y":153.96,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 153, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":711,"blockId":24,"value":"from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.52,"y":153.96,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 153, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":712,"blockId":24,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.2,"y":153.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 153, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":713,"blockId":24,"value":"final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":360.0,"y":153.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"360, 153, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":714,"blockId":24,"value":"judgment . . . provided","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.36,"y":153.96,"width":109.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 153, 109, 12"},{"type":3,"id":715,"blockId":24,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.84,"y":153.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":716,"blockId":24,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.24,"y":153.96,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 153, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":717,"blockId":24,"value":"motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":718,"blockId":24,"value":"(b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":36.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":719,"blockId":24,"value":"Liljeberg","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.04,"y":209.16,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"128, 209, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":720,"blockId":24,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":181.92,"y":209.16,"width":8.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"181, 209, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":721,"blockId":24,"value":"Health","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.16,"y":209.16,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 209, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":722,"blockId":24,"value":"Servs.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.64,"y":209.16,"width":29.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"242, 209, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":723,"blockId":24,"value":"Acquisition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.52,"y":209.16,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"281, 209, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":724,"blockId":24,"value":"Corp.,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":346.2,"y":209.16,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"346, 209, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":725,"blockId":24,"value":"486","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.76,"y":209.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 209, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":726,"blockId":24,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.6,"y":209.16,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 209, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":727,"blockId":24,"value":"847,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":445.8,"y":209.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"445, 209, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":728,"blockId":24,"value":"863","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.64,"y":209.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 209, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":729,"blockId":24,"value":"(1988);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.48,"y":209.16,"width":35.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 209, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"(b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988);"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":730,"blockId":24,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":731,"blockId":24,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":239.28,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 239, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":732,"blockId":24,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":236.76,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 236, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":733,"blockId":24,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":239.28,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 239, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":734,"blockId":24,"value":". P. 60(b)(6).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":236.76,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 236, 61, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":191.04000000000002,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL\r\n 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32,\r\n 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants\r\n federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the\r\n motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through\r\n (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988);\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"41":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":735,"columnEnd":736,"text":" DISCUSSION ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV","paragraphId":"hIV","paragraphLabel":"IV.","rectangle":"72, 264, 109, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" DISCUSSION ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":735,"blockId":25,"value":"IV.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":16.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 264, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":736,"blockId":25,"value":"DISCUSSION","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":73.46,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 264, 73, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":181.45999999999998,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"IV. DISCUSSION"}],"Rectangle":"72, 264, 109, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" IV. DISCUSSION\r\n","MarginRight":181.45999999999998}},"42":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":737,"columnEnd":738,"text":" Rule 60(b)(4) ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.A","paragraphId":"hIV.A","paragraphLabel":"A.","rectangle":"108, 291, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Rule 60(b)(4) ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":737,"blockId":26,"value":"A.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":2,"id":738,"blockId":26,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":291.96,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 291, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"A. Rule 60(b)(4)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" A. Rule 60(b)(4)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}},"43":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":739,"columnEnd":789,"text":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.1","paragraphLabel":"4.A.1","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":739,"blockId":33,"value":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":209.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 209, 12"},{"type":2,"id":740,"blockId":33,"value":"for judgments that are “void.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.4,"y":319.56,"width":144.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 319, 144, 12"},{"type":2,"id":741,"blockId":33,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":471.72,"y":319.56,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"471, 319, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":742,"blockId":33,"value":", 559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":515.76,"y":319.56,"width":24.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"515, 319, 24, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":743,"blockId":33,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":744,"blockId":33,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":96.6,"y":347.16,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"96, 347, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":745,"blockId":33,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.48,"y":347.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 347, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":746,"blockId":33,"value":"The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.84,"y":347.16,"width":404.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 347, 404, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":747,"blockId":33,"value":"certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":748,"blockId":33,"value":"or the opportunity to be heard.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":155.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 155, 12"},{"type":2,"id":749,"blockId":33,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":235.08,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"235, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":750,"blockId":33,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":251.04,"y":402.36,"width":34.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"251, 402, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":751,"blockId":33,"value":"Because Romania does not allege any due process","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.04,"y":402.36,"width":246.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 402, 246, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":752,"blockId":33,"value":"violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":753,"blockId":33,"value":"instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":754,"blockId":33,"value":"fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":406.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 406, 12"},{"type":2,"id":755,"blockId":33,"value":"Lee Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.96,"y":485.16,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"486, 485, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":756,"blockId":33,"value":"Hosp. v. Becerra","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":84.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 512, 84, 12"},{"type":2,"id":757,"blockId":33,"value":", 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.72,"y":512.76,"width":254.59,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 512, 254, 12"},{"type":2,"id":758,"blockId":33,"value":"The Supreme Court has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":420.96,"y":512.76,"width":119.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"420, 512, 119, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":759,"blockId":33,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":760,"blockId":33,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.92,"y":540.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":761,"blockId":33,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.28,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":762,"blockId":33,"value":"“list","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.28,"y":540.36,"width":19.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"170, 540, 19, 12"},{"type":2,"id":763,"blockId":33,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":196.56,"y":540.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"196, 540, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":764,"blockId":33,"value":"such","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.88,"y":540.36,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 540, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":765,"blockId":33,"value":"infirmities","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":241.2,"y":540.36,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"241, 540, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":766,"blockId":33,"value":"is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.48,"y":540.36,"width":8.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 540, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":767,"blockId":33,"value":"exceedingly","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":311.76,"y":540.36,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"311, 540, 57, 12"},{"type":2,"id":768,"blockId":33,"value":"short;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":376.08,"y":540.36,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"376, 540, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":769,"blockId":33,"value":"otherwise,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.8,"y":540.36,"width":49.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 540, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":770,"blockId":33,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4)’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.72,"y":540.36,"width":74.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 540, 74, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":771,"blockId":33,"value":"exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":772,"blockId":33,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.2,"y":567.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":773,"blockId":33,"value":"finality","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":139.2,"y":567.96,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"139, 567, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":774,"blockId":33,"value":"would","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.52,"y":567.96,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 567, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":775,"blockId":33,"value":"swallow","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.28,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":2,"id":776,"blockId":33,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.88,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":777,"blockId":33,"value":"rule.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.16,"y":567.96,"width":26.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 567, 26, 12"},{"type":2,"id":778,"blockId":33,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.44,"y":567.96,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"319, 567, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":779,"blockId":33,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.48,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":780,"blockId":33,"value":"559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.12,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":781,"blockId":33,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":395.76,"y":567.96,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"395, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":782,"blockId":33,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":422.76,"y":567.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"422, 567, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":783,"blockId":33,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":437.04,"y":567.96,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"437, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":784,"blockId":33,"value":"Importantly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":469.44,"y":567.96,"width":59.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"469, 567, 59, 12"},{"type":2,"id":785,"blockId":33,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":534.6,"y":567.96,"width":5.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"534, 567, 5, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":786,"blockId":33,"value":"“judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":369.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 369, 12"},{"type":2,"id":787,"blockId":33,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.48,"y":595.56,"width":86.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"450, 595, 86, 12"},{"type":2,"id":788,"blockId":33,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":537.0,"y":595.56,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 595, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"“judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. ,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":789,"blockId":33,"value":"10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":160.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 160, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":232.32,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559\r\n U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a\r\n certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice\r\n or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process\r\n violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare\r\n instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of\r\n fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l\r\n Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has\r\n explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s\r\n exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a\r\n “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. ,\r\n 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"44":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":790,"columnEnd":799,"text":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.2","paragraphLabel":"4.A.2","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":790,"blockId":34,"value":"The Applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":73.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 650, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":791,"blockId":34,"value":"Standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.44,"y":650.76,"width":47.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"184, 650, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":792,"blockId":34,"value":"As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.08,"y":650.76,"width":218.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 650, 218, 12"},{"type":3,"id":793,"blockId":34,"value":"the standard","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":460.08,"y":650.76,"width":58.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"460, 650, 58, 12"},{"type":3,"id":794,"blockId":34,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.0,"y":650.76,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 650, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":795,"blockId":34,"value":"governs","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":796,"blockId":34,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.24,"y":678.36,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 678, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":797,"blockId":34,"value":"request for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.64,"y":678.36,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"170, 678, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":798,"blockId":34,"value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.0,"y":678.36,"width":131.37,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 678, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":799,"blockId":34,"value":"Romania acknowledges that courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":368.16,"y":678.36,"width":171.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"368, 678, 171, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that\r\n governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"45":{"pageNum":10,"columnStart":805,"columnEnd":847,"text":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis” standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter , there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends, warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 343","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis” standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter , there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends, warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":13,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":805,"blockId":35,"value":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":806,"blockId":35,"value":"standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":43.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":807,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 14.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.04,"y":98.76,"width":99.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"122, 98, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":808,"blockId":35,"value":"Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.36,"y":98.76,"width":311.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 98, 311, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":809,"blockId":35,"value":"for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":810,"blockId":35,"value":"for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":80.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 80, 12"},{"type":3,"id":811,"blockId":35,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.08,"y":153.96,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"160, 153, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":812,"blockId":35,"value":", 559 U.S. at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.24,"y":153.96,"width":86.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"204, 153, 86, 12"},{"type":3,"id":813,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania nevertheless","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.56,"y":153.96,"width":106.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 153, 106, 12"},{"type":3,"id":814,"blockId":35,"value":"asks the court to conduct a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":408.6,"y":153.96,"width":131.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"408, 153, 131, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":815,"blockId":35,"value":"more stringent review.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":108.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 108, 12"},{"type":3,"id":816,"blockId":35,"value":"It argues that “","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.48,"y":181.56,"width":70.97,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 181, 70, 12"},{"type":3,"id":817,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.4,"y":181.56,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"257, 181, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":818,"blockId":35,"value":"review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.2,"y":181.56,"width":241.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 181, 241, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":819,"blockId":35,"value":"contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":253.97,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":820,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":331.44,"y":209.16,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"331, 209, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":821,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania points to the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.24,"y":209.16,"width":104.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 209, 104, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":822,"blockId":35,"value":"D.C. Circuit’s decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":129.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 129, 12"},{"type":3,"id":823,"blockId":35,"value":"Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":206.04,"y":236.76,"width":171.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"206, 236, 171, 12"},{"type":3,"id":824,"blockId":35,"value":"Republic of Iran","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.56,"y":236.76,"width":82.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"382, 236, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":825,"blockId":35,"value":"as creating an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":468.12,"y":236.76,"width":71.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"468, 236, 71, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":826,"blockId":35,"value":"exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":306.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 306, 12"},{"type":3,"id":827,"blockId":35,"value":"motions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.84,"y":264.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 264, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":828,"blockId":35,"value":"using the arguable basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.96,"y":264.36,"width":116.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 264, 116, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":829,"blockId":35,"value":"standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":43.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":830,"blockId":35,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.52,"y":291.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"122, 291, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":831,"blockId":35,"value":";","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":155.04,"y":291.96,"width":3.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"155, 291, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":832,"blockId":35,"value":"734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.88,"y":291.96,"width":157.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"161, 291, 157, 12"},{"type":3,"id":833,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania argues that, under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":325.92,"y":291.96,"width":133.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"325, 291, 133, 12"},{"type":3,"id":834,"blockId":35,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.84,"y":291.96,"width":74.1,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"462, 291, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":835,"blockId":35,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":537.0,"y":291.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 291, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":836,"blockId":35,"value":"there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":357.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 357, 12"},{"type":3,"id":837,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.84,"y":319.56,"width":37.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"432, 319, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":838,"blockId":35,"value":"review proper","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.16,"y":319.56,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 319, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":839,"blockId":35,"value":"if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":273.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":840,"blockId":35,"value":"or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.6,"y":347.16,"width":10.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"348, 347, 10, 12"},{"type":3,"id":841,"blockId":35,"value":"(2) “the determination of jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":362.4,"y":347.16,"width":177.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"362, 347, 177, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":842,"blockId":35,"value":"implicates the FSIA.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":104.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":843,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":182.16,"y":374.76,"width":99.02,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 374, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":844,"blockId":35,"value":"The presence of either condition, Romania contends,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":287.16,"y":374.76,"width":252.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"287, 374, 252, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":845,"blockId":35,"value":"warrants","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":41.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":846,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.28,"y":402.36,"width":37.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"116, 402, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":847,"blockId":35,"value":"review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.84,"y":402.36,"width":303.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 402, 303, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":460.44000000000005,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 343","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”\r\n standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only\r\n for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’\r\n for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a\r\n more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign\r\n contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the\r\n D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an\r\n exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis\r\n standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter ,\r\n there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper\r\n if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction\r\n implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends,\r\n warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"46":{"pageNum":10,"columnStart":848,"columnEnd":882,"text":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review. Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which, they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23 (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present. Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.3","paragraphLabel":"4.A.3","rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review. Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which, they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23 (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present. Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":848,"blockId":36,"value":"Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":429.96,"width":54.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 429, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":849,"blockId":36,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.32,"y":429.96,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 429, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":850,"blockId":36,"value":"surprisingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.64,"y":429.96,"width":60.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 429, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":851,"blockId":36,"value":"reject","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.96,"y":429.96,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 429, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":852,"blockId":36,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.56,"y":429.96,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"292, 429, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":853,"blockId":36,"value":"insistence","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":429.96,"width":47.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 429, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":854,"blockId":36,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":429.96,"width":12.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 429, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":855,"blockId":36,"value":"more","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":424.92,"y":429.96,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"424, 429, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":856,"blockId":36,"value":"exacting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":456.6,"y":429.96,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"456, 429, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":857,"blockId":36,"value":"review.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.24,"y":429.96,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 429, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":858,"blockId":36,"value":"Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":264.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 264, 12"},{"type":3,"id":859,"blockId":36,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":339.36,"y":457.56,"width":165.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"339, 457, 165, 12"},{"type":3,"id":860,"blockId":36,"value":"which,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.6,"y":457.56,"width":32.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 457, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":861,"blockId":36,"value":"they contend, clarified that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":126.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 126, 12"},{"type":3,"id":862,"blockId":36,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.76,"y":485.16,"width":72.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 485, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":863,"blockId":36,"value":"applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.88,"y":485.16,"width":264.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 485, 264, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":864,"blockId":36,"value":"sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":360.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 360, 12"},{"type":3,"id":865,"blockId":36,"value":"Pet.’s Mem. of L. in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.04,"y":512.76,"width":99.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 512, 99, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":866,"blockId":36,"value":"Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":433.29,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 433, 12"},{"type":3,"id":867,"blockId":36,"value":"22–23","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.88,"y":540.36,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"509, 540, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":868,"blockId":36,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":869,"blockId":36,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.64,"y":567.96,"width":85.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"116, 567, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":870,"blockId":36,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.72,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":871,"blockId":36,"value":"10 F.4th at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.68,"y":567.96,"width":53.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 567, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":872,"blockId":36,"value":"864).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":266.28,"y":567.96,"width":25.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"266, 567, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":873,"blockId":36,"value":"In other words, according to Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":299.4,"y":567.96,"width":198.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 567, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":874,"blockId":36,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":567.96,"width":38.59,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 567, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.95,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"(quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":875,"blockId":36,"value":"review under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":62.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":876,"blockId":36,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.68,"y":595.56,"width":73.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"136, 595, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":877,"blockId":36,"value":"applies only when a court enters a default judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.76,"y":595.56,"width":242.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 595, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":878,"blockId":36,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":457.44,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"457, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":879,"blockId":36,"value":"the judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":477.84,"y":595.56,"width":62.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"477, 595, 62, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":880,"blockId":36,"value":"is entered against a foreign sovereign.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":181.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":881,"blockId":36,"value":"These are not alternative conditions; both must be present.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.8,"y":623.16,"width":280.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 623, 280, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":882,"blockId":36,"value":"Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject"}],"Rectangle":"108, 429, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review.\r\n Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which,\r\n they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign\r\n sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in\r\n Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23\r\n (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo\r\n review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment\r\n is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present.\r\n Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"47":{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":888,"columnEnd":891,"text":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":888,"blockId":37,"value":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":889,"blockId":37,"value":"carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":396.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 396, 12"},{"type":3,"id":890,"blockId":37,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.84,"y":98.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"474, 98, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":891,"blockId":37,"value":"at 23.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.8,"y":98.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 98, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":517.44,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to\r\n carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"48":{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":892,"columnEnd":931,"text":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1181–82).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.4","paragraphLabel":"4.A.4","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1181–82).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":892,"blockId":38,"value":"This court agrees","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":84.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 126, 84, 12"},{"type":3,"id":893,"blockId":38,"value":"with Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":197.16,"y":126.36,"width":77.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"197, 126, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":894,"blockId":38,"value":"that the arguable basis standard applies here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.4,"y":126.36,"width":221.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"278, 126, 221, 12"},{"type":3,"id":895,"blockId":38,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.56,"y":126.36,"width":9.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 126, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":896,"blockId":38,"value":"Lee","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.6,"y":126.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"522, 126, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":897,"blockId":38,"value":"Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":91.3,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 153, 91, 12"},{"type":3,"id":898,"blockId":38,"value":", the D.C. Circuit described","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":163.32,"y":153.96,"width":129.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"163, 153, 129, 12"},{"type":3,"id":899,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":295.92,"y":153.96,"width":73.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"295, 153, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":900,"blockId":38,"value":"as “one specific situation” in which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":371.76,"y":153.96,"width":168.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"371, 153, 168, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":901,"blockId":38,"value":"the court did not apply the arguable basis standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":244.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 244, 12"},{"type":3,"id":902,"blockId":38,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.56,"y":181.56,"width":83.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"322, 181, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":903,"blockId":38,"value":", 10 F.4th at 864.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.6,"y":181.56,"width":81.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 181, 81, 12"},{"type":3,"id":904,"blockId":38,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.44,"y":181.56,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 181, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":905,"blockId":38,"value":"emphasized that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":77.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":906,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.52,"y":209.16,"width":73.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"152, 209, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":907,"blockId":38,"value":"“involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":229.08,"y":209.16,"width":310.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"229, 209, 310, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":908,"blockId":38,"value":"who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":909,"blockId":38,"value":"against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":352.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 352, 12"},{"type":3,"id":910,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":433.56,"y":264.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"433, 264, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":911,"blockId":38,"value":"The court further","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.4,"y":264.36,"width":84.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 264, 84, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":912,"blockId":38,"value":"observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":263.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 263, 12"},{"type":3,"id":913,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.16,"y":291.96,"width":73.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 291, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":914,"blockId":38,"value":"from those cases in which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.96,"y":291.96,"width":125.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 291, 125, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":915,"blockId":38,"value":"“‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"“‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":916,"blockId":38,"value":"who had appeared.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":97.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":917,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.84,"y":347.16,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"177, 347, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":918,"blockId":38,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.0,"y":347.16,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"195, 347, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":919,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.76,"y":347.16,"width":74.77,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"239, 347, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":920,"blockId":38,"value":", 734 F.3d at 1182).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.52,"y":347.16,"width":98.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"314, 347, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":921,"blockId":38,"value":"Applying arguable-basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":421.2,"y":347.16,"width":118.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"421, 347, 118, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":922,"blockId":38,"value":"review in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":44.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":923,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.88,"y":374.76,"width":73.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"119, 374, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":924,"blockId":38,"value":", the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":193.56,"y":374.76,"width":346.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"193, 374, 346, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":925,"blockId":38,"value":"not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":261.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 261, 12"},{"type":3,"id":926,"blockId":38,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.84,"y":402.36,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 402, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":927,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.76,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"401, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":928,"blockId":38,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.32,"y":402.36,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 402, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":929,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.72,"y":402.36,"width":74.17,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"462, 402, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":930,"blockId":38,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":536.88,"y":402.36,"width":3.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"536, 402, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":931,"blockId":38,"value":"734 F.3d at 1181–82).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":106.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 106, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":178.32,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"734 F.3d at 1181–82)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee\r\n Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which\r\n the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court\r\n emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign\r\n who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment\r\n against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further\r\n observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which\r\n “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party\r\n who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis\r\n review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose\r\n not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter ,\r\n 734 F.3d at 1181–82).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"49":{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":932,"columnEnd":965,"text":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies. That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.5","paragraphLabel":"4.A.5","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies. That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":932,"blockId":39,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":112.18,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 457, 112, 12"},{"type":3,"id":933,"blockId":39,"value":"confirms that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":223.2,"y":457.56,"width":63.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"223, 457, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":934,"blockId":39,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.28,"y":457.56,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"290, 457, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":935,"blockId":39,"value":"review under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.96,"y":457.56,"width":63.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 457, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":936,"blockId":39,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":457.56,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"397, 457, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":937,"blockId":39,"value":"is appropriate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.24,"y":457.56,"width":65.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"474, 457, 65, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":938,"blockId":39,"value":"only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":442.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 442, 12"},{"type":3,"id":939,"blockId":39,"value":"But","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.84,"y":485.16,"width":17.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 485, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":940,"blockId":39,"value":"when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":941,"blockId":39,"value":"That is precisely what occurred here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":181.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":942,"blockId":39,"value":"Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.84,"y":540.36,"width":278.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 540, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":943,"blockId":39,"value":"contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":253.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":944,"blockId":39,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.96,"y":567.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":945,"blockId":39,"value":"rendered void the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.12,"y":567.96,"width":170.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 567, 170, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":946,"blockId":39,"value":"BIT’s arbitration agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":138.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 138, 12"},{"type":3,"id":947,"blockId":39,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":218.4,"y":595.56,"width":61.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"218, 595, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":948,"blockId":39,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.96,"y":595.56,"width":141.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 595, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":949,"blockId":39,"value":"The court rejected that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":429.0,"y":595.56,"width":111.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"429, 595, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":950,"blockId":39,"value":"argument.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":951,"blockId":39,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.6,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"126, 623, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":952,"blockId":39,"value":"Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.8,"y":623.16,"width":394.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 623, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":953,"blockId":39,"value":"standard in the circumstances in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 155, 12"},{"type":3,"id":954,"blockId":39,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.24,"y":650.76,"width":74.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"231, 650, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":955,"blockId":39,"value":"are absent here.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.76,"y":650.76,"width":81.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 650, 81, 12"},{"type":3,"id":956,"blockId":39,"value":"Lee Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":396.84,"y":650.76,"width":52.18,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"396, 650, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":957,"blockId":39,"value":"Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.52,"y":650.76,"width":28.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"452, 650, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":958,"blockId":39,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.84,"y":650.76,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 650, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":959,"blockId":39,"value":"10 F.4th at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.32,"y":650.76,"width":52.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 650, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":960,"blockId":39,"value":"864.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":961,"blockId":39,"value":"Romania’s contention that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":100.2,"y":678.36,"width":128.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"100, 678, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":962,"blockId":39,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.84,"y":678.36,"width":38.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"231, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":963,"blockId":39,"value":"review is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.24,"y":678.36,"width":45.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 678, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":964,"blockId":39,"value":"applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.84,"y":678.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 678, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":965,"blockId":39,"value":"under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":374.76,"y":678.36,"width":165.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"374, 678, 165, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate\r\n only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But\r\n when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies.\r\n That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to\r\n contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that\r\n argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis\r\n standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at\r\n 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"50":{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":971,"columnEnd":975,"text":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":971,"blockId":40,"value":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":326.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 326, 12"},{"type":3,"id":972,"blockId":40,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.92,"y":71.16,"width":111.82,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"400, 71, 111, 12"},{"type":3,"id":973,"blockId":40,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.76,"y":71.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 71, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":974,"blockId":40,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.52,"y":71.16,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 71, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":975,"blockId":40,"value":"court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":219.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 219, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":291.48,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"court therefore applies the arguable basis test."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The\r\n court therefore applies the arguable basis test.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"51":{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":976,"columnEnd":1001,"text":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.6","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.6","paragraphLabel":"4.A.6","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":976,"blockId":41,"value":"Arguable Basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":74.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 126, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":977,"blockId":41,"value":"Review","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.36,"y":126.36,"width":34.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"186, 126, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":978,"blockId":41,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.92,"y":126.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 126, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":979,"blockId":41,"value":"Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.72,"y":126.36,"width":308.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"231, 126, 308, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":980,"blockId":41,"value":"must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":981,"blockId":41,"value":"situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":982,"blockId":41,"value":"arguable basis for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":150.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 150, 12"},{"type":3,"id":983,"blockId":41,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.4,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"227, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":984,"blockId":41,"value":"(cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.36,"y":209.16,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 209, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":985,"blockId":41,"value":"Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":310.56,"y":209.16,"width":229.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"310, 209, 229, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":986,"blockId":41,"value":"case.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":28.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":987,"blockId":41,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":109.2,"y":236.76,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"109, 236, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":988,"blockId":41,"value":", 559 U.S. at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":153.24,"y":236.76,"width":88.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"153, 236, 88, 12"},{"type":3,"id":989,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.32,"y":236.76,"width":289.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 236, 289, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":990,"blockId":41,"value":"jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":991,"blockId":41,"value":"jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":992,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":212.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 212, 12"},{"type":3,"id":993,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.04,"y":319.56,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 319, 249, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":994,"blockId":41,"value":"to carefully consider","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":995,"blockId":41,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.4,"y":347.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"173, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":996,"blockId":41,"value":"and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.04,"y":347.16,"width":324.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 347, 324, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":997,"blockId":41,"value":"to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":998,"blockId":41,"value":"agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":418.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 418, 12"},{"type":3,"id":999,"blockId":41,"value":"there was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.16,"y":402.36,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 402, 45, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1000,"blockId":41,"value":"never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":200.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 200, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1001,"blockId":41,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.52,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"278, 429, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":291.47999999999996,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction\r\n must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former\r\n situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an\r\n arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional\r\n case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for\r\n jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter\r\n jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in\r\n Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected\r\n to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application\r\n to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid\r\n agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was\r\n never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"52":{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":1002,"columnEnd":1020,"text":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir. 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81. Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id. at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.7","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.7","paragraphLabel":"4.A.7","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir. 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81. Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id. at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1002,"blockId":42,"value":"The court disagrees.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":96.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1003,"blockId":42,"value":"Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.64,"y":457.56,"width":330.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 457, 330, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1004,"blockId":42,"value":"agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1005,"blockId":42,"value":"must be established.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":104.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1006,"blockId":42,"value":"LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.16,"y":512.76,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"185, 512, 202, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1007,"blockId":42,"value":", 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.72,"y":512.76,"width":152.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 512, 152, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1008,"blockId":42,"value":"2021).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":30.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1009,"blockId":42,"value":"This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.64,"y":540.36,"width":368.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 540, 368, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1010,"blockId":42,"value":"Article 7","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.12,"y":540.36,"width":43.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 540, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1011,"blockId":42,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":530.04,"y":540.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"530, 540, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1012,"blockId":42,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1013,"blockId":42,"value":"ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":259.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 259, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1014,"blockId":42,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.64,"y":595.56,"width":61.79,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 595, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1015,"blockId":42,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.44,"y":595.56,"width":139.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"400, 595, 139, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1016,"blockId":42,"value":"Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":448.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 448, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1017,"blockId":42,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":526.92,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 623, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1018,"blockId":42,"value":"at 281.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":33.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1019,"blockId":42,"value":"The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.52,"y":650.76,"width":327.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 650, 327, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1020,"blockId":42,"value":"Micula v. Gov’t of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.16,"y":650.76,"width":90.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"449, 650, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration\r\n agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that\r\n must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir.\r\n 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of\r\n the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the\r\n ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81.\r\n Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id.\r\n at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"53":{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1026,"columnEnd":1028,"text":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1026,"blockId":43,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 71, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1027,"blockId":43,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":115.32,"y":71.16,"width":424.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"115, 71, 424, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1028,"blockId":43,"value":"exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":331.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 331, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":403.08,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the\r\n exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"54":{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1029,"columnEnd":1125,"text":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction” before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s] Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966, which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted). Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is disingenuous.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.8","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.8","paragraphLabel":"4.A.8","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 508","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction” before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s] Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966, which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted). Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is disingenuous.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":19,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1029,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1030,"blockId":1,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":30.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1031,"blockId":1,"value":"the D.C. Circuit.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.68,"y":153.96,"width":82.22,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 153, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1032,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot. at 6.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":197.28,"y":153.96,"width":96.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"197, 153, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1033,"blockId":1,"value":"In actuality,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.28,"y":153.96,"width":58.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 153, 58, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1034,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania conceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.92,"y":153.96,"width":92.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 153, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1035,"blockId":1,"value":"it.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":461.88,"y":153.96,"width":9.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"461, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1036,"blockId":1,"value":"It","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.12,"y":153.96,"width":7.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 153, 7, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1037,"blockId":1,"value":"said in its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.52,"y":153.96,"width":48.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 153, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1038,"blockId":1,"value":"opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1039,"blockId":1,"value":"Petition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":37.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1040,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.44,"y":209.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1041,"blockId":1,"value":"Confirm","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.8,"y":209.16,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"136, 209, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1042,"blockId":1,"value":"[the]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.48,"y":209.16,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 209, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1043,"blockId":1,"value":"Arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":218.04,"y":209.16,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"218, 209, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1044,"blockId":1,"value":"Award . . . pursuant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.44,"y":209.16,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 209, 95, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1045,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.48,"y":209.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1046,"blockId":1,"value":"28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":402.84,"y":209.16,"width":110.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"402, 209, 110, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1047,"blockId":1,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.6,"y":209.16,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 209, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1048,"blockId":1,"value":"22 U.S.C. § 1650a.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":96.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1049,"blockId":1,"value":"Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.52,"y":236.76,"width":203.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 236, 203, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1050,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula v. Gov’t of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.68,"y":236.76,"width":131.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"379, 236, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1051,"blockId":1,"value":", Case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.44,"y":236.76,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 236, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1052,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1053,"blockId":1,"value":"exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1054,"blockId":1,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1055,"blockId":1,"value":"authorizes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.04,"y":319.56,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1056,"blockId":1,"value":"federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.24,"y":319.56,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 319, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1057,"blockId":1,"value":"courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.36,"y":319.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 319, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1058,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":236.4,"y":319.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"236, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1059,"blockId":1,"value":"enforce","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":251.64,"y":319.56,"width":36.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"251, 319, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1060,"blockId":1,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.52,"y":319.56,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 319, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1061,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.48,"y":319.56,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 319, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1062,"blockId":1,"value":"awards.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.28,"y":319.56,"width":37.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 319, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1063,"blockId":1,"value":"Based","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.24,"y":319.56,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 319, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1064,"blockId":1,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.04,"y":319.56,"width":12.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1065,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.92,"y":319.56,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 319, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1066,"blockId":1,"value":"concession, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":73.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1067,"blockId":1,"value":"D.C. Circuit wrote:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":148.8,"y":347.16,"width":93.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"148, 347, 93, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1068,"blockId":1,"value":"“As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.4,"y":347.16,"width":294.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 347, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1069,"blockId":1,"value":"the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":273.53,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1070,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":353.16,"y":374.76,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"353, 374, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1071,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.12,"y":374.76,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 374, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1072,"blockId":1,"value":"805 F. App’x","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":393.96,"y":374.76,"width":66.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"393, 374, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1073,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.8,"y":374.76,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 374, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1074,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.28,"y":374.76,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 374, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1075,"blockId":1,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":492.96,"y":374.76,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"492, 374, 47, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1076,"blockId":1,"value":"noted","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1077,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":104.76,"y":402.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"104, 402, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1078,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdictional","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.52,"y":402.36,"width":63.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 402, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1079,"blockId":1,"value":"argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.88,"y":402.36,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 402, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1080,"blockId":1,"value":"raised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.24,"y":402.36,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 402, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1081,"blockId":1,"value":"only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.92,"y":402.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1082,"blockId":1,"value":"by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.28,"y":402.36,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1083,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":326.4,"y":402.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"326, 402, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1084,"blockId":1,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":347.16,"y":402.36,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"347, 402, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1085,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.12,"y":402.36,"width":60.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"399, 402, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1086,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.96,"y":402.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 402, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1087,"blockId":1,"value":"amicus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":482.04,"y":402.36,"width":33.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"482, 402, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1088,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.0,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 402, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1089,"blockId":1,"value":"“Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"“Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1090,"blockId":1,"value":"concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1091,"blockId":1,"value":"the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":318.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 318, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1092,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"397, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1093,"blockId":1,"value":"It cannot be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":417.6,"y":485.16,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"417, 485, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1094,"blockId":1,"value":"true","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":478.92,"y":485.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"478, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1095,"blockId":1,"value":"that this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.12,"y":485.16,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 485, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1096,"blockId":1,"value":"court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1097,"blockId":1,"value":"exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1098,"blockId":1,"value":"raised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1099,"blockId":1,"value":"by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.2,"y":567.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1100,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":123.84,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"123, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1101,"blockId":1,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.12,"y":567.96,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1102,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.72,"y":567.96,"width":63.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"195, 567, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1103,"blockId":1,"value":"Lee","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.6,"y":567.96,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"270, 567, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1104,"blockId":1,"value":"Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.52,"y":567.96,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"293, 567, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1105,"blockId":1,"value":"Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.36,"y":567.96,"width":28.27,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"330, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1106,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1107,"blockId":1,"value":"10 F.4th","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.32,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1108,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.92,"y":567.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 567, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1109,"blockId":1,"value":"864","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.2,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1110,"blockId":1,"value":"(citation","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.84,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1111,"blockId":1,"value":"omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":496.44,"y":567.96,"width":43.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"496, 567, 43, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.12,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted)."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1112,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1113,"blockId":1,"value":"contention","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.4,"y":595.56,"width":50.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"131, 595, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1114,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":189.48,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1115,"blockId":1,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":214.92,"y":595.56,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"214, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1116,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.76,"y":595.56,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 595, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1117,"blockId":1,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.8,"y":595.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1118,"blockId":1,"value":"no","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":296.52,"y":595.56,"width":11.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"296, 595, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1119,"blockId":1,"value":"“arguable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.84,"y":595.56,"width":46.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 595, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1120,"blockId":1,"value":"basis”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.72,"y":595.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 595, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1121,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.44,"y":595.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 595, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1122,"blockId":1,"value":"exercise","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.24,"y":595.56,"width":39.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 595, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1123,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":469.92,"y":595.56,"width":54.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"469, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1124,"blockId":1,"value":"is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":532.08,"y":595.56,"width":7.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"532, 595, 7, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1125,"blockId":1,"value":"disingenuous.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":66.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":138.36,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"disingenuous."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 509","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”\r\n before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its\r\n opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]\r\n Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and\r\n 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case\r\n No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration\r\n exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,\r\n which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s\r\n concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked\r\n the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court\r\n noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that\r\n “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but\r\n concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after\r\n the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this\r\n court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s\r\n exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument\r\n raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted).\r\n Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is\r\n disingenuous.\r\n","MarginRight":540.12}},"55":{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1126,"columnEnd":1131,"text":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.9","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.9","paragraphLabel":"4.A.9","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1126,"blockId":1,"value":"The CJEU’s recent rulings","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":128.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1127,"blockId":1,"value":"do","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.64,"y":650.76,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1128,"blockId":1,"value":"not alter that conclusion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.88,"y":650.76,"width":119.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 650, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1129,"blockId":1,"value":"The CJEU Decision held","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":380.64,"y":650.76,"width":120.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"380, 650, 120, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1130,"blockId":1,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.12,"y":650.76,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 650, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1131,"blockId":1,"value":"European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the\r\n European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"56":{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1137,"columnEnd":1163,"text":"arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that, because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)— the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1137,"blockId":2,"value":"arbitration award against Romania that issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":219.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1138,"blockId":2,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.48,"y":71.16,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"294, 71, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1139,"blockId":2,"value":"Romania acceded to the EU would violate the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.04,"y":71.16,"width":219.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 71, 219, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1140,"blockId":2,"value":"prohibition on state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":119.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1141,"blockId":2,"value":"CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.72,"y":98.76,"width":134.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 98, 134, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1142,"blockId":2,"value":"More specifically, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.84,"y":98.76,"width":108.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 98, 108, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1143,"blockId":2,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":459.72,"y":98.76,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"459, 98, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1144,"blockId":2,"value":"held that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.32,"y":98.76,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 98, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1145,"blockId":2,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":37.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1146,"blockId":2,"value":"the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.4,"y":126.36,"width":426.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 126, 426, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1147,"blockId":2,"value":"of the Award’s issuance","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":116.21,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1148,"blockId":2,"value":"(which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.52,"y":153.96,"width":224.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 153, 224, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1149,"blockId":2,"value":"not,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.92,"y":153.96,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1150,"blockId":2,"value":"as the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.64,"y":153.96,"width":99.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 153, 99, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1151,"blockId":2,"value":"held,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":23.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1152,"blockId":2,"value":"at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":99.0,"y":181.56,"width":234.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"99, 181, 234, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1153,"blockId":2,"value":"(which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.2,"y":181.56,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 181, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.76,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1154,"blockId":2,"value":"the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":236.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 236, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1155,"blockId":2,"value":"Id. ¶¶","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.64,"y":209.16,"width":28.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"314, 209, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1156,"blockId":2,"value":"123–25.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.96,"y":209.16,"width":39.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 209, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1157,"blockId":2,"value":"As to the arbitration agreement","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.96,"y":209.16,"width":149.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"390, 209, 149, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1158,"blockId":2,"value":"itself, the CJEU Decision says little.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":176.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 176, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1159,"blockId":2,"value":"It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":255.24,"y":236.76,"width":284.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 236, 284, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1160,"blockId":2,"value":"Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1161,"blockId":2,"value":"to the EU onwards.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":92.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1162,"blockId":2,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.52,"y":291.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"170, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1163,"blockId":2,"value":"¶ 145.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.6,"y":291.96,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 291, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":216.12,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the\r\n prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that,\r\n because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time\r\n of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court\r\n held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—\r\n the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement\r\n itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the\r\n Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded\r\n to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"57":{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1164,"columnEnd":1185,"text":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm. Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.10","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.10","paragraphLabel":"4.A.10","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm. Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1164,"blockId":3,"value":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":367.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 367, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1165,"blockId":3,"value":"(1) Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.88,"y":319.56,"width":60.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 319, 60, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1166,"blockId":3,"value":"consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1167,"blockId":3,"value":"request for arbitration in July 2005, two years","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":226.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 226, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1168,"blockId":3,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.88,"y":374.76,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"302, 374, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1169,"blockId":3,"value":"Romania acceded to the European Union","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.68,"y":374.76,"width":202.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 374, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1170,"blockId":3,"value":"(and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"(and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1171,"blockId":3,"value":"made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1172,"blockId":3,"value":"Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":267.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 457, 267, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1173,"blockId":3,"value":", 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":339.96,"y":457.56,"width":175.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"339, 457, 175, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1174,"blockId":3,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.28,"y":457.56,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 457, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1175,"blockId":3,"value":"arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1176,"blockId":3,"value":"pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":226.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 226, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1177,"blockId":3,"value":"28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.0,"y":512.76,"width":115.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 512, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1178,"blockId":3,"value":"Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":425.4,"y":512.76,"width":114.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"425, 512, 114, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1179,"blockId":3,"value":"Gov’t of Belize","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":72.79,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 540, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1180,"blockId":3,"value":", 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.72,"y":540.36,"width":395.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 540, 395, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1181,"blockId":3,"value":"arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":323.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 323, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1182,"blockId":3,"value":"The CJEU Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.44,"y":567.96,"width":97.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 567, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1183,"blockId":3,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.32,"y":567.96,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 567, 34, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1184,"blockId":3,"value":"invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1185,"blockId":3,"value":"or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":191.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 191, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":263.28,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"or when Petitioners filed for arbitration."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania\r\n consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a\r\n request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union\r\n (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal\r\n made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm.\r\n Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The\r\n arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made\r\n pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v.\r\n Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to\r\n arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not\r\n invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden\r\n or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"58":{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1186,"columnEnd":1191,"text":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that, under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.11","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.11","paragraphLabel":"4.A.11","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that, under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1186,"blockId":4,"value":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":300.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 300, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1187,"blockId":4,"value":"That ruling held only that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.12,"y":650.76,"width":125.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 650, 125, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1188,"blockId":4,"value":"under EU law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":69.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 678, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1189,"blockId":4,"value":", a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.96,"y":678.36,"width":286.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 678, 286, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1190,"blockId":4,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.48,"y":678.36,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1191,"blockId":4,"value":"the European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.84,"y":678.36,"width":65.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"474, 678, 65, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 431, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that,\r\n under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"59":{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1197,"columnEnd":1237,"text":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id. ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed. Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised jurisdiction.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id. ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed. Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised jurisdiction.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1197,"blockId":5,"value":"Commission had deemed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":123.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1198,"blockId":5,"value":"the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.2,"y":71.16,"width":51.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 71, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1199,"blockId":5,"value":"incompatible with","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.28,"y":71.16,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 71, 87, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1200,"blockId":5,"value":"the EU’s state aid rules.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":346.2,"y":71.16,"width":117.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"346, 71, 117, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1201,"blockId":5,"value":"Second CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.08,"y":71.16,"width":67.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 71, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1202,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1203,"blockId":5,"value":"¶ 46.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.68,"y":98.76,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1204,"blockId":5,"value":"Specifically, the court held:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.24,"y":98.76,"width":135.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"150, 98, 135, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1205,"blockId":5,"value":"“EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.4,"y":98.76,"width":249.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 98, 249, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1206,"blockId":5,"value":"court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1207,"blockId":5,"value":"[the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":69.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1208,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.56,"y":153.96,"width":394.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 153, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"[the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1209,"blockId":5,"value":"event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1210,"blockId":5,"value":"awards them.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":71.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 71, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1211,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":153.96,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"153, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1212,"blockId":5,"value":"Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.48,"y":209.16,"width":216.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 209, 216, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1213,"blockId":5,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.24,"y":209.16,"width":35.86,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"399, 209, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1214,"blockId":5,"value":"invalidate or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.28,"y":209.16,"width":62.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 209, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1215,"blockId":5,"value":"nullify","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.08,"y":209.16,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 209, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1216,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":315.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 315, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1217,"blockId":5,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.12,"y":236.76,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"390, 236, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1218,"blockId":5,"value":"it acceded to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.36,"y":236.76,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 236, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1219,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":526.92,"y":236.76,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 236, 13, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1220,"blockId":5,"value":"¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1221,"blockId":5,"value":"accession to the European Union”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":171.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 171, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1222,"blockId":5,"value":"Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":249.48,"y":291.96,"width":290.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"249, 291, 290, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1223,"blockId":5,"value":"there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1224,"blockId":5,"value":"Neither","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1225,"blockId":5,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.48,"y":347.16,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 347, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1226,"blockId":5,"value":"ruling","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.76,"y":347.16,"width":28.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 347, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1227,"blockId":5,"value":"therefore","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.16,"y":347.16,"width":43.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 347, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1228,"blockId":5,"value":"upends","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.96,"y":347.16,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 347, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1229,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.64,"y":347.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 347, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1230,"blockId":5,"value":"arguable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.0,"y":347.16,"width":41.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 347, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1231,"blockId":5,"value":"basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.88,"y":347.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1232,"blockId":5,"value":"upon","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":375.48,"y":347.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1233,"blockId":5,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.08,"y":347.16,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 347, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1234,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.2,"y":347.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 347, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1235,"blockId":5,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.44,"y":347.16,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1236,"blockId":5,"value":"exercised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.76,"y":347.16,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 347, 45, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1237,"blockId":5,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 57, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":129.72,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"jurisdiction."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU\r\n Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a\r\n court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of\r\n [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any\r\n event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it\r\n awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify\r\n Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id.\r\n ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s\r\n accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that\r\n there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed.\r\n Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised\r\n jurisdiction.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"60":{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1238,"columnEnd":1238,"text":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.12","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.12","paragraphLabel":"4.A.12","rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1238,"blockId":6,"value":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":402.36,"width":428.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":536.28,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).\r\n","MarginRight":536.28}},"61":{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1239,"columnEnd":1240,"text":" Rule 60(b)(5) ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.B","paragraphId":"hIV.B","paragraphLabel":"B.","rectangle":"108, 429, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1239,"blockId":7,"value":"B.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":429.96,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 429, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1240,"blockId":7,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":429.96,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 429, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"B. Rule 60(b)(5)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 429, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" B. Rule 60(b)(5)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}},"62":{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1241,"columnEnd":1258,"text":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.1","paragraphLabel":"4.B.1","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1241,"blockId":8,"value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1242,"blockId":8,"value":"has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":193.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 193, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1243,"blockId":8,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.96,"y":485.16,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"270, 485, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1244,"blockId":8,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.36,"y":485.16,"width":124.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 485, 124, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1245,"blockId":8,"value":"Romania does not claim","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":424.44,"y":485.16,"width":115.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"424, 485, 115, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1246,"blockId":8,"value":"that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1247,"blockId":8,"value":"that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1248,"blockId":8,"value":"or somehow part of the same proceeding.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":203.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 203, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1249,"blockId":8,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.76,"y":567.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"281, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1250,"blockId":8,"value":";","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.72,"y":567.96,"width":3.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1251,"blockId":8,"value":"see also","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.08,"y":567.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"301, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1252,"blockId":8,"value":"Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.6,"y":567.96,"width":197.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 567, 197, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1253,"blockId":8,"value":"11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":205.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 205, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1254,"blockId":8,"value":"(“This ground is limited to cases in which the present","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.04,"y":595.56,"width":258.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 595, 258, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1255,"blockId":8,"value":"judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":431.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 431, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1256,"blockId":8,"value":"For a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.2,"y":623.16,"width":28.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 623, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1257,"blockId":8,"value":"judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1258,"blockId":8,"value":"the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that\r\n has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim\r\n that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment\r\n that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,\r\n or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,\r\n 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present\r\n judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a\r\n judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and\r\n the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"63":{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1264,"columnEnd":1276,"text":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering the present judgment has since been reversed”).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering the present judgment has since been reversed”).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1264,"blockId":9,"value":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1265,"blockId":9,"value":"example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":270.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 270, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1266,"blockId":9,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.2,"y":98.76,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"349, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1267,"blockId":9,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.6,"y":98.76,"width":123.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 98, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1268,"blockId":9,"value":"(internal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.56,"y":98.76,"width":40.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 98, 40, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1269,"blockId":9,"value":"quotation marks and citation omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":191.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 191, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1270,"blockId":9,"value":"Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.84,"y":126.36,"width":266.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 126, 266, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1271,"blockId":9,"value":"Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1272,"blockId":9,"value":"[that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":296.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 296, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1273,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":374.52,"y":181.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"374, 181, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1274,"blockId":9,"value":"; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.48,"y":181.56,"width":152.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 181, 152, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"[that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1275,"blockId":9,"value":"60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1276,"blockId":9,"value":"the present judgment has since been reversed”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":228.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 228, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":300.84000000000003,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"the present judgment has since been reversed”)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for\r\n example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal\r\n quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the\r\n Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case\r\n [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule\r\n 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering\r\n the present judgment has since been reversed”).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"64":{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1277,"columnEnd":1292,"text":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore, Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action” (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.2","paragraphLabel":"4.B.2","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore, Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action” (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1277,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":297.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 297, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1278,"blockId":10,"value":"finding","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":411.0,"y":264.36,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"411, 264, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1279,"blockId":10,"value":"“depend[s] on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.72,"y":264.36,"width":89.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 264, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1280,"blockId":10,"value":"General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":303.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 303, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1281,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania Mot. at 17.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.56,"y":291.96,"width":100.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 291, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1282,"blockId":10,"value":"Therefore,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":489.48,"y":291.96,"width":50.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"489, 291, 50, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1283,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1284,"blockId":10,"value":"says, the jurisdictional holding","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.56,"y":319.56,"width":147.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 319, 147, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1285,"blockId":10,"value":"underlying","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":269.76,"y":319.56,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"269, 319, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1286,"blockId":10,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":324.96,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"324, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1287,"blockId":10,"value":"Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.84,"y":319.56,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 319, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1288,"blockId":10,"value":"was based on a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":319.56,"width":72.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 319, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1289,"blockId":10,"value":"“prior action”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.52,"y":319.56,"width":66.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 319, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1290,"blockId":10,"value":"(the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"(the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1291,"blockId":10,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":68.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 68, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1292,"blockId":10,"value":"The court is unpersuaded.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":146.52,"y":374.76,"width":123.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"146, 374, 123, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":270.48,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 432, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the\r\n General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore,\r\n Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action”\r\n (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under\r\n Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"65":{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1293,"columnEnd":1330,"text":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.3","paragraphLabel":"4.B.3","rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1293,"blockId":11,"value":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":402.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 402, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1294,"blockId":11,"value":"Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":350.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 350, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1295,"blockId":11,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":429.0,"y":429.96,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"429, 429, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1296,"blockId":11,"value":"court relied on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.96,"y":429.96,"width":89.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 429, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1297,"blockId":11,"value":"General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":280.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 280, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1298,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.28,"y":457.56,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"356, 457, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1299,"blockId":11,"value":"did not render the arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":398.64,"y":457.56,"width":141.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"398, 457, 141, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1300,"blockId":11,"value":"exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1301,"blockId":11,"value":"inapplicable.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.16,"y":485.16,"width":61.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 485, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1302,"blockId":11,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.16,"y":485.16,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 485, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1303,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":223.32,"y":485.16,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"223, 485, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1304,"blockId":11,"value":"I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.0,"y":485.16,"width":4.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"264, 485, 4, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1305,"blockId":11,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.96,"y":485.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"267, 485, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1306,"blockId":11,"value":"404","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.56,"y":485.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"277, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1307,"blockId":11,"value":"F.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.16,"y":485.16,"width":9.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 485, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1308,"blockId":11,"value":"Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":318.48,"y":485.16,"width":27.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"318, 485, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1309,"blockId":11,"value":"3d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.8,"y":485.16,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"352, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1310,"blockId":11,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":371.4,"y":485.16,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"371, 485, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1311,"blockId":11,"value":"279–80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.64,"y":485.16,"width":39.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 485, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1312,"blockId":11,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":438.84,"y":485.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"438, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1313,"blockId":11,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":464.04,"y":485.16,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"464, 485, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1314,"blockId":11,"value":"primarily","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.24,"y":485.16,"width":44.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 485, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1315,"blockId":11,"value":"distinguished","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":64.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 64, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1316,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.96,"y":512.76,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 512, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1317,"blockId":11,"value":"on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":180.36,"y":512.76,"width":359.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"180, 512, 359, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1318,"blockId":11,"value":"one.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":20.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1319,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":98.28,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"98, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1320,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.24,"y":540.36,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 540, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1321,"blockId":11,"value":"It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.76,"y":540.36,"width":387.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"152, 540, 387, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1322,"blockId":11,"value":"establish the factual differences,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":152.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 152, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1323,"blockId":11,"value":"see","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.28,"y":567.96,"width":15.29,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"227, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1324,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.64,"y":567.96,"width":294.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 567, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1325,"blockId":11,"value":"Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":409.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 409, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1326,"blockId":11,"value":"The factual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.24,"y":595.56,"width":53.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"486, 595, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1327,"blockId":11,"value":"distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":365.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 365, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1328,"blockId":11,"value":"Next, the court said","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":444.84,"y":623.16,"width":95.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"444, 623, 95, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1329,"blockId":11,"value":"that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1330,"blockId":11,"value":"tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned"}],"Rectangle":"108, 402, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General\r\n Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the\r\n General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration\r\n exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily\r\n distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this\r\n one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to\r\n establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court\r\n Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual\r\n distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said\r\n that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral\r\n tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"66":{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1336,"columnEnd":1346,"text":"the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279– 80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1336,"blockId":12,"value":"the court in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":55.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1337,"blockId":12,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.4,"y":71.16,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"131, 71, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1338,"blockId":12,"value":".”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.92,"y":71.16,"width":8.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 71, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1339,"blockId":12,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.4,"y":71.16,"width":41.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"185, 71, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1340,"blockId":12,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.92,"y":71.16,"width":121.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 71, 121, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1341,"blockId":12,"value":"For this, the court drew upon a “close","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.56,"y":71.16,"width":184.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"355, 71, 184, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1342,"blockId":12,"value":"inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":393.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 393, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1343,"blockId":12,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.64,"y":98.76,"width":31.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"470, 98, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1344,"blockId":12,"value":"at 279–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.72,"y":98.76,"width":35.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 98, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279–"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1345,"blockId":12,"value":"80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1346,"blockId":12,"value":"The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":93.0,"y":126.36,"width":422.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"93, 126, 422, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":515.88,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close\r\n inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279–\r\n 80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"67":{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1347,"columnEnd":1390,"text":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288 (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision, at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.4","paragraphLabel":"4.B.4","rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 370","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288 (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision, at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":14,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1347,"blockId":13,"value":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":153.96,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1348,"blockId":13,"value":"a legal proposition.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":93.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 93, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1349,"blockId":13,"value":"Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":172.2,"y":181.56,"width":367.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"172, 181, 367, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1350,"blockId":13,"value":"tread upon substantive EU law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":163.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 163, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1351,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.12,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"246, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1352,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.12,"y":209.16,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"264, 209, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1353,"blockId":13,"value":"Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.12,"y":209.16,"width":230.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 209, 230, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1354,"blockId":13,"value":"authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1355,"blockId":13,"value":"would constitute state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":128.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1356,"blockId":13,"value":"It does not call into question","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.08,"y":264.36,"width":141.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 264, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1357,"blockId":13,"value":"the merits","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":353.28,"y":264.36,"width":48.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"353, 264, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1358,"blockId":13,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":264.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 264, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1359,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":419.76,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"419, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1360,"blockId":13,"value":"Award, which rested","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":438.36,"y":264.36,"width":101.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"438, 264, 101, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1361,"blockId":13,"value":"primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":333.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 333, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1362,"blockId":13,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.68,"y":291.96,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"412, 291, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1363,"blockId":13,"value":"Final Decision ¶¶ 288","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":433.2,"y":291.96,"width":106.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"433, 291, 106, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1364,"blockId":13,"value":"(noting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1365,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.4,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1366,"blockId":13,"value":"parties’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.76,"y":319.56,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 319, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1367,"blockId":13,"value":"agreement","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.48,"y":319.56,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1368,"blockId":13,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.12,"y":319.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 319, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1369,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.84,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1370,"blockId":13,"value":"BIT’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.2,"y":319.56,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 319, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1371,"blockId":13,"value":"“substantive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.12,"y":319.56,"width":59.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 319, 59, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1372,"blockId":13,"value":"rules”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.12,"y":319.56,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 319, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1373,"blockId":13,"value":"supplied","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.52,"y":319.56,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 319, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1374,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.92,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1375,"blockId":13,"value":"“applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.28,"y":319.56,"width":54.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"485, 319, 54, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"(noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1376,"blockId":13,"value":"law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1377,"blockId":13,"value":"is the BIT itself.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":89.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 89, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1378,"blockId":13,"value":"Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":167.04,"y":374.76,"width":372.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"167, 374, 372, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1379,"blockId":13,"value":"its reading of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1380,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.08,"y":402.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"136, 402, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1381,"blockId":13,"value":"does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.72,"y":402.36,"width":362.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 402, 362, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1382,"blockId":13,"value":"at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":280.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 280, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1383,"blockId":13,"value":"Such relief requires the prior decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":429.96,"width":181.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 429, 181, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1384,"blockId":13,"value":"to be a “necessary element of the decision.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":206.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 206, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1385,"blockId":13,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.44,"y":457.56,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"283, 457, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1386,"blockId":13,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.84,"y":457.56,"width":233.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 457, 233, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1387,"blockId":13,"value":"must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":402.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 402, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1388,"blockId":13,"value":"The General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.24,"y":485.16,"width":59.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 485, 59, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1389,"blockId":13,"value":"Court Decision was not that.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":136.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 136, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1390,"blockId":13,"value":"Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":214.92,"y":512.76,"width":282.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"214, 512, 282, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":497.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 371","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for\r\n a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not\r\n tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the\r\n authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award\r\n would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested\r\n primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288\r\n (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable\r\n law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal\r\n is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress\r\n its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,\r\n at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision\r\n to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment\r\n must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General\r\n Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"68":{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1391,"columnEnd":1392,"text":" Rule 60(b)(6) ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.C","paragraphId":"hIV.C","paragraphLabel":"C.","rectangle":"108, 540, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1391,"blockId":14,"value":"C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 540, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1392,"blockId":14,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":540.36,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 540, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"C. Rule 60(b)(6)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" C. Rule 60(b)(6)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}},"69":{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1393,"columnEnd":1413,"text":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.1","paragraphLabel":"4.C.1","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme","averageFontSize":11.973741794310722,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1393,"blockId":15,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1394,"blockId":15,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 6, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1395,"blockId":15,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":598.08,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 598, 12, 9"},{"type":2,"id":1396,"blockId":15,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":595.56,"width":27.92,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 595, 27, 24"},{"type":2,"id":1397,"blockId":15,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.16,"y":598.08,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 598, 9, 9"},{"type":2,"id":1398,"blockId":15,"value":". P. 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.12,"y":595.56,"width":48.12,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 595, 48, 24"},{"type":2,"id":1399,"blockId":15,"value":"This","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.44,"y":595.56,"width":21.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"184, 595, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1400,"blockId":15,"value":"residual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.4,"y":595.56,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 595, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1401,"blockId":15,"value":"provision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.92,"y":595.56,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 595, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1402,"blockId":15,"value":"“grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":299.88,"y":595.56,"width":240.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 595, 240, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":619.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1403,"blockId":15,"value":"party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1404,"blockId":15,"value":"enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":219.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 219, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1405,"blockId":15,"value":"Liljeberg,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.96,"y":650.76,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"297, 650, 47, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1406,"blockId":15,"value":"486 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.0,"y":650.76,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 650, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1407,"blockId":15,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":394.8,"y":650.76,"width":8.62,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"394, 650, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1408,"blockId":15,"value":"863.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.92,"y":650.76,"width":21.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 650, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1409,"blockId":15,"value":"Because the language","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.12,"y":650.76,"width":104.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 650, 104, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1410,"blockId":15,"value":"of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":213.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 213, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1411,"blockId":15,"value":"Twelve John Does","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.56,"y":678.36,"width":90.06,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"289, 678, 90, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1412,"blockId":15,"value":", 841 F.2d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.68,"y":678.36,"width":50.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 678, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1413,"blockId":15,"value":"at 1140, the Supreme","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.76,"y":678.36,"width":105.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 678, 105, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a\r\n party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief\r\n enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language\r\n of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"70":{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1419,"columnEnd":1432,"text":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v. United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v. United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1419,"blockId":16,"value":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":396.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 396, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1420,"blockId":16,"value":"Ackermann v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.56,"y":71.16,"width":67.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"472, 71, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1421,"blockId":16,"value":"United States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":63.95,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 98, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1422,"blockId":16,"value":", 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.96,"y":98.76,"width":404.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 98, 404, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1423,"blockId":16,"value":"sparingly used,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":78.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 78, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1424,"blockId":16,"value":"Good Luck Nursing Home","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.32,"y":126.36,"width":128.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"154, 126, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1425,"blockId":16,"value":", 636 F.2d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":282.84,"y":126.36,"width":50.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"282, 126, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1426,"blockId":16,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.72,"y":126.36,"width":8.62,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 126, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1427,"blockId":16,"value":"577.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.08,"y":126.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 126, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1428,"blockId":16,"value":"“Intervening developments in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.52,"y":126.36,"width":162.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 126, 162, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1429,"blockId":16,"value":"law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1430,"blockId":16,"value":"60(b)(6).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1431,"blockId":16,"value":"Agostini v. Felton","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.24,"y":181.56,"width":85.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"126, 181, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1432,"blockId":16,"value":", 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.04,"y":181.56,"width":131.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 181, 131, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":343.32,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v.\r\n United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only\r\n sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the\r\n law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule\r\n 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"71":{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1433,"columnEnd":1467,"text":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic] extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling Statute.” Id. at 22–23.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.2","paragraphLabel":"4.C.2","rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic] extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling Statute.” Id. at 22–23.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1433,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":230.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 209, 230, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1434,"blockId":17,"value":"law does not usually constitute and [sic]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.24,"y":209.16,"width":197.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 209, 197, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic]"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1435,"blockId":17,"value":"extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1436,"blockId":17,"value":"that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":445.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 445, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1437,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":520.8,"y":264.36,"width":19.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"520, 264, 19, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1438,"blockId":17,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1439,"blockId":17,"value":"circumstance.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":85.08,"y":291.96,"width":71.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"85, 291, 71, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1440,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.04,"y":291.96,"width":229.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"164, 291, 229, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1441,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.04,"y":291.96,"width":43.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"401, 291, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1442,"blockId":17,"value":"maintains “that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.96,"y":291.96,"width":92.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 291, 92, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1443,"blockId":17,"value":"CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1444,"blockId":17,"value":"and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1445,"blockId":17,"value":"the dispute.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":60.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1446,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.6,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1447,"blockId":17,"value":"at 22.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.68,"y":374.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"154, 374, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1448,"blockId":17,"value":"The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":187.32,"y":374.76,"width":352.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"187, 374, 352, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1449,"blockId":17,"value":"with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1450,"blockId":17,"value":"issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1451,"blockId":17,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1452,"blockId":17,"value":"US","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":86.76,"y":457.56,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"86, 457, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1453,"blockId":17,"value":"courts,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.52,"y":457.56,"width":32.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1454,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.2,"y":457.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 457, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1455,"blockId":17,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":167.88,"y":457.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"167, 457, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1456,"blockId":17,"value":"United","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.04,"y":457.56,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"188, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1457,"blockId":17,"value":"States’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.08,"y":457.56,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1458,"blockId":17,"value":"obligations","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.12,"y":457.56,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"264, 457, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1459,"blockId":17,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.92,"y":457.56,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"322, 457, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1460,"blockId":17,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.56,"y":457.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"355, 457, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1461,"blockId":17,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":375.72,"y":457.56,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 457, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1462,"blockId":17,"value":"Convention","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.32,"y":457.56,"width":56.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 457, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1463,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.88,"y":457.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 457, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1464,"blockId":17,"value":"Enabling","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":496.56,"y":457.56,"width":43.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"496, 457, 43, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1465,"blockId":17,"value":"Statute.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":41.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1466,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.64,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"119, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1467,"blockId":17,"value":"at 22–23.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.6,"y":485.16,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 485, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":180.24,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Statute.” Id. at 22–23."}],"Rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic]\r\n extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and\r\n that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and\r\n in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the\r\n CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors\r\n and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of\r\n the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent\r\n with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates\r\n issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty\r\n in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling\r\n Statute.” Id. at 22–23.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"72":{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1468,"columnEnd":1478,"text":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.3","paragraphLabel":"4.C.3","rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1468,"blockId":18,"value":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":512.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 512, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1469,"blockId":18,"value":"not established a bas[is]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":116.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1470,"blockId":18,"value":"for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":192.48,"y":540.36,"width":347.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"192, 540, 347, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1471,"blockId":18,"value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":198.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1472,"blockId":18,"value":"Micula Opp’n at 38.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.92,"y":567.96,"width":99.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"277, 567, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1473,"blockId":18,"value":"Even if Romania did establish a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.24,"y":567.96,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 567, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1474,"blockId":18,"value":"different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1475,"blockId":18,"value":"circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1476,"blockId":18,"value":"in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":295.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 295, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1477,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":373.56,"y":650.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"373, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1478,"blockId":18,"value":"at 39.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.52,"y":650.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 650, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":416.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39."}],"Rectangle":"108, 512, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has\r\n not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking\r\n relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a\r\n different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary\r\n circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change\r\n in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"73":{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1484,"columnEnd":1516,"text":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864 (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive, as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.4","paragraphLabel":"4.C.4","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864 (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive, as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1484,"blockId":19,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":71.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 71, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1485,"blockId":19,"value":"court agrees with Micula.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.96,"y":71.16,"width":123.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 71, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1486,"blockId":19,"value":"“[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.76,"y":71.16,"width":279.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 71, 279, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1487,"blockId":19,"value":"other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":229.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 229, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1488,"blockId":19,"value":"Goland v. CIA","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.92,"y":98.76,"width":69.73,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"307, 98, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1489,"blockId":19,"value":", 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.64,"y":98.76,"width":162.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 98, 162, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1490,"blockId":19,"value":"1978);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1491,"blockId":19,"value":"see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.32,"y":126.36,"width":221.81,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"106, 126, 221, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1492,"blockId":19,"value":", 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.08,"y":126.36,"width":211.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 126, 211, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1493,"blockId":19,"value":"plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1494,"blockId":19,"value":"grounds","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1495,"blockId":19,"value":"for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":117.12,"y":181.56,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"117, 181, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1496,"blockId":19,"value":"relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":137.52,"y":181.56,"width":25.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"137, 181, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1497,"blockId":19,"value":"enumerated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.32,"y":181.56,"width":55.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 181, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1498,"blockId":19,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.72,"y":181.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"231, 181, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1499,"blockId":19,"value":"clauses","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.56,"y":181.56,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"247, 181, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1500,"blockId":19,"value":"(b)(1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":288.72,"y":181.56,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"288, 181, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1501,"blockId":19,"value":"through","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":323.28,"y":181.56,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"323, 181, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1502,"blockId":19,"value":"(b)(5)”);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.08,"y":181.56,"width":40.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 181, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1503,"blockId":19,"value":"Wright","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.24,"y":181.56,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 181, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1504,"blockId":19,"value":"&","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":454.8,"y":181.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"454, 181, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1505,"blockId":19,"value":"Miller","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.64,"y":181.56,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 181, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1506,"blockId":19,"value":"§ 2864","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.12,"y":181.56,"width":32.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 181, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1507,"blockId":19,"value":"(describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":289.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 289, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1508,"blockId":19,"value":"Merely asserting in the conjunctive,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.32,"y":209.16,"width":172.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 209, 172, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"(describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1509,"blockId":19,"value":"as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":332.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 332, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1510,"blockId":19,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.76,"y":236.76,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"407, 236, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1511,"blockId":19,"value":"circumstances does not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":428.88,"y":236.76,"width":111.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"428, 236, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1512,"blockId":19,"value":"open","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1513,"blockId":19,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":98.52,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"98, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1514,"blockId":19,"value":"door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":264.36,"width":423.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 264, 423, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1515,"blockId":19,"value":"60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":42.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1516,"blockId":19,"value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":120.84,"y":291.96,"width":278.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"120, 291, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":399.6,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone."}],"Rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the\r\n other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir.\r\n 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring\r\n plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the\r\n grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864\r\n (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive,\r\n as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not\r\n open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and\r\n 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"74":{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1517,"columnEnd":1535,"text":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration, Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before it acceded to the EU is void.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.5","paragraphLabel":"4.C.5","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration, Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before it acceded to the EU is void.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1517,"blockId":20,"value":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":371.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 371, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1518,"blockId":20,"value":"All that has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":484.92,"y":319.56,"width":55.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"484, 319, 55, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1519,"blockId":20,"value":"changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1520,"blockId":20,"value":"(1) that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":34.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1521,"blockId":20,"value":"the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.52,"y":374.76,"width":429.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 374, 429, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"(1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1522,"blockId":20,"value":"aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1523,"blockId":20,"value":"Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1524,"blockId":20,"value":"developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1525,"blockId":20,"value":"EU law that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1526,"blockId":20,"value":"do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":133.32,"y":485.16,"width":406.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"133, 485, 406, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1527,"blockId":20,"value":"Romania had agreed to arbitrate under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":194.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 194, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1528,"blockId":20,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.32,"y":512.76,"width":132.31,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 512, 132, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1529,"blockId":20,"value":"The fact that EU law, as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":413.76,"y":512.76,"width":126.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"413, 512, 126, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1530,"blockId":20,"value":"interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1531,"blockId":20,"value":"by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1532,"blockId":20,"value":"court of jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":96.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1533,"blockId":20,"value":"Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.4,"y":595.56,"width":333.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 595, 333, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1534,"blockId":20,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.16,"y":595.56,"width":30.77,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"509, 595, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.9300000000001,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1535,"blockId":20,"value":"it acceded to the EU is void.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":135.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 135, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":207.72,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"it acceded to the EU is void."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has\r\n changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled\r\n (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state\r\n aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the\r\n Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those\r\n developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of\r\n EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,\r\n Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as\r\n interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment\r\n by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal\r\n court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before\r\n it acceded to the EU is void.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"75":{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1536,"columnEnd":1540,"text":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it, undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.6","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.6","paragraphLabel":"4.C.6","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it, undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1536,"blockId":21,"value":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":224.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 224, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1537,"blockId":21,"value":"both before this litigation and during it,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.8,"y":650.76,"width":202.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 650, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1538,"blockId":21,"value":"undermine its assertion that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":139.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 139, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1539,"blockId":21,"value":"the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":216.36,"y":678.36,"width":223.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"216, 678, 223, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1540,"blockId":21,"value":"Before the ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.84,"y":678.36,"width":89.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 678, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 431, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it,\r\n undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"76":{"pageNum":20,"columnStart":1546,"columnEnd":1591,"text":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction, filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58 (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania. See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b) cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be improvident”).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 591","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction, filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58 (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania. See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b) cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be improvident”).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":22,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1546,"blockId":1,"value":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1547,"blockId":1,"value":"did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1548,"blockId":1,"value":"filing its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1549,"blockId":1,"value":"objections","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.16,"y":126.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 126, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1550,"blockId":1,"value":"on September 10, 2007,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":126.36,"width":115.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"168, 126, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1551,"blockId":1,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":287.4,"y":126.36,"width":22.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"287, 126, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1552,"blockId":1,"value":"it had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":313.56,"y":126.36,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"313, 126, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1553,"blockId":1,"value":"acceded to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.28,"y":126.36,"width":91.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 126, 91, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1554,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.8,"y":126.36,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"442, 126, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1555,"blockId":1,"value":"Pet’rs’ Mem. of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.72,"y":126.36,"width":77.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"462, 126, 77, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1556,"blockId":1,"value":"Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1557,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 62-2, ¶ 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":75.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 75, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1558,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":157.92,"y":181.56,"width":382.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"157, 181, 382, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1559,"blockId":1,"value":"because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":407.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 407, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1560,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.16,"y":209.16,"width":31.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"485, 209, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1561,"blockId":1,"value":"¶ 58","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.6,"y":209.16,"width":20.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 209, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1562,"blockId":1,"value":"(“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"(“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1563,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1564,"blockId":1,"value":"ICSID Convention.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":105.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 105, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1565,"blockId":1,"value":"It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.32,"y":291.96,"width":302.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"184, 291, 302, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1566,"blockId":1,"value":"years later","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.2,"y":291.96,"width":49.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 291, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1567,"blockId":1,"value":"on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":288.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 288, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1568,"blockId":1,"value":"arose based on Romania’s accession","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.08,"y":319.56,"width":175.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 319, 175, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1569,"blockId":1,"value":"to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1570,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 374, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1571,"blockId":1,"value":"Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.56,"y":374.76,"width":448.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 374, 448, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1572,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1573,"blockId":1,"value":"submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":272.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 272, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1574,"blockId":1,"value":"(stating that the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.6,"y":429.96,"width":191.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 429, 191, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1575,"blockId":1,"value":"argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1576,"blockId":1,"value":"agreement).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":56.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1577,"blockId":1,"value":"Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.64,"y":485.16,"width":275.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 485, 275, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1578,"blockId":1,"value":"The ICSID tribunal stated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.28,"y":485.16,"width":123.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 485, 123, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1579,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1580,"blockId":1,"value":"did not comment on this ground for annulment.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":236.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 236, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1581,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.2,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"316, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1582,"blockId":1,"value":"¶ 336.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":332.76,"y":540.36,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"332, 540, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1583,"blockId":1,"value":"It cannot be unjust for this court to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.48,"y":540.36,"width":170.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 540, 170, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1584,"blockId":1,"value":"find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":345.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 345, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1585,"blockId":1,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":422.16,"y":567.96,"width":35.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"422, 567, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1586,"blockId":1,"value":"argue otherwise","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.24,"y":567.96,"width":77.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"462, 567, 77, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1587,"blockId":1,"value":"before the ICSID tribunal.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":125.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 125, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1588,"blockId":1,"value":"Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":202.8,"y":595.56,"width":142.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"202, 595, 142, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1589,"blockId":1,"value":", 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.6,"y":595.56,"width":194.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 595, 194, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1590,"blockId":1,"value":"cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1591,"blockId":1,"value":"improvident”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":70.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 70, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":142.92000000000002,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"improvident”)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 591","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it\r\n did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,\r\n filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of\r\n Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF\r\n No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction\r\n because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58\r\n (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the\r\n jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the\r\n ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later\r\n on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession\r\n to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania.\r\n See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF\r\n No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU\r\n submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission\r\n argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration\r\n agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated\r\n Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant\r\n did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to\r\n find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise\r\n before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)\r\n cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be\r\n improvident”).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"77":{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1597,"columnEnd":1649,"text":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings. Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And, as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception, Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments, when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.7","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.7","paragraphLabel":"4.C.7","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 370","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings. Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And, as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception, Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments, when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":14,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1597,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":71.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1598,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1599,"blockId":1,"value":"court’s subject matter jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":167.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 167, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1600,"blockId":1,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.32,"y":126.36,"width":62.39,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"247, 126, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1601,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.72,"y":126.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 126, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1602,"blockId":1,"value":"404 F. Supp. 3d at 273.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.68,"y":126.36,"width":116.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"316, 126, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1603,"blockId":1,"value":"Next, in response to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":441.24,"y":126.36,"width":98.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"441, 126, 98, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1604,"blockId":1,"value":"Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1605,"blockId":1,"value":"mention of the court’s jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":166.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 166, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1606,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.08,"y":181.56,"width":31.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"244, 181, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1607,"blockId":1,"value":"273–74.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.64,"y":181.56,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"278, 181, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1608,"blockId":1,"value":"Only after the European Commission entered","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":323.28,"y":181.56,"width":216.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"323, 181, 216, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1609,"blockId":1,"value":"an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1610,"blockId":1,"value":"surface","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":34.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1611,"blockId":1,"value":"that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":111.96,"y":236.76,"width":428.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"111, 236, 428, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1612,"blockId":1,"value":"deprived","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":41.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1613,"blockId":1,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":120.0,"y":264.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"120, 264, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1614,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":143.52,"y":264.36,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"143, 264, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1615,"blockId":1,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":174.36,"y":264.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"174, 264, 10, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1616,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.56,"y":264.36,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 264, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1617,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":264.36,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"260, 264, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1618,"blockId":1,"value":"id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.32,"y":264.36,"width":12.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"283, 264, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1619,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.8,"y":264.36,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"301, 264, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1620,"blockId":1,"value":"274.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.68,"y":264.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"316, 264, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1621,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.92,"y":264.36,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 264, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1622,"blockId":1,"value":"then","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.36,"y":264.36,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"399, 264, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1623,"blockId":1,"value":"piggy-backed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.24,"y":264.36,"width":65.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"426, 264, 65, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1624,"blockId":1,"value":"onto","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":497.64,"y":264.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"497, 264, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1625,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.12,"y":264.36,"width":14.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 264, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1626,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":400.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 400, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1627,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":478.44,"y":291.96,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"478, 291, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1628,"blockId":1,"value":"And,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":516.36,"y":291.96,"width":23.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"516, 291, 23, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1629,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1630,"blockId":1,"value":"discussed,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.6,"y":319.56,"width":48.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 319, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1631,"blockId":1,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":142.2,"y":319.56,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"142, 319, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1632,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.8,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1633,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.2,"y":319.56,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 319, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1634,"blockId":1,"value":"found","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.44,"y":319.56,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 319, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1635,"blockId":1,"value":"it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.04,"y":319.56,"width":6.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 319, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1636,"blockId":1,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":266.4,"y":319.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"266, 319, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1637,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.32,"y":319.56,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"289, 319, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1638,"blockId":1,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.8,"y":319.56,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 319, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1639,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.68,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1640,"blockId":1,"value":"FSIA","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.08,"y":319.56,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 319, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1641,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.76,"y":319.56,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1642,"blockId":1,"value":"exception,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.32,"y":319.56,"width":49.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 319, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1643,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1644,"blockId":1,"value":"conceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 374, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1645,"blockId":1,"value":"that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.76,"y":374.76,"width":231.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 374, 231, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1646,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.8,"y":374.76,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"355, 374, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1647,"blockId":1,"value":", 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.88,"y":374.76,"width":150.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 374, 150, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1648,"blockId":1,"value":"be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1649,"blockId":1,"value":"when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts."}],"Rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 370","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings.\r\n Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the\r\n court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to\r\n Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no\r\n mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered\r\n an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument\r\n surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby\r\n deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the\r\n Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And,\r\n as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception,\r\n Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually\r\n conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot\r\n be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,\r\n when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"78":{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1670,"columnEnd":1671,"text":" The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn2","paragraphId":"fn2","paragraphLabel":"2","rectangle":"72, 627, 192, 9","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","averageFontSize":9.916666666666666,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1670,"blockId":2,"value":"2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":627.36,"width":3.24,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 627, 3, 6"},{"type":3,"id":1671,"blockId":2,"value":"The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.73,"y":627.36,"width":187.23,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 627, 187, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":264.96,"MarginBottom":637.32,"MarginTop":627.36,"Value":"2 The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits."}],"Rectangle":"72, 627, 192, 9","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 2 The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.\r\n","MarginRight":264.96}},"79":{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1672,"columnEnd":1687,"text":" A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21, 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022 represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”). 21","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn3","paragraphId":"fn3","paragraphLabel":"3","rectangle":"71, 638, 468, 101","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21, 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022 represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”). 21","averageFontSize":10.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1672,"blockId":3,"value":"3","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":638.88,"width":3.24,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 638, 3, 6"},{"type":6,"id":1673,"blockId":3,"value":"A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.73,"y":638.88,"width":443.33,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 638, 443, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1674,"blockId":3,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":526.32,"y":638.88,"width":13.68,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 638, 13, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":648.84,"MarginTop":638.88,"Value":"3 A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1675,"blockId":3,"value":"Merriam Webster, Note Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.4,"width":128.54,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 128, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1676,"blockId":3,"value":"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":"#0562C1","x":205.1,"y":650.4,"width":334.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"205, 650, 334, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":660.36,"MarginTop":650.4,"Value":"Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1677,"blockId":3,"value":"2022).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":661.92,"width":25.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 661, 25, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1678,"blockId":3,"value":"While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":102.96,"y":661.92,"width":437.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 661, 437, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":671.88,"MarginTop":661.92,"Value":"2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1679,"blockId":3,"value":"Note Verbales exchanged","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":673.44,"width":106.08,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 673, 106, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1680,"blockId":3,"value":"between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":182.28,"y":673.44,"width":245.77,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 673, 245, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1681,"blockId":3,"value":"Sweden in February 2022","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":432.11,"y":673.44,"width":107.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 673, 107, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":683.4000000000001,"MarginTop":673.44,"Value":"Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1682,"blockId":3,"value":"represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.85,"width":318.87,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 318, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1683,"blockId":3,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":396.24,"y":684.85,"width":13.92,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"396, 684, 13, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1684,"blockId":3,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":412.92,"y":684.85,"width":127.07,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 684, 127, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":694.8100000000001,"MarginTop":684.85,"Value":"represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No."},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1685,"blockId":3,"value":"181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":696.37,"width":467.97,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 696, 467, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.97,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1686,"blockId":3,"value":"constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":707.9,"width":337.2,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 707, 337, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":409.19,"MarginBottom":717.86,"MarginTop":707.9,"Value":"constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”)."},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1687,"blockId":3,"value":"21","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":300.0,"y":727.92,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"300, 727, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":300.0,"MarginRight":312.0,"MarginBottom":739.92,"MarginTop":727.92,"Value":"21"}],"Rectangle":"72, 638, 467, 101","MarginLeft":71.99,"Value":" 3 A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See\r\n Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,\r\n 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two\r\n Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022\r\n represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No.\r\n 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply\r\n constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”).\r\n 21\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"80":{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1650,"columnEnd":1669,"text":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.8","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.8","paragraphLabel":"4.C.8","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,","averageFontSize":11.981693363844393,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1650,"blockId":5,"value":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1651,"blockId":5,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1652,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":85.92,"y":485.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"85, 485, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1653,"blockId":5,"value":"EU did not abrogate the Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":105.12,"y":485.16,"width":161.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"105, 485, 161, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1654,"blockId":5,"value":"On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.4,"y":485.16,"width":264.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 485, 264, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1655,"blockId":5,"value":"terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":331.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 331, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1656,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.32,"y":512.76,"width":130.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 512, 130, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1657,"blockId":5,"value":"No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":142.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 142, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1658,"blockId":5,"value":"2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":215.52,"y":539.76,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 539, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1659,"blockId":5,"value":"], at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":219.6,"y":540.36,"width":19.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"219, 540, 19, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1660,"blockId":5,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.16,"y":540.36,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 540, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1661,"blockId":5,"value":"On February 7, 2022,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.24,"y":540.36,"width":104.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 540, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1662,"blockId":5,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.24,"y":540.36,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"366, 540, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1663,"blockId":5,"value":"the CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":392.4,"y":540.36,"width":46.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"392, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1664,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.8,"y":540.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1665,"blockId":5,"value":"issued,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":488.88,"y":540.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"488, 540, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1666,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.36,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 540, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":539.76,"Value":"No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1667,"blockId":5,"value":"Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":304.61,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 304, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1668,"blockId":5,"value":"3","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":377.16,"y":567.36,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 567, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1669,"blockId":5,"value":"to the Government of Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.24,"y":567.96,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 567, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.36,"Value":"Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession\r\n to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to\r\n terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF\r\n No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the\r\n Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"81":{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1692,"columnEnd":1766,"text":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that, notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings, which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1. Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 453","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that, notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings, which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1. Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4","averageFontSize":11.99737532808399,"rowsOfText":17,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1692,"blockId":1,"value":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":397.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 397, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1693,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.72,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"474, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1694,"blockId":1,"value":"at 1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.68,"y":71.16,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 71, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1695,"blockId":1,"value":"At","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":528.24,"y":71.16,"width":11.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"528, 71, 11, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1696,"blockId":1,"value":"the start, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":60.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1697,"blockId":1,"value":"Joint","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.72,"y":98.76,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1698,"blockId":1,"value":"Interpretive Declaration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.72,"y":98.76,"width":115.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 98, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1699,"blockId":1,"value":"acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.64,"y":98.76,"width":258.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 98, 258, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1700,"blockId":1,"value":"between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":397.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 397, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1701,"blockId":1,"value":"as well as the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.16,"y":126.36,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 126, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1702,"blockId":1,"value":"CJEU’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1703,"blockId":1,"value":"decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.96,"y":153.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 153, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1704,"blockId":1,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.56,"y":153.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"160, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1705,"blockId":1,"value":"Achmea.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.56,"y":153.96,"width":41.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"175, 153, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1706,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.24,"y":153.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"228, 153, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1707,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.84,"y":153.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 153, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1708,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.12,"y":153.96,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1709,"blockId":1,"value":"It","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.28,"y":153.96,"width":7.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 153, 7, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1710,"blockId":1,"value":"also","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.12,"y":153.96,"width":19.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 153, 19, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1711,"blockId":1,"value":"recognized","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.08,"y":153.96,"width":52.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 153, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1712,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.16,"y":153.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1713,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.8,"y":153.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"400, 153, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1714,"blockId":1,"value":"Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":421.08,"y":153.96,"width":85.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"421, 153, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1715,"blockId":1,"value":"BIT’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.92,"y":153.96,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 153, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1716,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1717,"blockId":1,"value":"serve","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":25.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1718,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":103.44,"y":209.16,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"103, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1719,"blockId":1,"value":"legal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.52,"y":209.16,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 209, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1720,"blockId":1,"value":"basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.04,"y":209.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 209, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1721,"blockId":1,"value":"for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.28,"y":209.16,"width":14.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 209, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1722,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.44,"y":209.16,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 209, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1723,"blockId":1,"value":"proceedings.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":255.48,"y":209.16,"width":66.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 209, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1724,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.2,"y":209.16,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"334, 209, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1725,"blockId":1,"value":"The Note","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":359.52,"y":209.16,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"359, 209, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1726,"blockId":1,"value":"Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":413.88,"y":209.16,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"413, 209, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1727,"blockId":1,"value":"then","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":458.04,"y":209.16,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"458, 209, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1728,"blockId":1,"value":"stated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":484.92,"y":209.16,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"484, 209, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1729,"blockId":1,"value":"that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.0,"y":209.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 209, 21, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1730,"blockId":1,"value":"notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1731,"blockId":1,"value":"Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1732,"blockId":1,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1733,"blockId":1,"value":"will","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.8,"y":291.96,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1734,"blockId":1,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.04,"y":291.96,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"131, 291, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1735,"blockId":1,"value":"be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":151.92,"y":291.96,"width":11.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"151, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1736,"blockId":1,"value":"reopened” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":291.96,"width":72.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"168, 291, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1737,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.6,"y":291.96,"width":18.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1738,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.24,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1739,"blockId":1,"value":"“Interpretive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.52,"y":291.96,"width":61.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 291, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1740,"blockId":1,"value":"Declaration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.36,"y":291.96,"width":56.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 291, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1741,"blockId":1,"value":"covers","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.92,"y":291.96,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 291, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1742,"blockId":1,"value":"all","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.76,"y":291.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1743,"blockId":1,"value":"investor-State","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.28,"y":291.96,"width":66.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 291, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1744,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":305.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 305, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1745,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.56,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"385, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1746,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.52,"y":319.56,"width":9.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"401, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1747,"blockId":1,"value":"1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.96,"y":319.56,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 319, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1748,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania responded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":443.64,"y":319.56,"width":96.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"443, 319, 96, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1749,"blockId":1,"value":"positively to the Note Verbale.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":148.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 148, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1750,"blockId":1,"value":"On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.04,"y":347.16,"width":312.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"227, 347, 312, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1751,"blockId":1,"value":"of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1752,"blockId":1,"value":"confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1753,"blockId":1,"value":"together with this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":88.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 88, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1754,"blockId":1,"value":"[February 11, 2022]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":165.84,"y":429.96,"width":100.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"165, 429, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1755,"blockId":1,"value":"Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.8,"y":429.96,"width":268.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 429, 268, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1756,"blockId":1,"value":"Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":251.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 251, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1757,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.36,"y":457.56,"width":197.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 457, 197, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1758,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":531.0,"y":457.56,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"531, 457, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1759,"blockId":1,"value":"Thus, Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":73.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1760,"blockId":1,"value":"seems to have","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.04,"y":485.16,"width":67.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 485, 67, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1761,"blockId":1,"value":"agreed that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.32,"y":485.16,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 485, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1762,"blockId":1,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.08,"y":485.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"277, 485, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1763,"blockId":1,"value":"does not nullify its consent to arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.08,"y":485.16,"width":186.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 485, 186, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1764,"blockId":1,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.16,"y":485.16,"width":30.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"509, 485, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1765,"blockId":1,"value":"January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":463.39,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 463, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1766,"blockId":1,"value":"4","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":535.92,"y":512.16,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"535, 512, 4, 8"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.9399999999999,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.16,"Value":"January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4"}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 453","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At\r\n the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties\r\n between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the\r\n CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s\r\n arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot\r\n serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that,\r\n notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of\r\n Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,\r\n which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State\r\n arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded\r\n positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom\r\n of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and\r\n confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden\r\n together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive\r\n Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1.\r\n Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before\r\n January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"82":{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1799,"columnEnd":1810,"text":" The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15, 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5 [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn4","paragraphId":"fn4","paragraphLabel":"4","rectangle":"72, 670, 468, 47","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15, 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5 [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id. ","averageFontSize":9.995061728395061,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1799,"blockId":1,"value":"4","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":670.32,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 670, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1800,"blockId":1,"value":"The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":78.84,"y":672.96,"width":461.17,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 672, 461, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":682.9200000000001,"MarginTop":670.32,"Value":"4 The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1801,"blockId":1,"value":"2022.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.84,"width":22.68,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 22, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1802,"blockId":1,"value":"This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":101.15,"y":684.84,"width":275.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"101, 684, 275, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1803,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":382.88,"y":684.84,"width":157.12,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 684, 157, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":694.8000000000001,"MarginTop":684.84,"Value":"2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1804,"blockId":1,"value":"[hereinafter Ex. D], at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":696.37,"width":90.36,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 696, 90, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1805,"blockId":1,"value":"1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":165.6,"y":696.37,"width":17.65,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"165, 696, 17, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1806,"blockId":1,"value":"And it again affirmed that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":189.71,"y":696.37,"width":107.02,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 696, 107, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1807,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":299.98,"y":696.37,"width":12.12,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 696, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1808,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration agreement between the countries terminated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":315.36,"y":696.37,"width":224.65,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 696, 224, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"[hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1809,"blockId":1,"value":"only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":707.89,"width":282.83,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 707, 282, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1810,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":359.75,"y":707.89,"width":26.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"359, 707, 26, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":386.5,"MarginBottom":717.85,"MarginTop":707.89,"Value":"only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 670, 467, 46","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 4 The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,\r\n 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5\r\n [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated\r\n only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.01}},"83":{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1767,"columnEnd":1798,"text":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.9","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.9","paragraphLabel":"4.C.9","rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1767,"blockId":5,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1768,"blockId":5,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.76,"y":540.36,"width":46.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1769,"blockId":5,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":189.0,"y":540.36,"width":60.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 540, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1770,"blockId":5,"value":"contends","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.88,"y":540.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1771,"blockId":5,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.64,"y":540.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1772,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.8,"y":540.36,"width":14.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1773,"blockId":5,"value":"Note","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.84,"y":540.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 540, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1774,"blockId":5,"value":"Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.28,"y":540.36,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 540, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1775,"blockId":5,"value":"excludes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.6,"y":540.36,"width":42.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1776,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.76,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"485, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1777,"blockId":5,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.68,"y":540.36,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 540, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1778,"blockId":5,"value":"proceedings","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":57.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1779,"blockId":5,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.08,"y":567.96,"width":18.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"136, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1780,"blockId":5,"value":"produced","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.44,"y":567.96,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"160, 567, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1781,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":211.32,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"211, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1782,"blockId":5,"value":"Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":232.2,"y":567.96,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 567, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1783,"blockId":5,"value":"That","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.44,"y":567.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1784,"blockId":5,"value":"argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.76,"y":567.96,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1785,"blockId":5,"value":"rests","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":360.36,"y":567.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"360, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1786,"blockId":5,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.56,"y":567.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1787,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.8,"y":567.96,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1788,"blockId":5,"value":"definition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.8,"y":567.96,"width":46.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1789,"blockId":5,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.84,"y":567.96,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1790,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":497.04,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"497, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1791,"blockId":5,"value":"term","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":517.92,"y":567.96,"width":22.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"517, 567, 22, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1792,"blockId":5,"value":"“Concluded Arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":114.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 114, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1793,"blockId":5,"value":"Proceedings”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.92,"y":595.56,"width":63.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 595, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1794,"blockId":5,"value":"contained in a multilateral treaty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.96,"y":595.56,"width":160.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 595, 160, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1795,"blockId":5,"value":"to which Sweden is not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.36,"y":595.56,"width":116.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 595, 116, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"“Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1796,"blockId":5,"value":"even a signatory.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":83.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1797,"blockId":5,"value":"Br. Of Amicus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.96,"y":623.16,"width":72.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 623, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1798,"blockId":5,"value":"Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.52,"y":623.16,"width":300.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 623, 300, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 431, 95","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID\r\n proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term\r\n “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not\r\n even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"84":{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1816,"columnEnd":1834,"text":"ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however, because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding” under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1816,"blockId":6,"value":"ECF No.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":42.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1817,"blockId":6,"value":"191","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.08,"y":71.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 71, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1818,"blockId":6,"value":"[hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":139.32,"y":71.16,"width":55.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"139, 71, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1819,"blockId":6,"value":"EC","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.48,"y":71.16,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"198, 71, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1820,"blockId":6,"value":"Amicus Br.], at 14.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":217.08,"y":71.16,"width":92.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"217, 71, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1821,"blockId":6,"value":"As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.96,"y":71.16,"width":224.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 71, 224, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1822,"blockId":6,"value":"to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":273.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1823,"blockId":6,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.32,"y":98.76,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"352, 98, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1824,"blockId":6,"value":"Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.48,"y":98.76,"width":167.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 98, 167, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1825,"blockId":6,"value":"to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":177.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 177, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1826,"blockId":6,"value":"17–18.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":252.96,"y":126.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"252, 126, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1827,"blockId":6,"value":"The court need not resolve the question,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.88,"y":126.36,"width":197.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 126, 197, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1828,"blockId":6,"value":"however,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.72,"y":126.36,"width":44.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 126, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1829,"blockId":6,"value":"because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1830,"blockId":6,"value":"of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1831,"blockId":6,"value":"that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1832,"blockId":6,"value":"under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1833,"blockId":6,"value":"so.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":13.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1834,"blockId":6,"value":"The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.68,"y":264.36,"width":430.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 264, 430, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":522.24,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons\r\n to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response\r\n to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however,\r\n because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading\r\n of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes\r\n that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”\r\n under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said\r\n so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"85":{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1835,"columnEnd":1836,"text":" CONCLUSION AND ORDER ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hV","paragraphId":"hV","paragraphLabel":"V.","rectangle":"72, 291, 192, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1835,"blockId":7,"value":"V.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1836,"blockId":7,"value":"CONCLUSION AND ORDER","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":156.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":264.6,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER"}],"Rectangle":"72, 291, 192, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER\r\n","MarginRight":264.6}},"86":{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1837,"columnEnd":1838,"text":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa5","paragraphLabel":"5.","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1837,"blockId":8,"value":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1838,"blockId":8,"value":"Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":168.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 168, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":240.36,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from\r\n Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},"87":{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1839,"columnEnd":1840,"text":"Dated: December 22, 2022
Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
IOAN MICULA, et al. ,
Petitioners,
v.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,
Respondent.
Civil No. 17-cv-02332 (APM)
","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":9,"blockId":2,"value":"IOAN","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":140.16,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 140, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":10,"blockId":2,"value":"MICULA,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.84,"y":140.16,"width":56.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 140, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":11,"blockId":2,"value":"et al.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":140.16,"width":26.95,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold, Italic","rectangle":"168, 140, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":12,"blockId":2,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.84,"y":140.16,"width":3.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"195, 140, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":199.32,"MarginBottom":152.16,"MarginTop":140.16,"Value":"IOAN MICULA, et al. ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":15,"blockId":2,"value":"Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":167.76,"width":58.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 167, 58, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":166.32,"MarginBottom":179.76,"MarginTop":167.76,"Value":"Petitioners,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":18,"blockId":2,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":195.36,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 195, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":144.0,"MarginRight":153.0,"MarginBottom":207.36,"MarginTop":195.36,"Value":"v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":22,"blockId":2,"value":"THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":222.96,"width":202.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 222, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":274.68,"MarginBottom":234.96,"MarginTop":222.96,"Value":"THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":25,"blockId":2,"value":"Respondent.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":250.56,"width":63.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 250, 63, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":171.72,"MarginBottom":262.56,"MarginTop":250.56,"Value":"Respondent."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":27,"blockId":2,"value":"_________________________________________","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":246.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 264, 246, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":318.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"_________________________________________"}],"Rectangle":"72, 140, 246, 136","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" IOAN MICULA, et al. ,\r\n Petitioners,\r\n v.\r\n THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,\r\n Respondent.\r\n _________________________________________\r\n","MarginRight":318.0}},{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":29,"columnEnd":29,"text":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":null,"rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12","alignment":1,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":1,"id":29,"blockId":9,"value":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":193.08,"y":301.08,"width":225.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12"}],"MarginLeft":193.08,"MarginRight":418.8,"MarginBottom":313.08,"MarginTop":301.08,"Value":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER"}],"Rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12","MarginLeft":193.08,"Value":" MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\r\n","MarginRight":418.8}},{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":30,"columnEnd":31,"text":" INTRODUCTION ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hI","paragraphId":"hI","paragraphLabel":"I.","rectangle":"72, 328, 132, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":30,"blockId":10,"value":"I.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":328.68,"width":7.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 328, 7, 12"},{"type":2,"id":31,"blockId":10,"value":"INTRODUCTION","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":328.68,"width":96.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 328, 96, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":204.0,"MarginBottom":340.68,"MarginTop":328.68,"Value":"I. INTRODUCTION"}],"Rectangle":"72, 328, 132, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" I. INTRODUCTION\r\n","MarginRight":204.0}},{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":32,"columnEnd":66,"text":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”). In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa1.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa1.1","paragraphLabel":"1.1","rectangle":"72, 356, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”). In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now","averageFontSize":11.995061728395061,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":32,"blockId":11,"value":"The court is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":356.28,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 356, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":33,"blockId":11,"value":"compelled","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.76,"y":356.28,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 356, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":34,"blockId":11,"value":"once more","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.6,"y":356.28,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 356, 52, 12"},{"type":2,"id":35,"blockId":11,"value":"to revisit","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":285.48,"y":356.28,"width":44.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"285, 356, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":36,"blockId":11,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.56,"y":356.28,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 356, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":37,"blockId":11,"value":"seemingly never-ending","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":354.0,"y":356.28,"width":117.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"354, 356, 117, 12"},{"type":2,"id":38,"blockId":11,"value":"saga","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.28,"y":356.28,"width":21.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 356, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":39,"blockId":11,"value":"over an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.32,"y":356.28,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 356, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":368.28,"MarginTop":356.28,"Value":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":40,"blockId":11,"value":"international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":383.88,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 383, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":395.88,"MarginTop":383.88,"Value":"international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”)."},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":41,"blockId":11,"value":"In this latest installment,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":411.48,"width":119.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 411, 119, 12"},{"type":2,"id":42,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania seeks relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.28,"y":411.48,"width":101.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 411, 101, 12"},{"type":2,"id":43,"blockId":11,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.8,"y":411.48,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 411, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":44,"blockId":11,"value":"Federal Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":329.52,"y":411.48,"width":61.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"329, 411, 61, 12"},{"type":2,"id":45,"blockId":11,"value":"of Civil Procedure","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":394.8,"y":411.48,"width":89.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"394, 411, 89, 12"},{"type":2,"id":46,"blockId":11,"value":"60(b) from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.32,"y":411.48,"width":52.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 411, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":423.48,"MarginTop":411.48,"Value":"In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":47,"blockId":11,"value":"three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":439.08,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 439, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":451.08,"MarginTop":439.08,"Value":"three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":48,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":466.56,"width":367.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 466, 367, 12"},{"type":2,"id":49,"blockId":11,"value":"Taken together, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":446.28,"y":466.56,"width":93.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"446, 466, 93, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":478.56,"MarginTop":466.56,"Value":"Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":50,"blockId":11,"value":"Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":494.16,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 494, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":51,"blockId":11,"value":"(1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":127.44,"y":494.16,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"127, 494, 13, 12"},{"type":2,"id":52,"blockId":11,"value":"confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.56,"y":494.16,"width":394.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 494, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":506.16,"MarginTop":494.16,"Value":"Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":53,"blockId":11,"value":"under the International","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":521.76,"width":109.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 521, 109, 12"},{"type":2,"id":54,"blockId":11,"value":"Convention on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.04,"y":521.76,"width":71.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 521, 71, 12"},{"type":2,"id":55,"blockId":11,"value":"the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.68,"y":521.76,"width":280.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 521, 280, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":533.76,"MarginTop":521.76,"Value":"under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":56,"blockId":11,"value":"Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":549.36,"width":194.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 549, 194, 12"},{"type":2,"id":57,"blockId":11,"value":"“the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.92,"y":549.36,"width":19.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 549, 19, 12"},{"type":2,"id":58,"blockId":11,"value":"Convention”) and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.24,"y":549.36,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 549, 87, 12"},{"type":2,"id":59,"blockId":11,"value":"(2)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.6,"y":549.36,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"390, 549, 13, 12"},{"type":2,"id":60,"blockId":11,"value":"imposed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.92,"y":549.36,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 549, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":61,"blockId":11,"value":"sanctions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":456.0,"y":549.36,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"456, 549, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":62,"blockId":11,"value":"against","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":506.04,"y":549.36,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"506, 549, 33, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":561.36,"MarginTop":549.36,"Value":"Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":63,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":576.96,"width":388.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 576, 388, 12"},{"type":2,"id":64,"blockId":11,"value":"1","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":460.68,"y":576.36,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"460, 576, 4, 8"},{"type":2,"id":65,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.44,"y":576.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 576, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":66,"blockId":11,"value":"now","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.6,"y":576.96,"width":20.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 576, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":588.96,"MarginTop":576.36,"Value":"Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now"}],"Rectangle":"108, 356, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an\r\n international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”).\r\n In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from\r\n three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel\r\n Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the\r\n Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened\r\n under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and\r\n Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against\r\n Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":67,"columnEnd":108,"text":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I , this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"fn1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"fn1","paragraphLabel":"1","rectangle":"71, 626, 468, 90","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I , this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,","averageFontSize":9.99542857142857,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":67,"blockId":13,"value":"1","fontName":"Times","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":626.88,"width":3.29,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 626, 3, 6"},{"type":3,"id":68,"blockId":13,"value":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.88,"y":626.88,"width":262.19,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 626, 262, 9"},{"type":3,"id":69,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":342.94,"y":626.88,"width":139.91,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"342, 626, 139, 9"},{"type":3,"id":70,"blockId":13,"value":", 404 F. Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":482.86,"y":626.88,"width":57.14,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"482, 626, 57, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":636.84,"MarginTop":626.88,"Value":"1 The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":71,"blockId":13,"value":"3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) (","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":638.88,"width":97.56,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 638, 97, 9"},{"type":3,"id":72,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":169.55,"y":638.88,"width":35.05,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"169, 638, 35, 9"},{"type":3,"id":73,"blockId":13,"value":"),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":204.59,"y":638.88,"width":5.88,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"204, 638, 5, 9"},{"type":3,"id":74,"blockId":13,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":213.82,"y":638.88,"width":18.9,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"213, 638, 18, 9"},{"type":3,"id":75,"blockId":13,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":232.79,"y":638.88,"width":158.99,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 638, 158, 9"},{"type":3,"id":76,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":395.27,"y":638.88,"width":142.3,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"395, 638, 142, 9"},{"type":3,"id":77,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.58,"y":638.88,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 638, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":648.84,"MarginTop":638.88,"Value":"3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":78,"blockId":13,"value":"No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":650.41,"width":268.55,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 650, 268, 9"},{"type":3,"id":79,"blockId":13,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":342.94,"y":650.41,"width":18.9,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"342, 650, 18, 9"},{"type":3,"id":80,"blockId":13,"value":", No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":361.91,"y":650.41,"width":178.07,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"361, 650, 178, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":660.37,"MarginTop":650.41,"Value":"No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":81,"blockId":13,"value":"June 24, 2022) [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.98,"y":661.93,"width":109.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 661, 109, 9"},{"type":3,"id":82,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":184.18,"y":661.93,"width":37.74,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"184, 661, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":83,"blockId":13,"value":"]; and (3)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":221.86,"y":661.93,"width":37.79,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"221, 661, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":84,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":262.53,"y":661.93,"width":139.79,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"262, 661, 139, 9"},{"type":3,"id":85,"blockId":13,"value":", No. 17-cv-2332-APM,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":402.32,"y":661.93,"width":96.49,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"402, 661, 96, 9"},{"type":3,"id":86,"blockId":13,"value":"2021 WL","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":501.7,"y":661.93,"width":38.28,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 661, 38, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.98,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":671.89,"MarginTop":661.93,"Value":"June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":87,"blockId":13,"value":"5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.97,"y":673.45,"width":130.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 673, 130, 9"},{"type":3,"id":88,"blockId":13,"value":"appeal filed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":205.42,"y":673.45,"width":47.57,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"205, 673, 47, 9"},{"type":3,"id":89,"blockId":13,"value":"December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":255.55,"y":673.45,"width":181.93,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 673, 181, 9"},{"type":3,"id":90,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":440.12,"y":673.45,"width":40.98,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"440, 673, 40, 9"},{"type":3,"id":91,"blockId":13,"value":"].","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":481.16,"y":673.45,"width":5.88,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"481, 673, 5, 9"},{"type":3,"id":92,"blockId":13,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":492.32,"y":673.45,"width":8.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"492, 673, 8, 9"},{"type":3,"id":93,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":503.35,"y":673.45,"width":34.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"503, 673, 34, 9"},{"type":3,"id":94,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.56,"y":673.45,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 673, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.97,"MarginRight":539.9599999999999,"MarginBottom":683.4100000000001,"MarginTop":673.45,"Value":"5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":95,"blockId":13,"value":"this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.96,"y":684.86,"width":468.01,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 684, 468, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.96,"MarginRight":539.97,"MarginBottom":694.82,"MarginTop":684.86,"Value":"this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":96,"blockId":13,"value":"sum of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.96,"y":696.38,"width":27.72,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 696, 27, 9"},{"type":3,"id":97,"blockId":13,"value":"$331,557,687.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":102.44,"y":696.38,"width":57.48,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 696, 57, 9"},{"type":3,"id":98,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":165.44,"y":696.38,"width":28.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"165, 696, 28, 9"},{"type":3,"id":99,"blockId":13,"value":"I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":196.4,"y":696.38,"width":3.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"196, 696, 3, 9"},{"type":3,"id":100,"blockId":13,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":199.76,"y":696.38,"width":122.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 696, 122, 9"},{"type":3,"id":101,"blockId":13,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":327.19,"y":696.38,"width":8.28,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 696, 8, 9"},{"type":3,"id":102,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":338.23,"y":696.38,"width":37.62,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 696, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":103,"blockId":13,"value":", this court denied Romania’s request for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":375.91,"y":696.38,"width":164.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 696, 164, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.96,"MarginRight":539.94,"MarginBottom":706.34,"MarginTop":696.38,"Value":"sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":104,"blockId":13,"value":"relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.95,"y":707.9,"width":265.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 707, 265, 9"},{"type":3,"id":105,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":341.96,"y":707.9,"width":37.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"341, 707, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":106,"blockId":13,"value":", 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":379.03,"y":707.9,"width":115.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 707, 115, 9"},{"type":3,"id":107,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":496.88,"y":707.9,"width":40.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"496, 707, 40, 9"},{"type":3,"id":108,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.55,"y":707.9,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 707, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.95,"MarginRight":539.9499999999999,"MarginBottom":717.86,"MarginTop":707.9,"Value":"relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,"}],"Rectangle":"72, 626, 467, 90","MarginLeft":71.95,"Value":" 1 The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp.\r\n 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania ,\r\n No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir.\r\n June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL\r\n 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I ,\r\n this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the\r\n sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for\r\n relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":113,"columnEnd":118,"text":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":113,"blockId":12,"value":"asks the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":38.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":114,"blockId":12,"value":"court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.64,"y":71.16,"width":426.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 71, 426, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":115,"blockId":12,"value":"of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":116,"blockId":12,"value":"Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":117,"blockId":12,"value":"the Judgments.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":72.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":118,"blockId":12,"value":"The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.0,"y":153.96,"width":358.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"150, 153, 358, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":508.32,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber\r\n of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that\r\n Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from\r\n the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":119,"columnEnd":119,"text":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa1.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa1.2","paragraphLabel":"1.2","rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":119,"blockId":17,"value":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":181.56,"width":272.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":380.64,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":380.64}},{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":120,"columnEnd":121,"text":" BACKGROUND ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hII","paragraphId":"hII","paragraphLabel":"II.","rectangle":"72, 209, 123, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":120,"blockId":18,"value":"II.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":12.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":121,"blockId":18,"value":"BACKGROUND","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 209, 87, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":195.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"II. BACKGROUND"}],"Rectangle":"72, 209, 123, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" II. BACKGROUND\r\n","MarginRight":195.95999999999998}},{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":122,"columnEnd":138,"text":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions and will not be rehashed here. See e.g., Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2","paragraphLabel":"2.","rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions and will not be rehashed here. See e.g., Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":122,"blockId":19,"value":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":236.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 236, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":123,"blockId":19,"value":"and will not be rehashed here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":145.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 145, 12"},{"type":2,"id":124,"blockId":19,"value":"See e.g.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":224.04,"y":264.36,"width":37.15,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"224, 264, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":125,"blockId":19,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.24,"y":264.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 264, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":126,"blockId":19,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.6,"y":264.36,"width":167.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"267, 264, 167, 12"},{"type":2,"id":127,"blockId":19,"value":", 404 F.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.24,"y":264.36,"width":37.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 264, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":128,"blockId":19,"value":"Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":475.8,"y":264.36,"width":27.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"475, 264, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":129,"blockId":19,"value":"3d 265","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":506.76,"y":264.36,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"506, 264, 33, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"and will not be rehashed here. See e.g. , Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":130,"blockId":19,"value":"(D.D.C. 2019) (","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":77.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 77, 12"},{"type":2,"id":131,"blockId":19,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.0,"y":291.96,"width":41.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"150, 291, 41, 12"},{"type":2,"id":132,"blockId":19,"value":"),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.88,"y":291.96,"width":6.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 291, 6, 12"},{"type":2,"id":133,"blockId":19,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":202.68,"y":291.96,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"202, 291, 22, 12"},{"type":2,"id":134,"blockId":19,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.36,"y":291.96,"width":170.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 291, 170, 12"},{"type":2,"id":135,"blockId":19,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.32,"y":291.96,"width":47.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 291, 47, 12"},{"type":2,"id":136,"blockId":19,"value":"simply","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":454.44,"y":291.96,"width":32.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"454, 291, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":137,"blockId":19,"value":"recaps the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.04,"y":291.96,"width":48.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 291, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"(D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":138,"blockId":19,"value":"facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":206.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 206, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":278.64,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion."}],"Rectangle":"108, 236, 432, 95","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions\r\n and will not be rehashed here. See e.g. , Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265\r\n (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the\r\n facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":139,"columnEnd":143,"text":" Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.A","paragraphId":"h2.A","paragraphLabel":"A.","rectangle":"108, 347, 396, 25","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":139,"blockId":20,"value":"A.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 347, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":140,"blockId":20,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":347.16,"width":55.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 347, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":141,"blockId":20,"value":"Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.48,"y":347.16,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"204, 347, 249, 12"},{"type":3,"id":142,"blockId":20,"value":"Bilateral","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":459.36,"y":347.16,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"459, 347, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":504.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"A. Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":143,"blockId":20,"value":"Investment Treaty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":360.96,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 360, 95, 12"}],"MarginLeft":144.0,"MarginRight":239.04000000000002,"MarginBottom":372.96,"MarginTop":360.96,"Value":"Investment Treaty"}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 395, 25","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" A. Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral\r\n Investment Treaty\r\n","MarginRight":504.0}},{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":144,"columnEnd":153,"text":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.1","paragraphLabel":"2.A.1","rectangle":"72, 388, 468, 149","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":144,"blockId":21,"value":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":388.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 388, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":400.56,"MarginTop":388.56,"Value":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":145,"blockId":21,"value":"1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":416.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 416, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":428.16,"MarginTop":416.16,"Value":"1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":146,"blockId":21,"value":"a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":443.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 443, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":455.76,"MarginTop":443.76,"Value":"a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":147,"blockId":21,"value":"certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":471.36,"width":322.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 471, 322, 12"},{"type":2,"id":148,"blockId":21,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.68,"y":471.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"400, 471, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":149,"blockId":21,"value":"at 270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.64,"y":471.36,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 471, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":150,"blockId":21,"value":"Petitioners Viorel","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.16,"y":471.36,"width":84.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 471, 84, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":483.36,"MarginTop":471.36,"Value":"certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":151,"blockId":21,"value":"and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":498.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 498, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":510.96,"MarginTop":498.96,"Value":"and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":152,"blockId":21,"value":"the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":526.56,"width":307.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 526, 307, 12"},{"type":2,"id":153,"blockId":21,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.2,"y":526.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"385, 526, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":398.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":538.56,"MarginTop":526.56,"Value":"the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 388, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December\r\n 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including\r\n a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided\r\n certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel\r\n and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on\r\n the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":154,"columnEnd":159,"text":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.2","paragraphLabel":"2.A.2","rectangle":"72, 554, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":154,"blockId":22,"value":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":554.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 554, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":566.16,"MarginTop":554.16,"Value":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":155,"blockId":22,"value":"(“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":581.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 581, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":593.76,"MarginTop":581.76,"Value":"(“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":156,"blockId":22,"value":"invested in the other country.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":609.36,"width":152.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 609, 152, 12"},{"type":3,"id":157,"blockId":22,"value":"Id","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.48,"y":609.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"234, 609, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":158,"blockId":22,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.44,"y":609.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"244, 609, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":159,"blockId":22,"value":"As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.16,"y":609.36,"width":282.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 609, 282, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":621.36,"MarginTop":609.36,"Value":"invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT"}],"Rectangle":"108, 554, 432, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden\r\n (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who\r\n invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":160,"columnEnd":174,"text":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay discovery. Micula III, 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions, and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 44","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay discovery. Micula III, 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions, and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .","averageFontSize":10.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":160,"blockId":14,"value":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":673.44,"width":468.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.03,"MarginBottom":683.4000000000001,"MarginTop":673.44,"Value":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":161,"blockId":14,"value":"discovery.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.84,"width":41.52,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 41, 9"},{"type":6,"id":162,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":118.32,"y":684.84,"width":40.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"118, 684, 40, 9"},{"type":6,"id":163,"blockId":14,"value":", 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":159.12,"y":684.84,"width":114.84,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"159, 684, 114, 9"},{"type":6,"id":164,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":278.76,"y":684.84,"width":34.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"278, 684, 34, 9"},{"type":6,"id":165,"blockId":14,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":315.33,"y":684.84,"width":14.43,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 684, 14, 9"},{"type":6,"id":166,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":332.17,"y":684.84,"width":37.44,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"332, 684, 37, 9"},{"type":6,"id":167,"blockId":14,"value":"were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":372.0,"y":684.84,"width":168.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 684, 168, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.03,"MarginBottom":694.8000000000001,"MarginTop":684.84,"Value":"discovery. Micula III , 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":168,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.01,"y":696.37,"width":41.34,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 696, 41, 9"},{"type":6,"id":169,"blockId":14,"value":"remains pending before the D.C. Circuit.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":115.78,"y":696.37,"width":165.87,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"115, 696, 165, 9"},{"type":6,"id":170,"blockId":14,"value":"Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":287.54,"y":696.37,"width":209.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"287, 696, 209, 9"},{"type":6,"id":171,"blockId":14,"value":"decisions,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":500.42,"y":696.37,"width":39.59,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"500, 696, 39, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.01,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions,"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":172,"blockId":14,"value":"and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.01,"y":707.89,"width":202.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 707, 202, 9"},{"type":6,"id":173,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":276.85,"y":707.89,"width":34.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"276, 707, 34, 9"},{"type":6,"id":174,"blockId":14,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":310.93,"y":707.89,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"310, 707, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.01,"MarginRight":313.33,"MarginBottom":717.85,"MarginTop":707.89,"Value":"and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I ."}],"Rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 43","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay\r\n discovery. Micula III , 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of\r\n Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions,\r\n and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .\r\n","MarginRight":540.03}},{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":180,"columnEnd":183,"text":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":180,"blockId":23,"value":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":181,"blockId":23,"value":"either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":182,"blockId":23,"value":"the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":291.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 291, 12"},{"type":3,"id":183,"blockId":23,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.84,"y":126.36,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"369, 126, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":401.88,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before\r\n either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of\r\n the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":184,"columnEnd":194,"text":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state- sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects they had planned.” Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.3","paragraphLabel":"2.A.3","rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state- sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects they had planned.” Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":184,"blockId":24,"value":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":153.96,"width":332.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 153, 332, 12"},{"type":3,"id":185,"blockId":24,"value":"Romania took that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":153.96,"width":91.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 153, 91, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":186,"blockId":24,"value":"action as part of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":82.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":187,"blockId":24,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":159.96,"y":181.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"159, 181, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":188,"blockId":24,"value":"process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.64,"y":181.56,"width":360.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 181, 360, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.92,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":189,"blockId":24,"value":"sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":350.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 350, 12"},{"type":3,"id":190,"blockId":24,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.32,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"427, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":191,"blockId":24,"value":"Romania’s decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":445.56,"y":209.16,"width":94.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"445, 209, 94, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":192,"blockId":24,"value":"caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":193,"blockId":24,"value":"they had planned.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 90, 12"},{"type":3,"id":194,"blockId":24,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.24,"y":264.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"168, 264, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":181.20000000000002,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"they had planned.” Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that\r\n action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-\r\n sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision\r\n caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects\r\n they had planned.” Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":195,"columnEnd":196,"text":" Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.B","paragraphId":"h2.B","paragraphLabel":"B.","rectangle":"108, 291, 345, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":195,"blockId":25,"value":"B.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":196,"blockId":25,"value":"Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":291.96,"width":309.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 291, 309, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":453.72,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"B. Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU"}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 345, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" B. Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU\r\n","MarginRight":453.72}},{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":197,"columnEnd":231,"text":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.B.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.B.1","paragraphLabel":"2.B.1","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":197,"blockId":26,"value":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":198,"blockId":26,"value":"Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":199,"blockId":26,"value":"ICSID tribunal.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":75.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 75, 12"},{"type":2,"id":200,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.68,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"154, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":201,"blockId":26,"value":"In January 2007, while","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.08,"y":374.76,"width":111.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 374, 111, 12"},{"type":2,"id":202,"blockId":26,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.76,"y":374.76,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 374, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":203,"blockId":26,"value":"arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.12,"y":374.76,"width":230.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 374, 230, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":204,"blockId":26,"value":"formally joined the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 95, 12"},{"type":2,"id":205,"blockId":26,"value":"EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":171.6,"y":402.36,"width":18.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"171, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":206,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.68,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"199, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":207,"blockId":26,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.64,"y":402.36,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 402, 35, 12"},{"type":2,"id":208,"blockId":26,"value":"In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":402.36,"width":279.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 402, 279, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":209,"blockId":26,"value":"Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":210,"blockId":26,"value":"(the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.96,"y":429.96,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 429, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":211,"blockId":26,"value":"“Final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":155.16,"y":429.96,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"155, 429, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":212,"blockId":26,"value":"Decision”)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.88,"y":429.96,"width":51.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 429, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":213,"blockId":26,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.44,"y":429.96,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 429, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":214,"blockId":26,"value":"awarded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":274.32,"y":429.96,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"274, 429, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":215,"blockId":26,"value":"them","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.72,"y":429.96,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 429, 24, 12"},{"type":2,"id":216,"blockId":26,"value":"monetary","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.32,"y":429.96,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"352, 429, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":217,"blockId":26,"value":"damages","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":404.16,"y":429.96,"width":42.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"404, 429, 42, 12"},{"type":2,"id":218,"blockId":26,"value":"plus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.88,"y":429.96,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"452, 429, 20, 12"},{"type":2,"id":219,"blockId":26,"value":"interest","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.52,"y":429.96,"width":35.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 429, 35, 12"},{"type":2,"id":220,"blockId":26,"value":"(the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.4,"y":429.96,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 429, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":221,"blockId":26,"value":"“Award”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":50.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":222,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.04,"y":457.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"131, 457, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":223,"blockId":26,"value":"at 270–71.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":147.0,"y":457.56,"width":53.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"147, 457, 53, 12"},{"type":2,"id":224,"blockId":26,"value":"Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.52,"y":457.56,"width":303.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 457, 303, 12"},{"type":2,"id":225,"blockId":26,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":517.44,"y":457.56,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"517, 457, 22, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"“Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":226,"blockId":26,"value":"Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":383.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 383, 12"},{"type":2,"id":227,"blockId":26,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":458.04,"y":485.16,"width":30.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"458, 485, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":228,"blockId":26,"value":"the ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.4,"y":485.16,"width":48.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 485, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":229,"blockId":26,"value":"tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":176.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 176, 12"},{"type":2,"id":230,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.04,"y":512.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"254, 512, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":231,"blockId":26,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.0,"y":512.76,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 512, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":302.64,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the\r\n Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an\r\n ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania\r\n formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of\r\n Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the\r\n “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after\r\n Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID\r\n tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":232,"columnEnd":256,"text":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.B.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.B.2","paragraphLabel":"2.B.2","rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":232,"blockId":4,"value":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 540, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":233,"blockId":4,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":234,"blockId":4,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.08,"y":567.96,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 567, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":235,"blockId":4,"value":"advised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.16,"y":567.96,"width":36.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 567, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":236,"blockId":4,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.0,"y":567.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 567, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":237,"blockId":4,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.56,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"283, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":238,"blockId":4,"value":"implementing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.8,"y":567.96,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 567, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":239,"blockId":4,"value":"or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":380.88,"y":567.96,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"380, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":240,"blockId":4,"value":"executing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.08,"y":567.96,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":241,"blockId":4,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.0,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":242,"blockId":4,"value":"Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.88,"y":567.96,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 567, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":243,"blockId":4,"value":"would","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.76,"y":567.96,"width":30.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"509, 567, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":244,"blockId":4,"value":"constitute impermissible new state aid”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":198.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":245,"blockId":4,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.64,"y":595.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":246,"blockId":4,"value":"issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.32,"y":595.56,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 595, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":247,"blockId":4,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.84,"y":595.56,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 595, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":248,"blockId":4,"value":"“suspension","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.52,"y":595.56,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 595, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":249,"blockId":4,"value":"injunction”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.88,"y":595.56,"width":54.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"407, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":250,"blockId":4,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":467.4,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"467, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":251,"blockId":4,"value":"prohibited","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.8,"y":595.56,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 595, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":252,"blockId":4,"value":"Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":253,"blockId":4,"value":"whether the Award constituted state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":204.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 204, 12"},{"type":3,"id":254,"blockId":4,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":284.64,"y":650.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"284, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":255,"blockId":4,"value":"On March 30, 2015, the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.0,"y":650.76,"width":234.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 650, 234, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":256,"blockId":4,"value":"issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the\r\n European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would\r\n constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited\r\n Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on\r\n whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission\r\n issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":262,"columnEnd":268,"text":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”), which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”), which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":262,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":242.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":263,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.16,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"320, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":264,"blockId":5,"value":"Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.88,"y":71.16,"width":201.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"338, 71, 201, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":265,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":266,"blockId":5,"value":"which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":267,"blockId":5,"value":"Union (“CJEU”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":83.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":268,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.28,"y":153.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"161, 153, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":174.24,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Union (“CJEU”). Id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid\r\n Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),\r\n which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European\r\n Union (“CJEU”). Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":269,"columnEnd":270,"text":" General Court Decision ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.C","paragraphId":"h2.C","paragraphLabel":"C.","rectangle":"108, 181, 157, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" General Court Decision ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":269,"blockId":6,"value":"C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":181.56,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 181, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":270,"blockId":6,"value":"General Court Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":181.56,"width":121.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 181, 121, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":265.32,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"C. General Court Decision"}],"Rectangle":"108, 181, 157, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" C. General Court Decision\r\n","MarginRight":265.32}},{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":271,"columnEnd":302,"text":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.” Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General Court Decision to the CJEU. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.C","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.C","paragraphLabel":"2.C","rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.” Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General Court Decision to the CJEU. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":271,"blockId":7,"value":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":272,"blockId":7,"value":"State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":233.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 233, 12"},{"type":2,"id":273,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":312.96,"y":236.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"312, 236, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":274,"blockId":7,"value":"at 274.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.92,"y":236.76,"width":34.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 236, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":275,"blockId":7,"value":"The General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":370.92,"y":236.76,"width":91.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"370, 236, 91, 12"},{"type":2,"id":276,"blockId":7,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.32,"y":236.76,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"466, 236, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":277,"blockId":7,"value":"“that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":516.72,"y":236.76,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"516, 236, 23, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":278,"blockId":7,"value":"EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":279,"blockId":7,"value":"thus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 20, 12"},{"type":2,"id":280,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":99.36,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"99, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":281,"blockId":7,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":121.32,"y":291.96,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"121, 291, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":282,"blockId":7,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":174.6,"y":291.96,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"174, 291, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":283,"blockId":7,"value":"“lacked","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.76,"y":291.96,"width":36.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 291, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":284,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":286.56,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"286, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":285,"blockId":7,"value":"‘competence’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.64,"y":291.96,"width":65.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 291, 65, 12"},{"type":2,"id":286,"blockId":7,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.12,"y":291.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 291, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":287,"blockId":7,"value":"declare","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.8,"y":291.96,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 291, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":288,"blockId":7,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":439.92,"y":291.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"439, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":289,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.24,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":290,"blockId":7,"value":"investment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.2,"y":291.96,"width":52.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 291, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":291,"blockId":7,"value":"incentives—which Romania offered","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":174.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 174, 12"},{"type":2,"id":292,"blockId":7,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":249.84,"y":319.56,"width":30.65,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"249, 319, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":293,"blockId":7,"value":"acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.44,"y":319.56,"width":256.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"283, 319, 256, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":294,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 347, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":295,"blockId":7,"value":"at 275.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.96,"y":347.16,"width":32.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 347, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":296,"blockId":7,"value":"The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.72,"y":347.16,"width":413.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"126, 347, 413, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":297,"blockId":7,"value":"state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":298,"blockId":7,"value":"for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":287.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 287, 12"},{"type":2,"id":299,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.44,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"367, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":300,"blockId":7,"value":"Romania appealed the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.8,"y":402.36,"width":151.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 402, 151, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":301,"blockId":7,"value":"Court Decision to the CJEU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":137.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 137, 12"},{"type":2,"id":302,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.64,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"215, 429, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":228.6,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Court Decision to the CJEU. Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s\r\n State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that\r\n EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and\r\n thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment\r\n incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”\r\n Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal\r\n state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners\r\n for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General\r\n Court Decision to the CJEU. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":303,"columnEnd":304,"text":" The Judgments ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.D","paragraphId":"h2.D","paragraphLabel":"D.","rectangle":"108, 457, 114, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The Judgments ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":303,"blockId":8,"value":"D.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 457, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":304,"blockId":8,"value":"The Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":457.56,"width":78.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 457, 78, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":222.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"D. The Judgments"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 114, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" D. The Judgments\r\n","MarginRight":222.95999999999998}},{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":305,"columnEnd":346,"text":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.1","paragraphLabel":"2.D.1","rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":305,"blockId":9,"value":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":485.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 485, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":306,"blockId":9,"value":"granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":231.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 231, 12"},{"type":2,"id":307,"blockId":9,"value":"Id","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.72,"y":512.76,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"309, 512, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":308,"blockId":9,"value":". at 285.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.8,"y":512.76,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 512, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":309,"blockId":9,"value":"This court determined that it had the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.92,"y":512.76,"width":175.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 512, 175, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":310,"blockId":9,"value":"subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":311,"blockId":9,"value":"Immunities Act (“FSIA”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":126.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 126, 12"},{"type":2,"id":312,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.96,"y":567.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"204, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":313,"blockId":9,"value":"at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.92,"y":567.96,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 567, 33, 12"},{"type":2,"id":314,"blockId":9,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.88,"y":567.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":315,"blockId":9,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.56,"y":567.96,"width":17.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 567, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":316,"blockId":9,"value":"argued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.08,"y":567.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 567, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":317,"blockId":9,"value":"that jurisdiction was improper","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.96,"y":567.96,"width":145.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 567, 145, 12"},{"type":2,"id":318,"blockId":9,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.64,"y":567.96,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 567, 27, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":319,"blockId":9,"value":"the FSIA arbitration exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":150.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 150, 12"},{"type":2,"id":320,"blockId":9,"value":"because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.2,"y":595.56,"width":313.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 595, 313, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":321,"blockId":9,"value":"invalid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":36.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":322,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.68,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"118, 623, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":323,"blockId":9,"value":"at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.64,"y":623.16,"width":36.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 623, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":324,"blockId":9,"value":"Romania’s argument was predicated on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":182.04,"y":623.16,"width":218.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 623, 218, 12"},{"type":2,"id":325,"blockId":9,"value":"CJEU’s decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.6,"y":623.16,"width":97.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 623, 97, 12"},{"type":2,"id":326,"blockId":9,"value":"Slovak","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.84,"y":623.16,"width":32.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"507, 623, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":327,"blockId":9,"value":"Republic v. Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":99.55,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 650, 99, 12"},{"type":2,"id":328,"blockId":9,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":171.6,"y":650.76,"width":3.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"171, 650, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":329,"blockId":9,"value":"which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.76,"y":650.76,"width":360.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 650, 360, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":330,"blockId":9,"value":"“under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":331,"blockId":9,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.04,"y":678.36,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 678, 29, 12"},{"type":2,"id":332,"blockId":9,"value":"an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.84,"y":678.36,"width":11.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 678, 11, 12"},{"type":2,"id":333,"blockId":9,"value":"investor","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.52,"y":678.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"161, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":334,"blockId":9,"value":"from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":205.68,"y":678.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"205, 678, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":335,"blockId":9,"value":"one","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.36,"y":678.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 678, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":336,"blockId":9,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.16,"y":678.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 678, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":337,"blockId":9,"value":"those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":272.64,"y":678.36,"width":25.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"272, 678, 25, 12"},{"type":2,"id":338,"blockId":9,"value":"Member","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":303.48,"y":678.36,"width":40.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"303, 678, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":339,"blockId":9,"value":"States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.44,"y":678.36,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 678, 28, 12"},{"type":2,"id":340,"blockId":9,"value":"may,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":383.52,"y":678.36,"width":23.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"383, 678, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":341,"blockId":9,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.68,"y":678.36,"width":9.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 678, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":342,"blockId":9,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.56,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":343,"blockId":9,"value":"event","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.6,"y":678.36,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 678, 26, 12"},{"type":2,"id":344,"blockId":9,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.04,"y":678.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 678, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":345,"blockId":9,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.52,"y":678.36,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 678, 5, 12"},{"type":2,"id":346,"blockId":9,"value":"dispute","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.2,"y":678.36,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 678, 34, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"“under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute"}],"Rectangle":"108, 485, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court\r\n granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the\r\n subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign\r\n Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under\r\n the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was\r\n invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak\r\n Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States\r\n “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":352,"columnEnd":378,"text":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":352,"blockId":10,"value":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":353,"blockId":10,"value":"State before an arbitral tribunal.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":159.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 159, 12"},{"type":3,"id":354,"blockId":10,"value":"Mem. of L. in Opp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.2,"y":98.76,"width":94.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 98, 94, 12"},{"type":3,"id":355,"blockId":10,"value":"to Pet.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.36,"y":98.76,"width":30.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 98, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":356,"blockId":10,"value":"to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":370.68,"y":98.76,"width":169.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"370, 98, 169, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":357,"blockId":10,"value":"Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":283.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 283, 12"},{"type":3,"id":358,"blockId":10,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.56,"y":126.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"358, 126, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":359,"blockId":10,"value":"] ¶ 60;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":126.36,"width":30.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 126, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":360,"blockId":10,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":431.28,"y":126.36,"width":40.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"431, 126, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":361,"blockId":10,"value":", 404 F. Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.2,"y":126.36,"width":67.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 126, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":362,"blockId":10,"value":"3d at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":47.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":363,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania maintained that under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.64,"y":153.96,"width":150.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 153, 150, 12"},{"type":3,"id":364,"blockId":10,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.48,"y":153.96,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"279, 153, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":365,"blockId":10,"value":"the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.24,"y":153.96,"width":218.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 153, 218, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":366,"blockId":10,"value":"BIT was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":41.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":367,"blockId":10,"value":"void","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":181.56,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 181, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":368,"blockId":10,"value":"as of Romania’s accession to the EU in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.0,"y":181.56,"width":190.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 181, 190, 12"},{"type":3,"id":369,"blockId":10,"value":"January 2007,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.32,"y":181.56,"width":67.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 181, 67, 12"},{"type":3,"id":370,"blockId":10,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.12,"y":181.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 181, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":371,"blockId":10,"value":"thus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":425.64,"y":181.56,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"425, 181, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":372,"blockId":10,"value":"the court could not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":181.56,"width":91.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 181, 91, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":373,"blockId":10,"value":"rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":374,"blockId":10,"value":"view shared by the European Commission, which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 249, 12"},{"type":3,"id":375,"blockId":10,"value":"appeared as amicus curiae.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":326.88,"y":236.76,"width":134.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"326, 236, 134, 12"},{"type":3,"id":376,"blockId":10,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":471.12,"y":236.76,"width":42.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"471, 236, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":377,"blockId":10,"value":", 404","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":513.96,"y":236.76,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"513, 236, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":378,"blockId":10,"value":"F. Supp. 3d at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":90.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":162.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"F. Supp. 3d at 277."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member\r\n State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and\r\n Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp.\r\n 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not\r\n rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a\r\n view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404\r\n F. Supp. 3d at 277.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":379,"columnEnd":423,"text":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons. Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.” Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet. To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.2","paragraphLabel":"2.D.2","rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 343","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons. Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.” Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet. To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":13,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":379,"blockId":11,"value":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":217.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 291, 217, 12"},{"type":3,"id":380,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.84,"y":291.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 291, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":381,"blockId":11,"value":"-related arguments for three reasons.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.48,"y":291.96,"width":173.52,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"366, 291, 173, 24"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":315.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":382,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":383,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.96,"y":319.56,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 319, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":384,"blockId":11,"value":"First,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.04,"y":319.56,"width":24.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"128, 319, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":385,"blockId":11,"value":"the court found","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.36,"y":319.56,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 319, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":386,"blockId":11,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":233.64,"y":319.56,"width":36.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"233, 319, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":387,"blockId":11,"value":"facts of this case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.0,"y":319.56,"width":80.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 319, 80, 12"},{"type":3,"id":388,"blockId":11,"value":"were","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.88,"y":319.56,"width":23.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"356, 319, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":389,"blockId":11,"value":"“materially different” than those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":383.4,"y":319.56,"width":156.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"383, 319, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":390,"blockId":11,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":391,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":84.6,"y":347.16,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"84, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":392,"blockId":11,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":123.12,"y":347.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"123, 347, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":393,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":132.6,"y":347.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"132, 347, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":394,"blockId":11,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.16,"y":347.16,"width":9.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"152, 347, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":395,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":165.24,"y":347.16,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"165, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":396,"blockId":11,"value":"“both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":207.0,"y":347.16,"width":333.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"207, 347, 333, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":397,"blockId":11,"value":"proceeding commenced,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":118.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 118, 12"},{"type":3,"id":398,"blockId":11,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.48,"y":374.76,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"195, 374, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":399,"blockId":11,"value":"the Slovak Republic","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":222.72,"y":374.76,"width":100.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"222, 374, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":400,"blockId":11,"value":"entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.72,"y":374.76,"width":212.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 374, 212, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":401,"blockId":11,"value":"action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":288.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 288, 12"},{"type":3,"id":402,"blockId":11,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.6,"y":402.36,"width":30.65,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"363, 402, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":403,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania acceded to the EU.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":402.36,"width":142.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 402, 142, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":404,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 429, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":405,"blockId":11,"value":"Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":90.72,"y":429.96,"width":449.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"90, 429, 449, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":406,"blockId":11,"value":"application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":291.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 291, 12"},{"type":3,"id":407,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.6,"y":457.56,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"366, 457, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":408,"blockId":11,"value":"” because the governing law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.24,"y":457.56,"width":134.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 457, 134, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":409,"blockId":11,"value":"was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":312.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 312, 12"},{"type":3,"id":410,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.88,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"389, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":411,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":485.16,"width":134.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 485, 134, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":412,"blockId":11,"value":"To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":413,"blockId":11,"value":"Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":414,"blockId":11,"value":"this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":163.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 163, 12"},{"type":3,"id":415,"blockId":11,"value":"Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.4,"y":567.96,"width":294.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 567, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":416,"blockId":11,"value":"controlled, this court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":100.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":417,"blockId":11,"value":"reasoned that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":176.04,"y":595.56,"width":64.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"176, 595, 64, 12"},{"type":3,"id":418,"blockId":11,"value":"the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.6,"y":595.56,"width":296.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 595, 296, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":419,"blockId":11,"value":"way that implicates the core rationale of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":192.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 192, 12"},{"type":3,"id":420,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.48,"y":623.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"267, 623, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":421,"blockId":11,"value":".”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.12,"y":623.16,"width":8.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 623, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":422,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.52,"y":623.16,"width":40.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"320, 623, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":423,"blockId":11,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":361.44,"y":623.16,"width":118.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"361, 623, 118, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":479.52,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280."}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 432, 344","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons.\r\n Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those\r\n in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration\r\n proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant\r\n action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.”\r\n Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or\r\n application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law\r\n was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet.\r\n To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter\r\n Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for\r\n this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT\r\n controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a\r\n way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":424,"columnEnd":438,"text":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which, as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.3","paragraphLabel":"2.D.3","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which, as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":424,"blockId":12,"value":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":425,"blockId":12,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":426,"blockId":12,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":88.44,"y":678.36,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"88, 678, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":427,"blockId":12,"value":"above,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.6,"y":678.36,"width":31.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 678, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":428,"blockId":12,"value":"overturned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.64,"y":678.36,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 678, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":429,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.08,"y":678.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":430,"blockId":12,"value":"State","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.32,"y":678.36,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 678, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":431,"blockId":12,"value":"Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.8,"y":678.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"289, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":432,"blockId":12,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.4,"y":678.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"314, 678, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":433,"blockId":12,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.48,"y":678.36,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 678, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":434,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.96,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":435,"blockId":12,"value":"grounds","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.08,"y":678.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":436,"blockId":12,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.32,"y":678.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":437,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.8,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":438,"blockId":12,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.92,"y":678.36,"width":46.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 678, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,\r\n as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":444,"columnEnd":468,"text":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 260","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":10,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":444,"blockId":13,"value":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":445,"blockId":13,"value":"compatibility with EU state aid law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":179.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 179, 12"},{"type":3,"id":446,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.12,"y":98.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"258, 98, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":447,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":274.08,"y":98.76,"width":169.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"274, 98, 169, 12"},{"type":3,"id":448,"blockId":13,"value":"The General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":98.76,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 98, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":449,"blockId":13,"value":"determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":450,"blockId":13,"value":"law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":451,"blockId":13,"value":"2007,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":32.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":452,"blockId":13,"value":"and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.88,"y":181.56,"width":267.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 181, 267, 12"},{"type":3,"id":453,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.08,"y":181.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 181, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":454,"blockId":13,"value":"“infringements committed by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":181.56,"width":142.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 181, 142, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":455,"blockId":13,"value":"Romania” occurred before 2007.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":162.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 162, 12"},{"type":3,"id":456,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.2,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"244, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":457,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.16,"y":209.16,"width":187.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 209, 187, 12"},{"type":3,"id":458,"blockId":13,"value":"Furthermore, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":457.68,"y":209.16,"width":82.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"457, 209, 82, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":459,"blockId":13,"value":"General Court found that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":122.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 122, 12"},{"type":3,"id":460,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.12,"y":236.76,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"198, 236, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":461,"blockId":13,"value":"did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":240.36,"y":236.76,"width":299.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"240, 236, 299, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":462,"blockId":13,"value":"Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":385.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 385, 12"},{"type":3,"id":463,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.8,"y":264.36,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"466, 264, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":464,"blockId":13,"value":"This court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.56,"y":264.36,"width":52.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 264, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":465,"blockId":13,"value":"determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":426.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 426, 12"},{"type":3,"id":466,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":291.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 291, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":467,"blockId":13,"value":"did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":358.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 358, 12"},{"type":3,"id":468,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":436.92,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"436, 319, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":449.88,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 260","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s\r\n compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court\r\n determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU\r\n law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January\r\n 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by\r\n Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the\r\n General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the\r\n Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court\r\n determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea\r\n did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":469,"columnEnd":470,"text":" CJEU Decisions ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.E","paragraphId":"h2.E","paragraphLabel":"E.","rectangle":"108, 347, 118, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" CJEU Decisions ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":469,"blockId":14,"value":"E.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 347, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":470,"blockId":14,"value":"CJEU Decisions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":347.16,"width":82.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 347, 82, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":226.32,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"E. CJEU Decisions"}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 118, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" E. CJEU Decisions\r\n","MarginRight":226.32}},{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":471,"columnEnd":507,"text":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”). See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU; and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112– 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.1","paragraphLabel":"2.E.1","rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”). See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU; and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112– 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":471,"blockId":15,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":374.76,"width":50.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 374, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":472,"blockId":15,"value":"reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.0,"y":374.76,"width":378.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 374, 378, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”)."},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":473,"blockId":15,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":16.61,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 402, 16, 12"},{"type":2,"id":474,"blockId":15,"value":"Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.56,"y":402.36,"width":448.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 402, 448, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":475,"blockId":15,"value":"Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":476,"blockId":15,"value":"that (1) the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":166.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 166, 12"},{"type":2,"id":477,"blockId":15,"value":"had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.52,"y":457.56,"width":297.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 457, 297, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":478,"blockId":15,"value":"which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":479,"blockId":15,"value":"and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":480,"blockId":15,"value":"Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":408.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 408, 12"},{"type":2,"id":481,"blockId":15,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.36,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"486, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":482,"blockId":15,"value":"¶¶ 112–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.08,"y":540.36,"width":37.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 540, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112–"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":483,"blockId":15,"value":"15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":2,"id":484,"blockId":15,"value":"In other words,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":94.8,"y":567.96,"width":74.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"94, 567, 74, 12"},{"type":2,"id":485,"blockId":15,"value":"if the ICSID tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.28,"y":567.96,"width":102.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 567, 102, 12"},{"type":2,"id":486,"blockId":15,"value":"“granted”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.6,"y":567.96,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":487,"blockId":15,"value":"the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.12,"y":567.96,"width":51.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 567, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":488,"blockId":15,"value":"after Romania joined the EU in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.2,"y":567.96,"width":154.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"385, 567, 154, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":489,"blockId":15,"value":"January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":490,"blockId":15,"value":"of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":248.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 248, 12"},{"type":2,"id":491,"blockId":15,"value":"The General Court had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":329.4,"y":623.16,"width":114.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"329, 623, 114, 12"},{"type":2,"id":492,"blockId":15,"value":"concluded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":623.16,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 623, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":493,"blockId":15,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.68,"y":623.16,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 623, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":494,"blockId":15,"value":"Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":495,"blockId":15,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":496,"blockId":15,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":678.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 678, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":497,"blockId":15,"value":"occurred","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":140.28,"y":678.36,"width":41.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"140, 678, 41, 12"},{"type":2,"id":498,"blockId":15,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.64,"y":678.36,"width":30.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"188, 678, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":499,"blockId":15,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.72,"y":678.36,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 678, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":500,"blockId":15,"value":"joined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.52,"y":678.36,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 678, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":501,"blockId":15,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":312.0,"y":678.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"312, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":502,"blockId":15,"value":"EU,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.24,"y":678.36,"width":18.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":503,"blockId":15,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":504,"blockId":15,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.8,"y":678.36,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 678, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":505,"blockId":15,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.36,"y":678.36,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 678, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":506,"blockId":15,"value":"was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.68,"y":678.36,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":507,"blockId":15,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":524.76,"y":678.36,"width":15.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"524, 678, 15, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not"}],"Rectangle":"108, 374, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”).\r\n See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter\r\n Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned\r\n that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania\r\n which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;\r\n and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid\r\n Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112–\r\n 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in\r\n January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment\r\n of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the\r\n Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and\r\n because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":513,"columnEnd":537,"text":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151. The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151. The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":513,"blockId":16,"value":"competent to render the State Aid Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":219.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":514,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.24,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"297, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":515,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 126.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":313.32,"y":71.16,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"313, 71, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":516,"blockId":16,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":71.16,"width":51.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 71, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":517,"blockId":16,"value":"disagreed.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.88,"y":71.16,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"407, 71, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":518,"blockId":16,"value":"It held that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.08,"y":71.16,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"466, 71, 73, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":519,"blockId":16,"value":"Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":520,"blockId":16,"value":"“was actually granted after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":109.2,"y":98.76,"width":133.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"109, 98, 133, 12"},{"type":3,"id":521,"blockId":16,"value":"[Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.8,"y":98.76,"width":292.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"247, 98, 292, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":522,"blockId":16,"value":"arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":223.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 223, 12"},{"type":3,"id":523,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.92,"y":126.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"301, 126, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":524,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 134.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":318.12,"y":126.36,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"318, 126, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":525,"blockId":16,"value":"Because the CJEU determined that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":354.0,"y":126.36,"width":168.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"354, 126, 168, 12"},{"type":3,"id":526,"blockId":16,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.24,"y":126.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 126, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":527,"blockId":16,"value":"Award was “granted” after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":131.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":528,"blockId":16,"value":"Romania joined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":207.24,"y":153.96,"width":77.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"207, 153, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":529,"blockId":16,"value":"the EU, it reversed the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":288.24,"y":153.96,"width":184.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"288, 153, 184, 12"},{"type":3,"id":530,"blockId":16,"value":"Decision and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.16,"y":153.96,"width":63.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 153, 63, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":531,"blockId":16,"value":"held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":413.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 413, 12"},{"type":3,"id":532,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.8,"y":181.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"493, 181, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":533,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 151.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":510.72,"y":181.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"510, 181, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":534,"blockId":16,"value":"The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":535,"blockId":16,"value":"the “General Court did not examine.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":179.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 179, 12"},{"type":3,"id":536,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.88,"y":236.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"257, 236, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":537,"blockId":16,"value":"¶¶ 154–55.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.84,"y":236.76,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 236, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":326.88,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the\r\n Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the\r\n arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the\r\n Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and\r\n held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151.\r\n The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that\r\n the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":538,"columnEnd":579,"text":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.2","paragraphLabel":"2.E.2","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":538,"blockId":17,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":50.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":539,"blockId":17,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.24,"y":264.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 264, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":540,"blockId":17,"value":"further","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.32,"y":264.36,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 264, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":541,"blockId":17,"value":"stated that the General Court was wrong to find that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.44,"y":264.36,"width":253.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"244, 264, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":542,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":264.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 264, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":543,"blockId":17,"value":"was “irrelevant” to the instant case.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":173.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 173, 12"},{"type":3,"id":544,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":253.56,"y":291.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"253, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":545,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 137.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.36,"y":291.96,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 291, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":546,"blockId":17,"value":"In the CJEU’s view, because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.56,"y":291.96,"width":141.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 291, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":547,"blockId":17,"value":"Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.88,"y":291.96,"width":51.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"452, 291, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":548,"blockId":17,"value":"sought","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.08,"y":291.96,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 291, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":549,"blockId":17,"value":"damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":550,"blockId":17,"value":"in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":551,"blockId":17,"value":"Court had suggested.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":99.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":552,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.0,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"177, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":553,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 140. Accordingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":192.72,"y":374.76,"width":97.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"192, 374, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":554,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.68,"y":374.76,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"292, 374, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":555,"blockId":17,"value":"had some applicability.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.84,"y":374.76,"width":110.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 374, 110, 12"},{"type":3,"id":556,"blockId":17,"value":"The CJEU rejected","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":374.76,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 374, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":557,"blockId":17,"value":"Micula’s argument that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":112.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 112, 12"},{"type":3,"id":558,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":187.8,"y":402.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"187, 402, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":559,"blockId":17,"value":"was wholly irrelevant because of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":229.68,"y":402.36,"width":159.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"229, 402, 159, 12"},{"type":3,"id":560,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":392.04,"y":402.36,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"392, 402, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":561,"blockId":17,"value":"consent to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.24,"y":402.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 402, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":562,"blockId":17,"value":"arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.92,"y":402.36,"width":40.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 402, 40, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":563,"blockId":17,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":564,"blockId":17,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":102.96,"y":429.96,"width":220.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 429, 220, 12"},{"type":3,"id":565,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.36,"y":429.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 429, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":566,"blockId":17,"value":"any consent to arbitration given by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":368.88,"y":429.96,"width":171.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"368, 429, 171, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":567,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":385.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 385, 12"},{"type":3,"id":568,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.08,"y":457.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"466, 457, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":569,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 145.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.36,"y":457.56,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 457, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":570,"blockId":17,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.28,"y":457.56,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 457, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":571,"blockId":17,"value":"CJEU did not make a final ruling on how","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":215.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 215, 12"},{"type":3,"id":572,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.56,"y":485.16,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"292, 485, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":573,"blockId":17,"value":"should be applied, holding only that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.48,"y":485.16,"width":203.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 485, 203, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":574,"blockId":17,"value":"European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":292.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 292, 12"},{"type":3,"id":575,"blockId":17,"value":"Decision and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.44,"y":512.76,"width":63.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 512, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":576,"blockId":17,"value":"remanding the case to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.04,"y":512.76,"width":105.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 512, 105, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":577,"blockId":17,"value":"the General Court for further proceedings.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 202, 12"},{"type":3,"id":578,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.56,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"280, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":579,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 156.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":296.52,"y":540.36,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"296, 540, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":326.03999999999996,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea\r\n was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought\r\n damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined\r\n in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General\r\n Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected\r\n Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate\r\n under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by\r\n Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The\r\n CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the\r\n European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to\r\n the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":580,"columnEnd":601,"text":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2 [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.3","paragraphLabel":"2.E.3","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2 [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":580,"blockId":18,"value":"On","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":581,"blockId":18,"value":"September","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.64,"y":567.96,"width":51.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"128, 567, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":582,"blockId":18,"value":"21,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.88,"y":567.96,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":583,"blockId":18,"value":"2022,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":206.88,"y":567.96,"width":27.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"206, 567, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":584,"blockId":18,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.88,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":585,"blockId":18,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":567.96,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":586,"blockId":18,"value":"issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":295.2,"y":567.96,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"295, 567, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":587,"blockId":18,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":331.2,"y":567.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"331, 567, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":588,"blockId":18,"value":"second","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.36,"y":567.96,"width":33.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 567, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":589,"blockId":18,"value":"relevant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.48,"y":567.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":590,"blockId":18,"value":"ruling (“Second","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.12,"y":567.96,"width":79.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"426, 567, 79, 12"},{"type":3,"id":591,"blockId":18,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.32,"y":567.96,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 567, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":592,"blockId":18,"value":"Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":593,"blockId":18,"value":"Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.04,"y":595.56,"width":405.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 595, 405, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":594,"blockId":18,"value":"[hereinafter Second CJEU Decision].","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":181.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":595,"blockId":18,"value":"In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.6,"y":623.16,"width":278.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 623, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"[hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":596,"blockId":18,"value":"EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":349.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 349, 12"},{"type":3,"id":597,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.36,"y":650.76,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"426, 650, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":598,"blockId":18,"value":"¶¶ 42–43. The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.08,"y":650.76,"width":97.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 650, 97, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":599,"blockId":18,"value":"so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":420.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 420, 12"},{"type":3,"id":600,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":498.12,"y":678.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"498, 678, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":601,"blockId":18,"value":"¶¶ 1–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":513.96,"y":678.36,"width":25.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"513, 678, 25, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 431, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU\r\n Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2\r\n [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under\r\n EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court\r\n so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":607,"columnEnd":615,"text":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":607,"blockId":19,"value":"2, 27–28.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":44.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":608,"blockId":19,"value":"The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.28,"y":71.16,"width":417.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"122, 71, 417, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":609,"blockId":19,"value":"consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":610,"blockId":19,"value":"BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":611,"blockId":19,"value":"its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":612,"blockId":19,"value":"to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":613,"blockId":19,"value":"Member State.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":70.51,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 70, 12"},{"type":3,"id":614,"blockId":19,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":148.56,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"148, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":615,"blockId":19,"value":"¶¶ 34–43.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.52,"y":209.16,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"164, 209, 47, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":211.56,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its\r\n consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in\r\n its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined\r\n to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a\r\n Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":616,"columnEnd":617,"text":" LEGAL STANDARD ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIII","paragraphId":"hIII","paragraphLabel":"III.","rectangle":"72, 236, 147, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" LEGAL STANDARD ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":616,"blockId":20,"value":"III.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":17.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 236, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":617,"blockId":20,"value":"LEGAL STANDARD","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":236.76,"width":111.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 236, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":219.72,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"III. LEGAL STANDARD"}],"Rectangle":"72, 236, 147, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" III. LEGAL STANDARD\r\n","MarginRight":219.72}},{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":618,"columnEnd":627,"text":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.1","paragraphLabel":"3.1","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":618,"blockId":21,"value":"According to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":63.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 63, 12"},{"type":2,"id":619,"blockId":21,"value":"Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.32,"y":264.36,"width":46.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 264, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":620,"blockId":21,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.36,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":621,"blockId":21,"value":"CJEU Decisions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.72,"y":264.36,"width":79.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 264, 79, 12"},{"type":2,"id":622,"blockId":21,"value":"mean","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.12,"y":264.36,"width":25.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 264, 25, 12"},{"type":2,"id":623,"blockId":21,"value":"“that the agreement to arbitrate in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.76,"y":264.36,"width":183.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"356, 264, 183, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":624,"blockId":21,"value":"BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":274.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 274, 12"},{"type":2,"id":625,"blockId":21,"value":"Romania Mot. at 1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":291.96,"width":92.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 291, 92, 12"},{"type":2,"id":626,"blockId":21,"value":"It seeks relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":291.96,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 291, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":627,"blockId":21,"value":"the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":156.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":228.84,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"the Judgments under Rule 60(b)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 431, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the\r\n BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from\r\n the Judgments under Rule 60(b).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":628,"columnEnd":660,"text":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.2","paragraphLabel":"3.2","rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","averageFontSize":11.983695652173912,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":628,"blockId":22,"value":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 347, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":629,"blockId":22,"value":"judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":391.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 391, 12"},{"type":3,"id":630,"blockId":22,"value":"United Student","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":468.84,"y":374.76,"width":71.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"468, 374, 71, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":631,"blockId":22,"value":"Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 402, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":632,"blockId":22,"value":"Funds,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":96.96,"y":402.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"96, 402, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":633,"blockId":22,"value":"Inc.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.24,"y":402.36,"width":18.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":634,"blockId":22,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.88,"y":402.36,"width":8.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"164, 402, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":635,"blockId":22,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":181.44,"y":402.36,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"181, 402, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":636,"blockId":22,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.6,"y":402.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 402, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":637,"blockId":22,"value":"559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":236.88,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"236, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":638,"blockId":22,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":263.16,"y":402.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"263, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":639,"blockId":22,"value":"260,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.8,"y":402.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"292, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":640,"blockId":22,"value":"269","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.08,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"322, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":641,"blockId":22,"value":"(2010)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.36,"y":402.36,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 402, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":642,"blockId":22,"value":"(internal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.68,"y":402.36,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 402, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":643,"blockId":22,"value":"quotations","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":437.64,"y":402.36,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"437, 402, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":644,"blockId":22,"value":"omitted);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.96,"y":402.36,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 402, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted);"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":645,"blockId":22,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":646,"blockId":22,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":432.48,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 432, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":647,"blockId":22,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":429.96,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 429, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":648,"blockId":22,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":432.48,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 432, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":649,"blockId":22,"value":". P. 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":429.96,"width":47.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 429, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":650,"blockId":22,"value":"The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":183.84,"y":429.96,"width":356.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"183, 429, 356, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96000000000004,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":651,"blockId":22,"value":"of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":652,"blockId":22,"value":"of all the facts.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":78.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 78, 12"},{"type":3,"id":653,"blockId":22,"value":"Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":158.04,"y":485.16,"width":201.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"158, 485, 201, 12"},{"type":3,"id":654,"blockId":22,"value":", 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":359.4,"y":485.16,"width":148.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"359, 485, 148, 12"},{"type":3,"id":655,"blockId":22,"value":"1980)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.04,"y":485.16,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 485, 27, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980)"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":656,"blockId":22,"value":"(cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":62.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":657,"blockId":22,"value":"District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":140.16,"y":512.76,"width":399.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"140, 512, 399, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"(cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":658,"blockId":22,"value":"grant a Rule 60(b) motion.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":132.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 132, 12"},{"type":3,"id":659,"blockId":22,"value":"Twelve John Does v. D.C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":210.96,"y":540.36,"width":124.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"210, 540, 124, 12"},{"type":3,"id":660,"blockId":22,"value":", 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.0,"y":540.36,"width":190.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 540, 190, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":526.6800000000001,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final\r\n judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student\r\n Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted);\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity\r\n of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light\r\n of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980)\r\n (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to\r\n grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":661,"columnEnd":680,"text":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270; F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.3","paragraphLabel":"3.3","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270; F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","averageFontSize":11.973741794310722,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":661,"blockId":23,"value":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":242.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":662,"blockId":23,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.24,"y":567.96,"width":182.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 567, 182, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":663,"blockId":23,"value":"relieve a party from a final judgment if","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":198.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":664,"blockId":23,"value":"‘the judgment is void.’”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.52,"y":595.56,"width":119.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 595, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":665,"blockId":23,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":404.64,"y":595.56,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"404, 595, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":666,"blockId":23,"value":", 559 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.8,"y":595.56,"width":51.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 595, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":667,"blockId":23,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.2,"y":595.56,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 595, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":668,"blockId":23,"value":"270;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":518.52,"y":595.56,"width":21.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"518, 595, 21, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270;"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":669,"blockId":23,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":670,"blockId":23,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":625.68,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 625, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":671,"blockId":23,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":623.16,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 623, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":672,"blockId":23,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":625.68,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 625, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":673,"blockId":23,"value":". P. 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":623.16,"width":61.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 623, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":674,"blockId":23,"value":"“[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.48,"y":623.16,"width":341.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"198, 623, 341, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":675,"blockId":23,"value":"the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":330.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 330, 12"},{"type":3,"id":676,"blockId":23,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.8,"y":650.76,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"409, 650, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":677,"blockId":23,"value":", 559 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":453.84,"y":650.76,"width":49.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"453, 650, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":678,"blockId":23,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.0,"y":650.76,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 650, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":679,"blockId":23,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.24,"y":650.76,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 650, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":680,"blockId":23,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to\r\n relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270;\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that\r\n the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270.\r\n Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":686,"columnEnd":734,"text":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32, 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32, 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).","averageFontSize":11.955963302752293,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":686,"blockId":24,"value":"reversed, or vacated.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":107.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 107, 12"},{"type":3,"id":687,"blockId":24,"value":"Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.16,"y":71.16,"width":161.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"188, 71, 161, 12"},{"type":3,"id":688,"blockId":24,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.8,"y":71.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 71, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":689,"blockId":24,"value":"Case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.12,"y":71.16,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 71, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":690,"blockId":24,"value":"No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.84,"y":71.16,"width":155.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 71, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":691,"blockId":24,"value":"8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":219.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":692,"blockId":24,"value":"NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.72,"y":98.76,"width":181.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"294, 98, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":693,"blockId":24,"value":"215 F.3d 32,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.16,"y":98.76,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 98, 60, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":694,"blockId":24,"value":"35 (D.C. Cir. 2000);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":99.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":695,"blockId":24,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.68,"y":126.36,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 126, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":696,"blockId":24,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":182.28,"y":128.88,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 128, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":697,"blockId":24,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.88,"y":126.36,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 126, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":698,"blockId":24,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":222.96,"y":128.88,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"222, 128, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":699,"blockId":24,"value":". P. 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":232.92,"y":126.36,"width":61.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 126, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":700,"blockId":24,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.16,"y":126.36,"width":128.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 126, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":701,"blockId":24,"value":"provision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.4,"y":126.36,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 126, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":702,"blockId":24,"value":"that “grants","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.6,"y":126.36,"width":56.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 126, 56, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":703,"blockId":24,"value":"federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":704,"blockId":24,"value":"courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.64,"y":153.96,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 153, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":705,"blockId":24,"value":"broad","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.32,"y":153.96,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 153, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":706,"blockId":24,"value":"authority","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":178.2,"y":153.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"178, 153, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":707,"blockId":24,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.92,"y":153.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":708,"blockId":24,"value":"relieve","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":241.68,"y":153.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"241, 153, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":709,"blockId":24,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.72,"y":153.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 153, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":710,"blockId":24,"value":"party","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.4,"y":153.96,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 153, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":711,"blockId":24,"value":"from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.52,"y":153.96,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 153, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":712,"blockId":24,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.2,"y":153.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 153, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":713,"blockId":24,"value":"final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":360.0,"y":153.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"360, 153, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":714,"blockId":24,"value":"judgment . . . provided","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.36,"y":153.96,"width":109.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 153, 109, 12"},{"type":3,"id":715,"blockId":24,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.84,"y":153.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":716,"blockId":24,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.24,"y":153.96,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 153, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":717,"blockId":24,"value":"motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":718,"blockId":24,"value":"(b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":36.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":719,"blockId":24,"value":"Liljeberg","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.04,"y":209.16,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"128, 209, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":720,"blockId":24,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":181.92,"y":209.16,"width":8.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"181, 209, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":721,"blockId":24,"value":"Health","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.16,"y":209.16,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 209, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":722,"blockId":24,"value":"Servs.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.64,"y":209.16,"width":29.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"242, 209, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":723,"blockId":24,"value":"Acquisition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.52,"y":209.16,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"281, 209, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":724,"blockId":24,"value":"Corp.,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":346.2,"y":209.16,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"346, 209, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":725,"blockId":24,"value":"486","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.76,"y":209.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 209, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":726,"blockId":24,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.6,"y":209.16,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 209, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":727,"blockId":24,"value":"847,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":445.8,"y":209.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"445, 209, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":728,"blockId":24,"value":"863","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.64,"y":209.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 209, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":729,"blockId":24,"value":"(1988);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.48,"y":209.16,"width":35.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 209, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"(b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988);"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":730,"blockId":24,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":731,"blockId":24,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":239.28,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 239, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":732,"blockId":24,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":236.76,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 236, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":733,"blockId":24,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":239.28,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 239, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":734,"blockId":24,"value":". P. 60(b)(6).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":236.76,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 236, 61, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":191.04000000000002,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL\r\n 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32,\r\n 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants\r\n federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the\r\n motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through\r\n (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988);\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":735,"columnEnd":736,"text":" DISCUSSION ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV","paragraphId":"hIV","paragraphLabel":"IV.","rectangle":"72, 264, 109, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" DISCUSSION ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":735,"blockId":25,"value":"IV.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":16.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 264, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":736,"blockId":25,"value":"DISCUSSION","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":73.46,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 264, 73, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":181.45999999999998,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"IV. DISCUSSION"}],"Rectangle":"72, 264, 109, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" IV. DISCUSSION\r\n","MarginRight":181.45999999999998}},{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":737,"columnEnd":738,"text":" Rule 60(b)(4) ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.A","paragraphId":"hIV.A","paragraphLabel":"A.","rectangle":"108, 291, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Rule 60(b)(4) ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":737,"blockId":26,"value":"A.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":2,"id":738,"blockId":26,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":291.96,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 291, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"A. Rule 60(b)(4)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" A. Rule 60(b)(4)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}},{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":739,"columnEnd":789,"text":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.1","paragraphLabel":"4.A.1","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":739,"blockId":33,"value":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":209.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 209, 12"},{"type":2,"id":740,"blockId":33,"value":"for judgments that are “void.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.4,"y":319.56,"width":144.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 319, 144, 12"},{"type":2,"id":741,"blockId":33,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":471.72,"y":319.56,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"471, 319, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":742,"blockId":33,"value":", 559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":515.76,"y":319.56,"width":24.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"515, 319, 24, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":743,"blockId":33,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":744,"blockId":33,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":96.6,"y":347.16,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"96, 347, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":745,"blockId":33,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.48,"y":347.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 347, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":746,"blockId":33,"value":"The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.84,"y":347.16,"width":404.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 347, 404, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":747,"blockId":33,"value":"certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":748,"blockId":33,"value":"or the opportunity to be heard.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":155.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 155, 12"},{"type":2,"id":749,"blockId":33,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":235.08,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"235, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":750,"blockId":33,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":251.04,"y":402.36,"width":34.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"251, 402, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":751,"blockId":33,"value":"Because Romania does not allege any due process","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.04,"y":402.36,"width":246.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 402, 246, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":752,"blockId":33,"value":"violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":753,"blockId":33,"value":"instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":754,"blockId":33,"value":"fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":406.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 406, 12"},{"type":2,"id":755,"blockId":33,"value":"Lee Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.96,"y":485.16,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"486, 485, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":756,"blockId":33,"value":"Hosp. v. Becerra","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":84.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 512, 84, 12"},{"type":2,"id":757,"blockId":33,"value":", 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.72,"y":512.76,"width":254.59,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 512, 254, 12"},{"type":2,"id":758,"blockId":33,"value":"The Supreme Court has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":420.96,"y":512.76,"width":119.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"420, 512, 119, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":759,"blockId":33,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":760,"blockId":33,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.92,"y":540.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":761,"blockId":33,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.28,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":762,"blockId":33,"value":"“list","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.28,"y":540.36,"width":19.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"170, 540, 19, 12"},{"type":2,"id":763,"blockId":33,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":196.56,"y":540.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"196, 540, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":764,"blockId":33,"value":"such","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.88,"y":540.36,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 540, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":765,"blockId":33,"value":"infirmities","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":241.2,"y":540.36,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"241, 540, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":766,"blockId":33,"value":"is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.48,"y":540.36,"width":8.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 540, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":767,"blockId":33,"value":"exceedingly","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":311.76,"y":540.36,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"311, 540, 57, 12"},{"type":2,"id":768,"blockId":33,"value":"short;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":376.08,"y":540.36,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"376, 540, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":769,"blockId":33,"value":"otherwise,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.8,"y":540.36,"width":49.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 540, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":770,"blockId":33,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4)’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.72,"y":540.36,"width":74.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 540, 74, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":771,"blockId":33,"value":"exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":772,"blockId":33,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.2,"y":567.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":773,"blockId":33,"value":"finality","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":139.2,"y":567.96,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"139, 567, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":774,"blockId":33,"value":"would","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.52,"y":567.96,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 567, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":775,"blockId":33,"value":"swallow","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.28,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":2,"id":776,"blockId":33,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.88,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":777,"blockId":33,"value":"rule.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.16,"y":567.96,"width":26.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 567, 26, 12"},{"type":2,"id":778,"blockId":33,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.44,"y":567.96,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"319, 567, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":779,"blockId":33,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.48,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":780,"blockId":33,"value":"559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.12,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":781,"blockId":33,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":395.76,"y":567.96,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"395, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":782,"blockId":33,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":422.76,"y":567.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"422, 567, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":783,"blockId":33,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":437.04,"y":567.96,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"437, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":784,"blockId":33,"value":"Importantly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":469.44,"y":567.96,"width":59.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"469, 567, 59, 12"},{"type":2,"id":785,"blockId":33,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":534.6,"y":567.96,"width":5.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"534, 567, 5, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":786,"blockId":33,"value":"“judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":369.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 369, 12"},{"type":2,"id":787,"blockId":33,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.48,"y":595.56,"width":86.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"450, 595, 86, 12"},{"type":2,"id":788,"blockId":33,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":537.0,"y":595.56,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 595, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"“judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. ,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":789,"blockId":33,"value":"10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":160.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 160, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":232.32,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559\r\n U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a\r\n certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice\r\n or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process\r\n violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare\r\n instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of\r\n fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l\r\n Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has\r\n explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s\r\n exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a\r\n “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. ,\r\n 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":790,"columnEnd":799,"text":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.2","paragraphLabel":"4.A.2","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":790,"blockId":34,"value":"The Applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":73.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 650, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":791,"blockId":34,"value":"Standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.44,"y":650.76,"width":47.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"184, 650, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":792,"blockId":34,"value":"As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.08,"y":650.76,"width":218.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 650, 218, 12"},{"type":3,"id":793,"blockId":34,"value":"the standard","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":460.08,"y":650.76,"width":58.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"460, 650, 58, 12"},{"type":3,"id":794,"blockId":34,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.0,"y":650.76,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 650, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":795,"blockId":34,"value":"governs","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":796,"blockId":34,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.24,"y":678.36,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 678, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":797,"blockId":34,"value":"request for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.64,"y":678.36,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"170, 678, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":798,"blockId":34,"value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.0,"y":678.36,"width":131.37,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 678, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":799,"blockId":34,"value":"Romania acknowledges that courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":368.16,"y":678.36,"width":171.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"368, 678, 171, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that\r\n governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":10,"columnStart":805,"columnEnd":847,"text":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis” standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter , there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends, warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 343","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis” standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter , there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends, warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":13,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":805,"blockId":35,"value":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":806,"blockId":35,"value":"standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":43.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":807,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 14.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.04,"y":98.76,"width":99.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"122, 98, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":808,"blockId":35,"value":"Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.36,"y":98.76,"width":311.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 98, 311, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":809,"blockId":35,"value":"for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":810,"blockId":35,"value":"for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":80.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 80, 12"},{"type":3,"id":811,"blockId":35,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.08,"y":153.96,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"160, 153, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":812,"blockId":35,"value":", 559 U.S. at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.24,"y":153.96,"width":86.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"204, 153, 86, 12"},{"type":3,"id":813,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania nevertheless","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.56,"y":153.96,"width":106.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 153, 106, 12"},{"type":3,"id":814,"blockId":35,"value":"asks the court to conduct a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":408.6,"y":153.96,"width":131.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"408, 153, 131, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":815,"blockId":35,"value":"more stringent review.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":108.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 108, 12"},{"type":3,"id":816,"blockId":35,"value":"It argues that “","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.48,"y":181.56,"width":70.97,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 181, 70, 12"},{"type":3,"id":817,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.4,"y":181.56,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"257, 181, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":818,"blockId":35,"value":"review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.2,"y":181.56,"width":241.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 181, 241, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":819,"blockId":35,"value":"contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":253.97,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":820,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":331.44,"y":209.16,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"331, 209, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":821,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania points to the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.24,"y":209.16,"width":104.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 209, 104, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":822,"blockId":35,"value":"D.C. Circuit’s decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":129.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 129, 12"},{"type":3,"id":823,"blockId":35,"value":"Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":206.04,"y":236.76,"width":171.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"206, 236, 171, 12"},{"type":3,"id":824,"blockId":35,"value":"Republic of Iran","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.56,"y":236.76,"width":82.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"382, 236, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":825,"blockId":35,"value":"as creating an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":468.12,"y":236.76,"width":71.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"468, 236, 71, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":826,"blockId":35,"value":"exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":306.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 306, 12"},{"type":3,"id":827,"blockId":35,"value":"motions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.84,"y":264.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 264, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":828,"blockId":35,"value":"using the arguable basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.96,"y":264.36,"width":116.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 264, 116, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":829,"blockId":35,"value":"standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":43.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":830,"blockId":35,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.52,"y":291.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"122, 291, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":831,"blockId":35,"value":";","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":155.04,"y":291.96,"width":3.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"155, 291, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":832,"blockId":35,"value":"734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.88,"y":291.96,"width":157.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"161, 291, 157, 12"},{"type":3,"id":833,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania argues that, under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":325.92,"y":291.96,"width":133.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"325, 291, 133, 12"},{"type":3,"id":834,"blockId":35,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.84,"y":291.96,"width":74.1,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"462, 291, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":835,"blockId":35,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":537.0,"y":291.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 291, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":836,"blockId":35,"value":"there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":357.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 357, 12"},{"type":3,"id":837,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.84,"y":319.56,"width":37.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"432, 319, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":838,"blockId":35,"value":"review proper","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.16,"y":319.56,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 319, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":839,"blockId":35,"value":"if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":273.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":840,"blockId":35,"value":"or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.6,"y":347.16,"width":10.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"348, 347, 10, 12"},{"type":3,"id":841,"blockId":35,"value":"(2) “the determination of jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":362.4,"y":347.16,"width":177.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"362, 347, 177, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":842,"blockId":35,"value":"implicates the FSIA.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":104.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":843,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":182.16,"y":374.76,"width":99.02,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 374, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":844,"blockId":35,"value":"The presence of either condition, Romania contends,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":287.16,"y":374.76,"width":252.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"287, 374, 252, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":845,"blockId":35,"value":"warrants","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":41.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":846,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.28,"y":402.36,"width":37.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"116, 402, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":847,"blockId":35,"value":"review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.84,"y":402.36,"width":303.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 402, 303, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":460.44000000000005,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 343","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”\r\n standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only\r\n for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’\r\n for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a\r\n more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign\r\n contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the\r\n D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an\r\n exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis\r\n standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter ,\r\n there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper\r\n if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction\r\n implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends,\r\n warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":10,"columnStart":848,"columnEnd":882,"text":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review. Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which, they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23 (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present. Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.3","paragraphLabel":"4.A.3","rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review. Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which, they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23 (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present. Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":848,"blockId":36,"value":"Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":429.96,"width":54.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 429, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":849,"blockId":36,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.32,"y":429.96,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 429, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":850,"blockId":36,"value":"surprisingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.64,"y":429.96,"width":60.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 429, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":851,"blockId":36,"value":"reject","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.96,"y":429.96,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 429, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":852,"blockId":36,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.56,"y":429.96,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"292, 429, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":853,"blockId":36,"value":"insistence","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":429.96,"width":47.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 429, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":854,"blockId":36,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":429.96,"width":12.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 429, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":855,"blockId":36,"value":"more","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":424.92,"y":429.96,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"424, 429, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":856,"blockId":36,"value":"exacting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":456.6,"y":429.96,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"456, 429, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":857,"blockId":36,"value":"review.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.24,"y":429.96,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 429, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":858,"blockId":36,"value":"Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":264.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 264, 12"},{"type":3,"id":859,"blockId":36,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":339.36,"y":457.56,"width":165.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"339, 457, 165, 12"},{"type":3,"id":860,"blockId":36,"value":"which,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.6,"y":457.56,"width":32.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 457, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":861,"blockId":36,"value":"they contend, clarified that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":126.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 126, 12"},{"type":3,"id":862,"blockId":36,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.76,"y":485.16,"width":72.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 485, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":863,"blockId":36,"value":"applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.88,"y":485.16,"width":264.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 485, 264, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":864,"blockId":36,"value":"sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":360.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 360, 12"},{"type":3,"id":865,"blockId":36,"value":"Pet.’s Mem. of L. in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.04,"y":512.76,"width":99.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 512, 99, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":866,"blockId":36,"value":"Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":433.29,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 433, 12"},{"type":3,"id":867,"blockId":36,"value":"22–23","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.88,"y":540.36,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"509, 540, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":868,"blockId":36,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":869,"blockId":36,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.64,"y":567.96,"width":85.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"116, 567, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":870,"blockId":36,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.72,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":871,"blockId":36,"value":"10 F.4th at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.68,"y":567.96,"width":53.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 567, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":872,"blockId":36,"value":"864).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":266.28,"y":567.96,"width":25.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"266, 567, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":873,"blockId":36,"value":"In other words, according to Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":299.4,"y":567.96,"width":198.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 567, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":874,"blockId":36,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":567.96,"width":38.59,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 567, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.95,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"(quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":875,"blockId":36,"value":"review under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":62.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":876,"blockId":36,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.68,"y":595.56,"width":73.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"136, 595, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":877,"blockId":36,"value":"applies only when a court enters a default judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.76,"y":595.56,"width":242.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 595, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":878,"blockId":36,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":457.44,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"457, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":879,"blockId":36,"value":"the judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":477.84,"y":595.56,"width":62.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"477, 595, 62, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":880,"blockId":36,"value":"is entered against a foreign sovereign.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":181.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":881,"blockId":36,"value":"These are not alternative conditions; both must be present.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.8,"y":623.16,"width":280.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 623, 280, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":882,"blockId":36,"value":"Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject"}],"Rectangle":"108, 429, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review.\r\n Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which,\r\n they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign\r\n sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in\r\n Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23\r\n (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo\r\n review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment\r\n is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present.\r\n Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":888,"columnEnd":891,"text":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":888,"blockId":37,"value":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":889,"blockId":37,"value":"carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":396.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 396, 12"},{"type":3,"id":890,"blockId":37,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.84,"y":98.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"474, 98, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":891,"blockId":37,"value":"at 23.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.8,"y":98.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 98, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":517.44,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to\r\n carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":892,"columnEnd":931,"text":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1181–82).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.4","paragraphLabel":"4.A.4","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1181–82).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":892,"blockId":38,"value":"This court agrees","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":84.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 126, 84, 12"},{"type":3,"id":893,"blockId":38,"value":"with Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":197.16,"y":126.36,"width":77.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"197, 126, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":894,"blockId":38,"value":"that the arguable basis standard applies here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.4,"y":126.36,"width":221.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"278, 126, 221, 12"},{"type":3,"id":895,"blockId":38,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.56,"y":126.36,"width":9.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 126, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":896,"blockId":38,"value":"Lee","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.6,"y":126.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"522, 126, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":897,"blockId":38,"value":"Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":91.3,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 153, 91, 12"},{"type":3,"id":898,"blockId":38,"value":", the D.C. Circuit described","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":163.32,"y":153.96,"width":129.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"163, 153, 129, 12"},{"type":3,"id":899,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":295.92,"y":153.96,"width":73.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"295, 153, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":900,"blockId":38,"value":"as “one specific situation” in which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":371.76,"y":153.96,"width":168.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"371, 153, 168, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":901,"blockId":38,"value":"the court did not apply the arguable basis standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":244.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 244, 12"},{"type":3,"id":902,"blockId":38,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.56,"y":181.56,"width":83.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"322, 181, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":903,"blockId":38,"value":", 10 F.4th at 864.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.6,"y":181.56,"width":81.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 181, 81, 12"},{"type":3,"id":904,"blockId":38,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.44,"y":181.56,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 181, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":905,"blockId":38,"value":"emphasized that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":77.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":906,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.52,"y":209.16,"width":73.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"152, 209, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":907,"blockId":38,"value":"“involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":229.08,"y":209.16,"width":310.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"229, 209, 310, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":908,"blockId":38,"value":"who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":909,"blockId":38,"value":"against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":352.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 352, 12"},{"type":3,"id":910,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":433.56,"y":264.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"433, 264, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":911,"blockId":38,"value":"The court further","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.4,"y":264.36,"width":84.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 264, 84, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":912,"blockId":38,"value":"observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":263.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 263, 12"},{"type":3,"id":913,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.16,"y":291.96,"width":73.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 291, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":914,"blockId":38,"value":"from those cases in which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.96,"y":291.96,"width":125.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 291, 125, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":915,"blockId":38,"value":"“‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"“‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":916,"blockId":38,"value":"who had appeared.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":97.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":917,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.84,"y":347.16,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"177, 347, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":918,"blockId":38,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.0,"y":347.16,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"195, 347, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":919,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.76,"y":347.16,"width":74.77,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"239, 347, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":920,"blockId":38,"value":", 734 F.3d at 1182).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.52,"y":347.16,"width":98.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"314, 347, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":921,"blockId":38,"value":"Applying arguable-basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":421.2,"y":347.16,"width":118.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"421, 347, 118, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":922,"blockId":38,"value":"review in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":44.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":923,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.88,"y":374.76,"width":73.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"119, 374, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":924,"blockId":38,"value":", the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":193.56,"y":374.76,"width":346.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"193, 374, 346, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":925,"blockId":38,"value":"not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":261.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 261, 12"},{"type":3,"id":926,"blockId":38,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.84,"y":402.36,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 402, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":927,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.76,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"401, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":928,"blockId":38,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.32,"y":402.36,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 402, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":929,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.72,"y":402.36,"width":74.17,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"462, 402, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":930,"blockId":38,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":536.88,"y":402.36,"width":3.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"536, 402, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":931,"blockId":38,"value":"734 F.3d at 1181–82).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":106.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 106, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":178.32,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"734 F.3d at 1181–82)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee\r\n Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which\r\n the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court\r\n emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign\r\n who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment\r\n against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further\r\n observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which\r\n “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party\r\n who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis\r\n review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose\r\n not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter ,\r\n 734 F.3d at 1181–82).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":932,"columnEnd":965,"text":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies. That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.5","paragraphLabel":"4.A.5","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies. That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":932,"blockId":39,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":112.18,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 457, 112, 12"},{"type":3,"id":933,"blockId":39,"value":"confirms that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":223.2,"y":457.56,"width":63.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"223, 457, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":934,"blockId":39,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.28,"y":457.56,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"290, 457, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":935,"blockId":39,"value":"review under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.96,"y":457.56,"width":63.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 457, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":936,"blockId":39,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":457.56,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"397, 457, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":937,"blockId":39,"value":"is appropriate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.24,"y":457.56,"width":65.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"474, 457, 65, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":938,"blockId":39,"value":"only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":442.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 442, 12"},{"type":3,"id":939,"blockId":39,"value":"But","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.84,"y":485.16,"width":17.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 485, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":940,"blockId":39,"value":"when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":941,"blockId":39,"value":"That is precisely what occurred here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":181.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":942,"blockId":39,"value":"Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.84,"y":540.36,"width":278.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 540, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":943,"blockId":39,"value":"contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":253.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":944,"blockId":39,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.96,"y":567.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":945,"blockId":39,"value":"rendered void the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.12,"y":567.96,"width":170.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 567, 170, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":946,"blockId":39,"value":"BIT’s arbitration agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":138.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 138, 12"},{"type":3,"id":947,"blockId":39,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":218.4,"y":595.56,"width":61.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"218, 595, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":948,"blockId":39,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.96,"y":595.56,"width":141.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 595, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":949,"blockId":39,"value":"The court rejected that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":429.0,"y":595.56,"width":111.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"429, 595, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":950,"blockId":39,"value":"argument.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":951,"blockId":39,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.6,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"126, 623, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":952,"blockId":39,"value":"Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.8,"y":623.16,"width":394.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 623, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":953,"blockId":39,"value":"standard in the circumstances in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 155, 12"},{"type":3,"id":954,"blockId":39,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.24,"y":650.76,"width":74.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"231, 650, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":955,"blockId":39,"value":"are absent here.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.76,"y":650.76,"width":81.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 650, 81, 12"},{"type":3,"id":956,"blockId":39,"value":"Lee Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":396.84,"y":650.76,"width":52.18,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"396, 650, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":957,"blockId":39,"value":"Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.52,"y":650.76,"width":28.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"452, 650, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":958,"blockId":39,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.84,"y":650.76,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 650, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":959,"blockId":39,"value":"10 F.4th at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.32,"y":650.76,"width":52.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 650, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":960,"blockId":39,"value":"864.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":961,"blockId":39,"value":"Romania’s contention that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":100.2,"y":678.36,"width":128.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"100, 678, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":962,"blockId":39,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.84,"y":678.36,"width":38.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"231, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":963,"blockId":39,"value":"review is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.24,"y":678.36,"width":45.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 678, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":964,"blockId":39,"value":"applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.84,"y":678.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 678, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":965,"blockId":39,"value":"under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":374.76,"y":678.36,"width":165.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"374, 678, 165, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate\r\n only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But\r\n when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies.\r\n That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to\r\n contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that\r\n argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis\r\n standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at\r\n 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":971,"columnEnd":975,"text":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":971,"blockId":40,"value":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":326.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 326, 12"},{"type":3,"id":972,"blockId":40,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.92,"y":71.16,"width":111.82,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"400, 71, 111, 12"},{"type":3,"id":973,"blockId":40,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.76,"y":71.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 71, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":974,"blockId":40,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.52,"y":71.16,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 71, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":975,"blockId":40,"value":"court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":219.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 219, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":291.48,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"court therefore applies the arguable basis test."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The\r\n court therefore applies the arguable basis test.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":976,"columnEnd":1001,"text":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.6","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.6","paragraphLabel":"4.A.6","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":976,"blockId":41,"value":"Arguable Basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":74.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 126, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":977,"blockId":41,"value":"Review","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.36,"y":126.36,"width":34.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"186, 126, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":978,"blockId":41,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.92,"y":126.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 126, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":979,"blockId":41,"value":"Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.72,"y":126.36,"width":308.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"231, 126, 308, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":980,"blockId":41,"value":"must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":981,"blockId":41,"value":"situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":982,"blockId":41,"value":"arguable basis for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":150.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 150, 12"},{"type":3,"id":983,"blockId":41,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.4,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"227, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":984,"blockId":41,"value":"(cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.36,"y":209.16,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 209, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":985,"blockId":41,"value":"Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":310.56,"y":209.16,"width":229.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"310, 209, 229, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":986,"blockId":41,"value":"case.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":28.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":987,"blockId":41,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":109.2,"y":236.76,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"109, 236, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":988,"blockId":41,"value":", 559 U.S. at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":153.24,"y":236.76,"width":88.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"153, 236, 88, 12"},{"type":3,"id":989,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.32,"y":236.76,"width":289.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 236, 289, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":990,"blockId":41,"value":"jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":991,"blockId":41,"value":"jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":992,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":212.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 212, 12"},{"type":3,"id":993,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.04,"y":319.56,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 319, 249, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":994,"blockId":41,"value":"to carefully consider","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":995,"blockId":41,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.4,"y":347.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"173, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":996,"blockId":41,"value":"and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.04,"y":347.16,"width":324.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 347, 324, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":997,"blockId":41,"value":"to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":998,"blockId":41,"value":"agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":418.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 418, 12"},{"type":3,"id":999,"blockId":41,"value":"there was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.16,"y":402.36,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 402, 45, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1000,"blockId":41,"value":"never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":200.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 200, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1001,"blockId":41,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.52,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"278, 429, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":291.47999999999996,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction\r\n must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former\r\n situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an\r\n arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional\r\n case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for\r\n jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter\r\n jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in\r\n Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected\r\n to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application\r\n to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid\r\n agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was\r\n never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":1002,"columnEnd":1020,"text":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir. 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81. Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id. at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.7","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.7","paragraphLabel":"4.A.7","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir. 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81. Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id. at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1002,"blockId":42,"value":"The court disagrees.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":96.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1003,"blockId":42,"value":"Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.64,"y":457.56,"width":330.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 457, 330, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1004,"blockId":42,"value":"agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1005,"blockId":42,"value":"must be established.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":104.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1006,"blockId":42,"value":"LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.16,"y":512.76,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"185, 512, 202, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1007,"blockId":42,"value":", 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.72,"y":512.76,"width":152.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 512, 152, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1008,"blockId":42,"value":"2021).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":30.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1009,"blockId":42,"value":"This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.64,"y":540.36,"width":368.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 540, 368, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1010,"blockId":42,"value":"Article 7","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.12,"y":540.36,"width":43.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 540, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1011,"blockId":42,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":530.04,"y":540.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"530, 540, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1012,"blockId":42,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1013,"blockId":42,"value":"ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":259.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 259, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1014,"blockId":42,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.64,"y":595.56,"width":61.79,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 595, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1015,"blockId":42,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.44,"y":595.56,"width":139.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"400, 595, 139, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1016,"blockId":42,"value":"Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":448.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 448, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1017,"blockId":42,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":526.92,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 623, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1018,"blockId":42,"value":"at 281.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":33.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1019,"blockId":42,"value":"The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.52,"y":650.76,"width":327.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 650, 327, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1020,"blockId":42,"value":"Micula v. Gov’t of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.16,"y":650.76,"width":90.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"449, 650, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration\r\n agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that\r\n must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir.\r\n 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of\r\n the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the\r\n ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81.\r\n Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id.\r\n at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1026,"columnEnd":1028,"text":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1026,"blockId":43,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 71, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1027,"blockId":43,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":115.32,"y":71.16,"width":424.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"115, 71, 424, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1028,"blockId":43,"value":"exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":331.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 331, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":403.08,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the\r\n exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1029,"columnEnd":1125,"text":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction” before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s] Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966, which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted). Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is disingenuous.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.8","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.8","paragraphLabel":"4.A.8","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 508","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction” before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s] Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966, which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted). Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is disingenuous.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":19,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1029,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1030,"blockId":1,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":30.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1031,"blockId":1,"value":"the D.C. Circuit.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.68,"y":153.96,"width":82.22,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 153, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1032,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot. at 6.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":197.28,"y":153.96,"width":96.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"197, 153, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1033,"blockId":1,"value":"In actuality,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.28,"y":153.96,"width":58.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 153, 58, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1034,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania conceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.92,"y":153.96,"width":92.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 153, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1035,"blockId":1,"value":"it.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":461.88,"y":153.96,"width":9.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"461, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1036,"blockId":1,"value":"It","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.12,"y":153.96,"width":7.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 153, 7, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1037,"blockId":1,"value":"said in its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.52,"y":153.96,"width":48.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 153, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1038,"blockId":1,"value":"opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1039,"blockId":1,"value":"Petition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":37.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1040,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.44,"y":209.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1041,"blockId":1,"value":"Confirm","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.8,"y":209.16,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"136, 209, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1042,"blockId":1,"value":"[the]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.48,"y":209.16,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 209, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1043,"blockId":1,"value":"Arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":218.04,"y":209.16,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"218, 209, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1044,"blockId":1,"value":"Award . . . pursuant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.44,"y":209.16,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 209, 95, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1045,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.48,"y":209.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1046,"blockId":1,"value":"28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":402.84,"y":209.16,"width":110.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"402, 209, 110, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1047,"blockId":1,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.6,"y":209.16,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 209, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1048,"blockId":1,"value":"22 U.S.C. § 1650a.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":96.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1049,"blockId":1,"value":"Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.52,"y":236.76,"width":203.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 236, 203, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1050,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula v. Gov’t of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.68,"y":236.76,"width":131.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"379, 236, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1051,"blockId":1,"value":", Case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.44,"y":236.76,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 236, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1052,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1053,"blockId":1,"value":"exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1054,"blockId":1,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1055,"blockId":1,"value":"authorizes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.04,"y":319.56,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1056,"blockId":1,"value":"federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.24,"y":319.56,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 319, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1057,"blockId":1,"value":"courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.36,"y":319.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 319, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1058,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":236.4,"y":319.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"236, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1059,"blockId":1,"value":"enforce","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":251.64,"y":319.56,"width":36.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"251, 319, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1060,"blockId":1,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.52,"y":319.56,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 319, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1061,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.48,"y":319.56,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 319, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1062,"blockId":1,"value":"awards.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.28,"y":319.56,"width":37.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 319, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1063,"blockId":1,"value":"Based","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.24,"y":319.56,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 319, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1064,"blockId":1,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.04,"y":319.56,"width":12.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1065,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.92,"y":319.56,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 319, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1066,"blockId":1,"value":"concession, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":73.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1067,"blockId":1,"value":"D.C. Circuit wrote:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":148.8,"y":347.16,"width":93.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"148, 347, 93, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1068,"blockId":1,"value":"“As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.4,"y":347.16,"width":294.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 347, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1069,"blockId":1,"value":"the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":273.53,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1070,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":353.16,"y":374.76,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"353, 374, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1071,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.12,"y":374.76,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 374, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1072,"blockId":1,"value":"805 F. App’x","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":393.96,"y":374.76,"width":66.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"393, 374, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1073,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.8,"y":374.76,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 374, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1074,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.28,"y":374.76,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 374, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1075,"blockId":1,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":492.96,"y":374.76,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"492, 374, 47, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1076,"blockId":1,"value":"noted","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1077,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":104.76,"y":402.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"104, 402, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1078,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdictional","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.52,"y":402.36,"width":63.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 402, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1079,"blockId":1,"value":"argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.88,"y":402.36,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 402, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1080,"blockId":1,"value":"raised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.24,"y":402.36,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 402, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1081,"blockId":1,"value":"only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.92,"y":402.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1082,"blockId":1,"value":"by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.28,"y":402.36,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1083,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":326.4,"y":402.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"326, 402, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1084,"blockId":1,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":347.16,"y":402.36,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"347, 402, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1085,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.12,"y":402.36,"width":60.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"399, 402, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1086,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.96,"y":402.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 402, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1087,"blockId":1,"value":"amicus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":482.04,"y":402.36,"width":33.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"482, 402, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1088,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.0,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 402, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1089,"blockId":1,"value":"“Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"“Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1090,"blockId":1,"value":"concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1091,"blockId":1,"value":"the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":318.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 318, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1092,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"397, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1093,"blockId":1,"value":"It cannot be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":417.6,"y":485.16,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"417, 485, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1094,"blockId":1,"value":"true","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":478.92,"y":485.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"478, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1095,"blockId":1,"value":"that this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.12,"y":485.16,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 485, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1096,"blockId":1,"value":"court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1097,"blockId":1,"value":"exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1098,"blockId":1,"value":"raised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1099,"blockId":1,"value":"by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.2,"y":567.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1100,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":123.84,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"123, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1101,"blockId":1,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.12,"y":567.96,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1102,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.72,"y":567.96,"width":63.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"195, 567, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1103,"blockId":1,"value":"Lee","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.6,"y":567.96,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"270, 567, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1104,"blockId":1,"value":"Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.52,"y":567.96,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"293, 567, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1105,"blockId":1,"value":"Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.36,"y":567.96,"width":28.27,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"330, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1106,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1107,"blockId":1,"value":"10 F.4th","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.32,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1108,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.92,"y":567.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 567, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1109,"blockId":1,"value":"864","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.2,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1110,"blockId":1,"value":"(citation","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.84,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1111,"blockId":1,"value":"omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":496.44,"y":567.96,"width":43.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"496, 567, 43, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.12,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted)."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1112,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1113,"blockId":1,"value":"contention","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.4,"y":595.56,"width":50.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"131, 595, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1114,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":189.48,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1115,"blockId":1,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":214.92,"y":595.56,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"214, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1116,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.76,"y":595.56,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 595, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1117,"blockId":1,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.8,"y":595.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1118,"blockId":1,"value":"no","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":296.52,"y":595.56,"width":11.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"296, 595, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1119,"blockId":1,"value":"“arguable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.84,"y":595.56,"width":46.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 595, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1120,"blockId":1,"value":"basis”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.72,"y":595.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 595, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1121,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.44,"y":595.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 595, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1122,"blockId":1,"value":"exercise","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.24,"y":595.56,"width":39.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 595, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1123,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":469.92,"y":595.56,"width":54.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"469, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1124,"blockId":1,"value":"is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":532.08,"y":595.56,"width":7.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"532, 595, 7, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1125,"blockId":1,"value":"disingenuous.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":66.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":138.36,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"disingenuous."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 509","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”\r\n before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its\r\n opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]\r\n Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and\r\n 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case\r\n No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration\r\n exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,\r\n which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s\r\n concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked\r\n the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court\r\n noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that\r\n “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but\r\n concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after\r\n the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this\r\n court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s\r\n exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument\r\n raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted).\r\n Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is\r\n disingenuous.\r\n","MarginRight":540.12}},{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1126,"columnEnd":1131,"text":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.9","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.9","paragraphLabel":"4.A.9","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1126,"blockId":1,"value":"The CJEU’s recent rulings","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":128.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1127,"blockId":1,"value":"do","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.64,"y":650.76,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1128,"blockId":1,"value":"not alter that conclusion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.88,"y":650.76,"width":119.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 650, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1129,"blockId":1,"value":"The CJEU Decision held","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":380.64,"y":650.76,"width":120.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"380, 650, 120, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1130,"blockId":1,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.12,"y":650.76,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 650, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1131,"blockId":1,"value":"European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the\r\n European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1137,"columnEnd":1163,"text":"arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that, because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)— the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1137,"blockId":2,"value":"arbitration award against Romania that issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":219.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1138,"blockId":2,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.48,"y":71.16,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"294, 71, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1139,"blockId":2,"value":"Romania acceded to the EU would violate the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.04,"y":71.16,"width":219.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 71, 219, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1140,"blockId":2,"value":"prohibition on state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":119.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1141,"blockId":2,"value":"CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.72,"y":98.76,"width":134.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 98, 134, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1142,"blockId":2,"value":"More specifically, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.84,"y":98.76,"width":108.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 98, 108, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1143,"blockId":2,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":459.72,"y":98.76,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"459, 98, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1144,"blockId":2,"value":"held that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.32,"y":98.76,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 98, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1145,"blockId":2,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":37.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1146,"blockId":2,"value":"the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.4,"y":126.36,"width":426.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 126, 426, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1147,"blockId":2,"value":"of the Award’s issuance","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":116.21,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1148,"blockId":2,"value":"(which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.52,"y":153.96,"width":224.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 153, 224, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1149,"blockId":2,"value":"not,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.92,"y":153.96,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1150,"blockId":2,"value":"as the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.64,"y":153.96,"width":99.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 153, 99, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1151,"blockId":2,"value":"held,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":23.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1152,"blockId":2,"value":"at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":99.0,"y":181.56,"width":234.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"99, 181, 234, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1153,"blockId":2,"value":"(which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.2,"y":181.56,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 181, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.76,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1154,"blockId":2,"value":"the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":236.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 236, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1155,"blockId":2,"value":"Id. ¶¶","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.64,"y":209.16,"width":28.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"314, 209, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1156,"blockId":2,"value":"123–25.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.96,"y":209.16,"width":39.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 209, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1157,"blockId":2,"value":"As to the arbitration agreement","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.96,"y":209.16,"width":149.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"390, 209, 149, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1158,"blockId":2,"value":"itself, the CJEU Decision says little.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":176.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 176, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1159,"blockId":2,"value":"It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":255.24,"y":236.76,"width":284.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 236, 284, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1160,"blockId":2,"value":"Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1161,"blockId":2,"value":"to the EU onwards.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":92.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1162,"blockId":2,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.52,"y":291.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"170, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1163,"blockId":2,"value":"¶ 145.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.6,"y":291.96,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 291, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":216.12,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the\r\n prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that,\r\n because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time\r\n of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court\r\n held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—\r\n the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement\r\n itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the\r\n Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded\r\n to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1164,"columnEnd":1185,"text":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm. Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.10","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.10","paragraphLabel":"4.A.10","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm. Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1164,"blockId":3,"value":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":367.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 367, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1165,"blockId":3,"value":"(1) Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.88,"y":319.56,"width":60.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 319, 60, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1166,"blockId":3,"value":"consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1167,"blockId":3,"value":"request for arbitration in July 2005, two years","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":226.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 226, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1168,"blockId":3,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.88,"y":374.76,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"302, 374, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1169,"blockId":3,"value":"Romania acceded to the European Union","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.68,"y":374.76,"width":202.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 374, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1170,"blockId":3,"value":"(and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"(and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1171,"blockId":3,"value":"made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1172,"blockId":3,"value":"Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":267.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 457, 267, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1173,"blockId":3,"value":", 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":339.96,"y":457.56,"width":175.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"339, 457, 175, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1174,"blockId":3,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.28,"y":457.56,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 457, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1175,"blockId":3,"value":"arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1176,"blockId":3,"value":"pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":226.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 226, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1177,"blockId":3,"value":"28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.0,"y":512.76,"width":115.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 512, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1178,"blockId":3,"value":"Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":425.4,"y":512.76,"width":114.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"425, 512, 114, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1179,"blockId":3,"value":"Gov’t of Belize","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":72.79,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 540, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1180,"blockId":3,"value":", 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.72,"y":540.36,"width":395.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 540, 395, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1181,"blockId":3,"value":"arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":323.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 323, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1182,"blockId":3,"value":"The CJEU Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.44,"y":567.96,"width":97.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 567, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1183,"blockId":3,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.32,"y":567.96,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 567, 34, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1184,"blockId":3,"value":"invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1185,"blockId":3,"value":"or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":191.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 191, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":263.28,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"or when Petitioners filed for arbitration."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania\r\n consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a\r\n request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union\r\n (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal\r\n made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm.\r\n Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The\r\n arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made\r\n pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v.\r\n Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to\r\n arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not\r\n invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden\r\n or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1186,"columnEnd":1191,"text":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that, under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.11","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.11","paragraphLabel":"4.A.11","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that, under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1186,"blockId":4,"value":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":300.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 300, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1187,"blockId":4,"value":"That ruling held only that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.12,"y":650.76,"width":125.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 650, 125, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1188,"blockId":4,"value":"under EU law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":69.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 678, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1189,"blockId":4,"value":", a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.96,"y":678.36,"width":286.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 678, 286, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1190,"blockId":4,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.48,"y":678.36,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1191,"blockId":4,"value":"the European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.84,"y":678.36,"width":65.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"474, 678, 65, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 431, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that,\r\n under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1197,"columnEnd":1237,"text":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id. ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed. Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised jurisdiction.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id. ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed. Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised jurisdiction.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1197,"blockId":5,"value":"Commission had deemed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":123.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1198,"blockId":5,"value":"the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.2,"y":71.16,"width":51.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 71, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1199,"blockId":5,"value":"incompatible with","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.28,"y":71.16,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 71, 87, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1200,"blockId":5,"value":"the EU’s state aid rules.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":346.2,"y":71.16,"width":117.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"346, 71, 117, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1201,"blockId":5,"value":"Second CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.08,"y":71.16,"width":67.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 71, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1202,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1203,"blockId":5,"value":"¶ 46.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.68,"y":98.76,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1204,"blockId":5,"value":"Specifically, the court held:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.24,"y":98.76,"width":135.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"150, 98, 135, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1205,"blockId":5,"value":"“EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.4,"y":98.76,"width":249.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 98, 249, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1206,"blockId":5,"value":"court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1207,"blockId":5,"value":"[the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":69.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1208,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.56,"y":153.96,"width":394.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 153, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"[the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1209,"blockId":5,"value":"event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1210,"blockId":5,"value":"awards them.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":71.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 71, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1211,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":153.96,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"153, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1212,"blockId":5,"value":"Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.48,"y":209.16,"width":216.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 209, 216, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1213,"blockId":5,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.24,"y":209.16,"width":35.86,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"399, 209, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1214,"blockId":5,"value":"invalidate or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.28,"y":209.16,"width":62.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 209, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1215,"blockId":5,"value":"nullify","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.08,"y":209.16,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 209, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1216,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":315.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 315, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1217,"blockId":5,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.12,"y":236.76,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"390, 236, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1218,"blockId":5,"value":"it acceded to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.36,"y":236.76,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 236, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1219,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":526.92,"y":236.76,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 236, 13, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1220,"blockId":5,"value":"¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1221,"blockId":5,"value":"accession to the European Union”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":171.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 171, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1222,"blockId":5,"value":"Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":249.48,"y":291.96,"width":290.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"249, 291, 290, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1223,"blockId":5,"value":"there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1224,"blockId":5,"value":"Neither","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1225,"blockId":5,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.48,"y":347.16,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 347, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1226,"blockId":5,"value":"ruling","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.76,"y":347.16,"width":28.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 347, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1227,"blockId":5,"value":"therefore","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.16,"y":347.16,"width":43.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 347, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1228,"blockId":5,"value":"upends","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.96,"y":347.16,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 347, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1229,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.64,"y":347.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 347, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1230,"blockId":5,"value":"arguable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.0,"y":347.16,"width":41.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 347, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1231,"blockId":5,"value":"basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.88,"y":347.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1232,"blockId":5,"value":"upon","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":375.48,"y":347.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1233,"blockId":5,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.08,"y":347.16,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 347, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1234,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.2,"y":347.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 347, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1235,"blockId":5,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.44,"y":347.16,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1236,"blockId":5,"value":"exercised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.76,"y":347.16,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 347, 45, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1237,"blockId":5,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 57, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":129.72,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"jurisdiction."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU\r\n Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a\r\n court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of\r\n [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any\r\n event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it\r\n awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify\r\n Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id.\r\n ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s\r\n accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that\r\n there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed.\r\n Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised\r\n jurisdiction.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1238,"columnEnd":1238,"text":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.12","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.12","paragraphLabel":"4.A.12","rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1238,"blockId":6,"value":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":402.36,"width":428.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":536.28,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).\r\n","MarginRight":536.28}},{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1239,"columnEnd":1240,"text":" Rule 60(b)(5) ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.B","paragraphId":"hIV.B","paragraphLabel":"B.","rectangle":"108, 429, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1239,"blockId":7,"value":"B.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":429.96,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 429, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1240,"blockId":7,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":429.96,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 429, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"B. Rule 60(b)(5)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 429, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" B. Rule 60(b)(5)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}},{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1241,"columnEnd":1258,"text":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.1","paragraphLabel":"4.B.1","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1241,"blockId":8,"value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1242,"blockId":8,"value":"has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":193.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 193, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1243,"blockId":8,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.96,"y":485.16,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"270, 485, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1244,"blockId":8,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.36,"y":485.16,"width":124.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 485, 124, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1245,"blockId":8,"value":"Romania does not claim","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":424.44,"y":485.16,"width":115.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"424, 485, 115, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1246,"blockId":8,"value":"that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1247,"blockId":8,"value":"that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1248,"blockId":8,"value":"or somehow part of the same proceeding.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":203.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 203, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1249,"blockId":8,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.76,"y":567.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"281, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1250,"blockId":8,"value":";","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.72,"y":567.96,"width":3.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1251,"blockId":8,"value":"see also","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.08,"y":567.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"301, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1252,"blockId":8,"value":"Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.6,"y":567.96,"width":197.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 567, 197, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1253,"blockId":8,"value":"11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":205.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 205, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1254,"blockId":8,"value":"(“This ground is limited to cases in which the present","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.04,"y":595.56,"width":258.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 595, 258, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1255,"blockId":8,"value":"judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":431.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 431, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1256,"blockId":8,"value":"For a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.2,"y":623.16,"width":28.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 623, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1257,"blockId":8,"value":"judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1258,"blockId":8,"value":"the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that\r\n has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim\r\n that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment\r\n that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,\r\n or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,\r\n 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present\r\n judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a\r\n judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and\r\n the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1264,"columnEnd":1276,"text":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering the present judgment has since been reversed”).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering the present judgment has since been reversed”).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1264,"blockId":9,"value":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1265,"blockId":9,"value":"example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":270.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 270, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1266,"blockId":9,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.2,"y":98.76,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"349, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1267,"blockId":9,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.6,"y":98.76,"width":123.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 98, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1268,"blockId":9,"value":"(internal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.56,"y":98.76,"width":40.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 98, 40, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1269,"blockId":9,"value":"quotation marks and citation omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":191.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 191, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1270,"blockId":9,"value":"Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.84,"y":126.36,"width":266.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 126, 266, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1271,"blockId":9,"value":"Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1272,"blockId":9,"value":"[that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":296.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 296, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1273,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":374.52,"y":181.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"374, 181, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1274,"blockId":9,"value":"; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.48,"y":181.56,"width":152.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 181, 152, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"[that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1275,"blockId":9,"value":"60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1276,"blockId":9,"value":"the present judgment has since been reversed”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":228.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 228, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":300.84000000000003,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"the present judgment has since been reversed”)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for\r\n example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal\r\n quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the\r\n Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case\r\n [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule\r\n 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering\r\n the present judgment has since been reversed”).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1277,"columnEnd":1292,"text":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore, Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action” (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.2","paragraphLabel":"4.B.2","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore, Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action” (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1277,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":297.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 297, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1278,"blockId":10,"value":"finding","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":411.0,"y":264.36,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"411, 264, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1279,"blockId":10,"value":"“depend[s] on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.72,"y":264.36,"width":89.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 264, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1280,"blockId":10,"value":"General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":303.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 303, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1281,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania Mot. at 17.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.56,"y":291.96,"width":100.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 291, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1282,"blockId":10,"value":"Therefore,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":489.48,"y":291.96,"width":50.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"489, 291, 50, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1283,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1284,"blockId":10,"value":"says, the jurisdictional holding","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.56,"y":319.56,"width":147.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 319, 147, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1285,"blockId":10,"value":"underlying","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":269.76,"y":319.56,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"269, 319, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1286,"blockId":10,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":324.96,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"324, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1287,"blockId":10,"value":"Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.84,"y":319.56,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 319, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1288,"blockId":10,"value":"was based on a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":319.56,"width":72.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 319, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1289,"blockId":10,"value":"“prior action”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.52,"y":319.56,"width":66.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 319, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1290,"blockId":10,"value":"(the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"(the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1291,"blockId":10,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":68.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 68, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1292,"blockId":10,"value":"The court is unpersuaded.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":146.52,"y":374.76,"width":123.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"146, 374, 123, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":270.48,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 432, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the\r\n General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore,\r\n Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action”\r\n (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under\r\n Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1293,"columnEnd":1330,"text":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.3","paragraphLabel":"4.B.3","rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1293,"blockId":11,"value":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":402.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 402, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1294,"blockId":11,"value":"Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":350.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 350, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1295,"blockId":11,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":429.0,"y":429.96,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"429, 429, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1296,"blockId":11,"value":"court relied on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.96,"y":429.96,"width":89.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 429, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1297,"blockId":11,"value":"General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":280.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 280, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1298,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.28,"y":457.56,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"356, 457, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1299,"blockId":11,"value":"did not render the arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":398.64,"y":457.56,"width":141.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"398, 457, 141, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1300,"blockId":11,"value":"exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1301,"blockId":11,"value":"inapplicable.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.16,"y":485.16,"width":61.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 485, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1302,"blockId":11,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.16,"y":485.16,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 485, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1303,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":223.32,"y":485.16,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"223, 485, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1304,"blockId":11,"value":"I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.0,"y":485.16,"width":4.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"264, 485, 4, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1305,"blockId":11,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.96,"y":485.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"267, 485, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1306,"blockId":11,"value":"404","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.56,"y":485.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"277, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1307,"blockId":11,"value":"F.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.16,"y":485.16,"width":9.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 485, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1308,"blockId":11,"value":"Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":318.48,"y":485.16,"width":27.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"318, 485, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1309,"blockId":11,"value":"3d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.8,"y":485.16,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"352, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1310,"blockId":11,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":371.4,"y":485.16,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"371, 485, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1311,"blockId":11,"value":"279–80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.64,"y":485.16,"width":39.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 485, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1312,"blockId":11,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":438.84,"y":485.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"438, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1313,"blockId":11,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":464.04,"y":485.16,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"464, 485, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1314,"blockId":11,"value":"primarily","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.24,"y":485.16,"width":44.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 485, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1315,"blockId":11,"value":"distinguished","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":64.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 64, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1316,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.96,"y":512.76,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 512, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1317,"blockId":11,"value":"on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":180.36,"y":512.76,"width":359.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"180, 512, 359, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1318,"blockId":11,"value":"one.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":20.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1319,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":98.28,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"98, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1320,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.24,"y":540.36,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 540, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1321,"blockId":11,"value":"It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.76,"y":540.36,"width":387.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"152, 540, 387, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1322,"blockId":11,"value":"establish the factual differences,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":152.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 152, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1323,"blockId":11,"value":"see","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.28,"y":567.96,"width":15.29,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"227, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1324,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.64,"y":567.96,"width":294.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 567, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1325,"blockId":11,"value":"Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":409.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 409, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1326,"blockId":11,"value":"The factual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.24,"y":595.56,"width":53.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"486, 595, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1327,"blockId":11,"value":"distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":365.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 365, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1328,"blockId":11,"value":"Next, the court said","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":444.84,"y":623.16,"width":95.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"444, 623, 95, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1329,"blockId":11,"value":"that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1330,"blockId":11,"value":"tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned"}],"Rectangle":"108, 402, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General\r\n Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the\r\n General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration\r\n exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily\r\n distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this\r\n one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to\r\n establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court\r\n Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual\r\n distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said\r\n that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral\r\n tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1336,"columnEnd":1346,"text":"the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279– 80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1336,"blockId":12,"value":"the court in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":55.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1337,"blockId":12,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.4,"y":71.16,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"131, 71, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1338,"blockId":12,"value":".”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.92,"y":71.16,"width":8.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 71, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1339,"blockId":12,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.4,"y":71.16,"width":41.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"185, 71, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1340,"blockId":12,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.92,"y":71.16,"width":121.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 71, 121, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1341,"blockId":12,"value":"For this, the court drew upon a “close","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.56,"y":71.16,"width":184.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"355, 71, 184, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1342,"blockId":12,"value":"inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":393.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 393, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1343,"blockId":12,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.64,"y":98.76,"width":31.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"470, 98, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1344,"blockId":12,"value":"at 279–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.72,"y":98.76,"width":35.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 98, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279–"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1345,"blockId":12,"value":"80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1346,"blockId":12,"value":"The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":93.0,"y":126.36,"width":422.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"93, 126, 422, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":515.88,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close\r\n inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279–\r\n 80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1347,"columnEnd":1390,"text":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288 (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision, at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.4","paragraphLabel":"4.B.4","rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 370","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288 (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision, at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":14,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1347,"blockId":13,"value":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":153.96,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1348,"blockId":13,"value":"a legal proposition.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":93.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 93, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1349,"blockId":13,"value":"Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":172.2,"y":181.56,"width":367.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"172, 181, 367, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1350,"blockId":13,"value":"tread upon substantive EU law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":163.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 163, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1351,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.12,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"246, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1352,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.12,"y":209.16,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"264, 209, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1353,"blockId":13,"value":"Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.12,"y":209.16,"width":230.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 209, 230, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1354,"blockId":13,"value":"authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1355,"blockId":13,"value":"would constitute state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":128.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1356,"blockId":13,"value":"It does not call into question","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.08,"y":264.36,"width":141.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 264, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1357,"blockId":13,"value":"the merits","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":353.28,"y":264.36,"width":48.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"353, 264, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1358,"blockId":13,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":264.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 264, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1359,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":419.76,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"419, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1360,"blockId":13,"value":"Award, which rested","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":438.36,"y":264.36,"width":101.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"438, 264, 101, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1361,"blockId":13,"value":"primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":333.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 333, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1362,"blockId":13,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.68,"y":291.96,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"412, 291, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1363,"blockId":13,"value":"Final Decision ¶¶ 288","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":433.2,"y":291.96,"width":106.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"433, 291, 106, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1364,"blockId":13,"value":"(noting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1365,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.4,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1366,"blockId":13,"value":"parties’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.76,"y":319.56,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 319, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1367,"blockId":13,"value":"agreement","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.48,"y":319.56,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1368,"blockId":13,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.12,"y":319.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 319, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1369,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.84,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1370,"blockId":13,"value":"BIT’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.2,"y":319.56,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 319, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1371,"blockId":13,"value":"“substantive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.12,"y":319.56,"width":59.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 319, 59, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1372,"blockId":13,"value":"rules”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.12,"y":319.56,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 319, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1373,"blockId":13,"value":"supplied","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.52,"y":319.56,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 319, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1374,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.92,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1375,"blockId":13,"value":"“applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.28,"y":319.56,"width":54.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"485, 319, 54, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"(noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1376,"blockId":13,"value":"law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1377,"blockId":13,"value":"is the BIT itself.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":89.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 89, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1378,"blockId":13,"value":"Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":167.04,"y":374.76,"width":372.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"167, 374, 372, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1379,"blockId":13,"value":"its reading of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1380,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.08,"y":402.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"136, 402, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1381,"blockId":13,"value":"does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.72,"y":402.36,"width":362.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 402, 362, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1382,"blockId":13,"value":"at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":280.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 280, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1383,"blockId":13,"value":"Such relief requires the prior decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":429.96,"width":181.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 429, 181, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1384,"blockId":13,"value":"to be a “necessary element of the decision.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":206.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 206, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1385,"blockId":13,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.44,"y":457.56,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"283, 457, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1386,"blockId":13,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.84,"y":457.56,"width":233.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 457, 233, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1387,"blockId":13,"value":"must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":402.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 402, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1388,"blockId":13,"value":"The General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.24,"y":485.16,"width":59.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 485, 59, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1389,"blockId":13,"value":"Court Decision was not that.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":136.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 136, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1390,"blockId":13,"value":"Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":214.92,"y":512.76,"width":282.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"214, 512, 282, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":497.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 371","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for\r\n a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not\r\n tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the\r\n authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award\r\n would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested\r\n primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288\r\n (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable\r\n law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal\r\n is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress\r\n its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,\r\n at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision\r\n to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment\r\n must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General\r\n Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1391,"columnEnd":1392,"text":" Rule 60(b)(6) ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.C","paragraphId":"hIV.C","paragraphLabel":"C.","rectangle":"108, 540, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1391,"blockId":14,"value":"C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 540, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1392,"blockId":14,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":540.36,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 540, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"C. Rule 60(b)(6)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" C. Rule 60(b)(6)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}},{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1393,"columnEnd":1413,"text":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.1","paragraphLabel":"4.C.1","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme","averageFontSize":11.973741794310722,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1393,"blockId":15,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1394,"blockId":15,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 6, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1395,"blockId":15,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":598.08,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 598, 12, 9"},{"type":2,"id":1396,"blockId":15,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":595.56,"width":27.92,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 595, 27, 24"},{"type":2,"id":1397,"blockId":15,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.16,"y":598.08,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 598, 9, 9"},{"type":2,"id":1398,"blockId":15,"value":". P. 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.12,"y":595.56,"width":48.12,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 595, 48, 24"},{"type":2,"id":1399,"blockId":15,"value":"This","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.44,"y":595.56,"width":21.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"184, 595, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1400,"blockId":15,"value":"residual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.4,"y":595.56,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 595, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1401,"blockId":15,"value":"provision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.92,"y":595.56,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 595, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1402,"blockId":15,"value":"“grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":299.88,"y":595.56,"width":240.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 595, 240, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":619.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1403,"blockId":15,"value":"party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1404,"blockId":15,"value":"enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":219.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 219, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1405,"blockId":15,"value":"Liljeberg,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.96,"y":650.76,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"297, 650, 47, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1406,"blockId":15,"value":"486 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.0,"y":650.76,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 650, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1407,"blockId":15,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":394.8,"y":650.76,"width":8.62,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"394, 650, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1408,"blockId":15,"value":"863.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.92,"y":650.76,"width":21.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 650, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1409,"blockId":15,"value":"Because the language","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.12,"y":650.76,"width":104.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 650, 104, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1410,"blockId":15,"value":"of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":213.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 213, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1411,"blockId":15,"value":"Twelve John Does","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.56,"y":678.36,"width":90.06,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"289, 678, 90, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1412,"blockId":15,"value":", 841 F.2d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.68,"y":678.36,"width":50.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 678, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1413,"blockId":15,"value":"at 1140, the Supreme","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.76,"y":678.36,"width":105.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 678, 105, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a\r\n party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief\r\n enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language\r\n of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1419,"columnEnd":1432,"text":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v. United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v. United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1419,"blockId":16,"value":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":396.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 396, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1420,"blockId":16,"value":"Ackermann v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.56,"y":71.16,"width":67.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"472, 71, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1421,"blockId":16,"value":"United States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":63.95,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 98, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1422,"blockId":16,"value":", 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.96,"y":98.76,"width":404.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 98, 404, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1423,"blockId":16,"value":"sparingly used,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":78.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 78, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1424,"blockId":16,"value":"Good Luck Nursing Home","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.32,"y":126.36,"width":128.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"154, 126, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1425,"blockId":16,"value":", 636 F.2d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":282.84,"y":126.36,"width":50.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"282, 126, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1426,"blockId":16,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.72,"y":126.36,"width":8.62,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 126, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1427,"blockId":16,"value":"577.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.08,"y":126.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 126, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1428,"blockId":16,"value":"“Intervening developments in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.52,"y":126.36,"width":162.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 126, 162, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1429,"blockId":16,"value":"law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1430,"blockId":16,"value":"60(b)(6).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1431,"blockId":16,"value":"Agostini v. Felton","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.24,"y":181.56,"width":85.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"126, 181, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1432,"blockId":16,"value":", 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.04,"y":181.56,"width":131.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 181, 131, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":343.32,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v.\r\n United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only\r\n sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the\r\n law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule\r\n 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1433,"columnEnd":1467,"text":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic] extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling Statute.” Id. at 22–23.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.2","paragraphLabel":"4.C.2","rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic] extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling Statute.” Id. at 22–23.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1433,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":230.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 209, 230, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1434,"blockId":17,"value":"law does not usually constitute and [sic]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.24,"y":209.16,"width":197.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 209, 197, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic]"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1435,"blockId":17,"value":"extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1436,"blockId":17,"value":"that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":445.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 445, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1437,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":520.8,"y":264.36,"width":19.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"520, 264, 19, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1438,"blockId":17,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1439,"blockId":17,"value":"circumstance.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":85.08,"y":291.96,"width":71.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"85, 291, 71, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1440,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.04,"y":291.96,"width":229.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"164, 291, 229, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1441,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.04,"y":291.96,"width":43.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"401, 291, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1442,"blockId":17,"value":"maintains “that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.96,"y":291.96,"width":92.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 291, 92, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1443,"blockId":17,"value":"CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1444,"blockId":17,"value":"and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1445,"blockId":17,"value":"the dispute.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":60.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1446,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.6,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1447,"blockId":17,"value":"at 22.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.68,"y":374.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"154, 374, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1448,"blockId":17,"value":"The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":187.32,"y":374.76,"width":352.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"187, 374, 352, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1449,"blockId":17,"value":"with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1450,"blockId":17,"value":"issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1451,"blockId":17,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1452,"blockId":17,"value":"US","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":86.76,"y":457.56,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"86, 457, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1453,"blockId":17,"value":"courts,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.52,"y":457.56,"width":32.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1454,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.2,"y":457.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 457, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1455,"blockId":17,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":167.88,"y":457.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"167, 457, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1456,"blockId":17,"value":"United","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.04,"y":457.56,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"188, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1457,"blockId":17,"value":"States’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.08,"y":457.56,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1458,"blockId":17,"value":"obligations","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.12,"y":457.56,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"264, 457, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1459,"blockId":17,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.92,"y":457.56,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"322, 457, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1460,"blockId":17,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.56,"y":457.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"355, 457, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1461,"blockId":17,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":375.72,"y":457.56,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 457, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1462,"blockId":17,"value":"Convention","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.32,"y":457.56,"width":56.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 457, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1463,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.88,"y":457.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 457, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1464,"blockId":17,"value":"Enabling","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":496.56,"y":457.56,"width":43.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"496, 457, 43, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1465,"blockId":17,"value":"Statute.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":41.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1466,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.64,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"119, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1467,"blockId":17,"value":"at 22–23.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.6,"y":485.16,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 485, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":180.24,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Statute.” Id. at 22–23."}],"Rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic]\r\n extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and\r\n that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and\r\n in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the\r\n CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors\r\n and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of\r\n the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent\r\n with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates\r\n issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty\r\n in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling\r\n Statute.” Id. at 22–23.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1468,"columnEnd":1478,"text":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.3","paragraphLabel":"4.C.3","rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1468,"blockId":18,"value":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":512.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 512, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1469,"blockId":18,"value":"not established a bas[is]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":116.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1470,"blockId":18,"value":"for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":192.48,"y":540.36,"width":347.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"192, 540, 347, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1471,"blockId":18,"value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":198.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1472,"blockId":18,"value":"Micula Opp’n at 38.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.92,"y":567.96,"width":99.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"277, 567, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1473,"blockId":18,"value":"Even if Romania did establish a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.24,"y":567.96,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 567, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1474,"blockId":18,"value":"different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1475,"blockId":18,"value":"circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1476,"blockId":18,"value":"in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":295.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 295, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1477,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":373.56,"y":650.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"373, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1478,"blockId":18,"value":"at 39.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.52,"y":650.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 650, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":416.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39."}],"Rectangle":"108, 512, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has\r\n not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking\r\n relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a\r\n different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary\r\n circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change\r\n in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1484,"columnEnd":1516,"text":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864 (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive, as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.4","paragraphLabel":"4.C.4","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864 (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive, as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1484,"blockId":19,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":71.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 71, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1485,"blockId":19,"value":"court agrees with Micula.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.96,"y":71.16,"width":123.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 71, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1486,"blockId":19,"value":"“[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.76,"y":71.16,"width":279.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 71, 279, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1487,"blockId":19,"value":"other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":229.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 229, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1488,"blockId":19,"value":"Goland v. CIA","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.92,"y":98.76,"width":69.73,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"307, 98, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1489,"blockId":19,"value":", 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.64,"y":98.76,"width":162.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 98, 162, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1490,"blockId":19,"value":"1978);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1491,"blockId":19,"value":"see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.32,"y":126.36,"width":221.81,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"106, 126, 221, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1492,"blockId":19,"value":", 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.08,"y":126.36,"width":211.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 126, 211, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1493,"blockId":19,"value":"plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1494,"blockId":19,"value":"grounds","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1495,"blockId":19,"value":"for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":117.12,"y":181.56,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"117, 181, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1496,"blockId":19,"value":"relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":137.52,"y":181.56,"width":25.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"137, 181, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1497,"blockId":19,"value":"enumerated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.32,"y":181.56,"width":55.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 181, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1498,"blockId":19,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.72,"y":181.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"231, 181, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1499,"blockId":19,"value":"clauses","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.56,"y":181.56,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"247, 181, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1500,"blockId":19,"value":"(b)(1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":288.72,"y":181.56,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"288, 181, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1501,"blockId":19,"value":"through","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":323.28,"y":181.56,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"323, 181, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1502,"blockId":19,"value":"(b)(5)”);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.08,"y":181.56,"width":40.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 181, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1503,"blockId":19,"value":"Wright","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.24,"y":181.56,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 181, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1504,"blockId":19,"value":"&","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":454.8,"y":181.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"454, 181, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1505,"blockId":19,"value":"Miller","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.64,"y":181.56,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 181, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1506,"blockId":19,"value":"§ 2864","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.12,"y":181.56,"width":32.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 181, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1507,"blockId":19,"value":"(describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":289.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 289, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1508,"blockId":19,"value":"Merely asserting in the conjunctive,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.32,"y":209.16,"width":172.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 209, 172, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"(describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1509,"blockId":19,"value":"as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":332.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 332, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1510,"blockId":19,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.76,"y":236.76,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"407, 236, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1511,"blockId":19,"value":"circumstances does not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":428.88,"y":236.76,"width":111.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"428, 236, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1512,"blockId":19,"value":"open","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1513,"blockId":19,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":98.52,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"98, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1514,"blockId":19,"value":"door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":264.36,"width":423.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 264, 423, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1515,"blockId":19,"value":"60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":42.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1516,"blockId":19,"value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":120.84,"y":291.96,"width":278.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"120, 291, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":399.6,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone."}],"Rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the\r\n other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir.\r\n 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring\r\n plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the\r\n grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864\r\n (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive,\r\n as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not\r\n open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and\r\n 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1517,"columnEnd":1535,"text":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration, Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before it acceded to the EU is void.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.5","paragraphLabel":"4.C.5","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration, Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before it acceded to the EU is void.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1517,"blockId":20,"value":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":371.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 371, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1518,"blockId":20,"value":"All that has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":484.92,"y":319.56,"width":55.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"484, 319, 55, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1519,"blockId":20,"value":"changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1520,"blockId":20,"value":"(1) that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":34.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1521,"blockId":20,"value":"the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.52,"y":374.76,"width":429.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 374, 429, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"(1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1522,"blockId":20,"value":"aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1523,"blockId":20,"value":"Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1524,"blockId":20,"value":"developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1525,"blockId":20,"value":"EU law that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1526,"blockId":20,"value":"do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":133.32,"y":485.16,"width":406.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"133, 485, 406, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1527,"blockId":20,"value":"Romania had agreed to arbitrate under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":194.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 194, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1528,"blockId":20,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.32,"y":512.76,"width":132.31,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 512, 132, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1529,"blockId":20,"value":"The fact that EU law, as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":413.76,"y":512.76,"width":126.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"413, 512, 126, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1530,"blockId":20,"value":"interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1531,"blockId":20,"value":"by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1532,"blockId":20,"value":"court of jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":96.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1533,"blockId":20,"value":"Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.4,"y":595.56,"width":333.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 595, 333, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1534,"blockId":20,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.16,"y":595.56,"width":30.77,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"509, 595, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.9300000000001,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1535,"blockId":20,"value":"it acceded to the EU is void.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":135.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 135, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":207.72,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"it acceded to the EU is void."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has\r\n changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled\r\n (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state\r\n aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the\r\n Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those\r\n developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of\r\n EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,\r\n Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as\r\n interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment\r\n by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal\r\n court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before\r\n it acceded to the EU is void.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1536,"columnEnd":1540,"text":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it, undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.6","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.6","paragraphLabel":"4.C.6","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it, undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1536,"blockId":21,"value":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":224.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 224, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1537,"blockId":21,"value":"both before this litigation and during it,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.8,"y":650.76,"width":202.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 650, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1538,"blockId":21,"value":"undermine its assertion that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":139.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 139, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1539,"blockId":21,"value":"the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":216.36,"y":678.36,"width":223.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"216, 678, 223, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1540,"blockId":21,"value":"Before the ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.84,"y":678.36,"width":89.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 678, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 431, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it,\r\n undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":20,"columnStart":1546,"columnEnd":1591,"text":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction, filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58 (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania. See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b) cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be improvident”).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 591","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction, filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58 (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania. See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b) cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be improvident”).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":22,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1546,"blockId":1,"value":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1547,"blockId":1,"value":"did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1548,"blockId":1,"value":"filing its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1549,"blockId":1,"value":"objections","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.16,"y":126.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 126, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1550,"blockId":1,"value":"on September 10, 2007,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":126.36,"width":115.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"168, 126, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1551,"blockId":1,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":287.4,"y":126.36,"width":22.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"287, 126, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1552,"blockId":1,"value":"it had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":313.56,"y":126.36,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"313, 126, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1553,"blockId":1,"value":"acceded to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.28,"y":126.36,"width":91.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 126, 91, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1554,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.8,"y":126.36,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"442, 126, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1555,"blockId":1,"value":"Pet’rs’ Mem. of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.72,"y":126.36,"width":77.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"462, 126, 77, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1556,"blockId":1,"value":"Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1557,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 62-2, ¶ 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":75.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 75, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1558,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":157.92,"y":181.56,"width":382.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"157, 181, 382, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1559,"blockId":1,"value":"because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":407.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 407, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1560,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.16,"y":209.16,"width":31.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"485, 209, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1561,"blockId":1,"value":"¶ 58","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.6,"y":209.16,"width":20.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 209, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1562,"blockId":1,"value":"(“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"(“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1563,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1564,"blockId":1,"value":"ICSID Convention.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":105.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 105, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1565,"blockId":1,"value":"It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.32,"y":291.96,"width":302.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"184, 291, 302, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1566,"blockId":1,"value":"years later","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.2,"y":291.96,"width":49.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 291, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1567,"blockId":1,"value":"on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":288.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 288, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1568,"blockId":1,"value":"arose based on Romania’s accession","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.08,"y":319.56,"width":175.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 319, 175, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1569,"blockId":1,"value":"to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1570,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 374, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1571,"blockId":1,"value":"Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.56,"y":374.76,"width":448.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 374, 448, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1572,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1573,"blockId":1,"value":"submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":272.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 272, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1574,"blockId":1,"value":"(stating that the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.6,"y":429.96,"width":191.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 429, 191, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1575,"blockId":1,"value":"argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1576,"blockId":1,"value":"agreement).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":56.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1577,"blockId":1,"value":"Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.64,"y":485.16,"width":275.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 485, 275, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1578,"blockId":1,"value":"The ICSID tribunal stated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.28,"y":485.16,"width":123.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 485, 123, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1579,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1580,"blockId":1,"value":"did not comment on this ground for annulment.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":236.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 236, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1581,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.2,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"316, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1582,"blockId":1,"value":"¶ 336.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":332.76,"y":540.36,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"332, 540, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1583,"blockId":1,"value":"It cannot be unjust for this court to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.48,"y":540.36,"width":170.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 540, 170, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1584,"blockId":1,"value":"find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":345.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 345, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1585,"blockId":1,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":422.16,"y":567.96,"width":35.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"422, 567, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1586,"blockId":1,"value":"argue otherwise","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.24,"y":567.96,"width":77.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"462, 567, 77, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1587,"blockId":1,"value":"before the ICSID tribunal.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":125.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 125, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1588,"blockId":1,"value":"Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":202.8,"y":595.56,"width":142.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"202, 595, 142, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1589,"blockId":1,"value":", 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.6,"y":595.56,"width":194.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 595, 194, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1590,"blockId":1,"value":"cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1591,"blockId":1,"value":"improvident”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":70.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 70, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":142.92000000000002,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"improvident”)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 591","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it\r\n did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,\r\n filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of\r\n Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF\r\n No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction\r\n because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58\r\n (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the\r\n jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the\r\n ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later\r\n on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession\r\n to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania.\r\n See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF\r\n No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU\r\n submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission\r\n argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration\r\n agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated\r\n Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant\r\n did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to\r\n find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise\r\n before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)\r\n cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be\r\n improvident”).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1597,"columnEnd":1649,"text":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings. Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And, as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception, Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments, when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.7","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.7","paragraphLabel":"4.C.7","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 370","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings. Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And, as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception, Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments, when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":14,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1597,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":71.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1598,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1599,"blockId":1,"value":"court’s subject matter jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":167.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 167, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1600,"blockId":1,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.32,"y":126.36,"width":62.39,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"247, 126, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1601,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.72,"y":126.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 126, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1602,"blockId":1,"value":"404 F. Supp. 3d at 273.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.68,"y":126.36,"width":116.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"316, 126, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1603,"blockId":1,"value":"Next, in response to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":441.24,"y":126.36,"width":98.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"441, 126, 98, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1604,"blockId":1,"value":"Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1605,"blockId":1,"value":"mention of the court’s jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":166.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 166, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1606,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.08,"y":181.56,"width":31.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"244, 181, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1607,"blockId":1,"value":"273–74.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.64,"y":181.56,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"278, 181, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1608,"blockId":1,"value":"Only after the European Commission entered","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":323.28,"y":181.56,"width":216.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"323, 181, 216, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1609,"blockId":1,"value":"an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1610,"blockId":1,"value":"surface","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":34.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1611,"blockId":1,"value":"that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":111.96,"y":236.76,"width":428.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"111, 236, 428, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1612,"blockId":1,"value":"deprived","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":41.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1613,"blockId":1,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":120.0,"y":264.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"120, 264, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1614,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":143.52,"y":264.36,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"143, 264, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1615,"blockId":1,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":174.36,"y":264.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"174, 264, 10, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1616,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.56,"y":264.36,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 264, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1617,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":264.36,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"260, 264, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1618,"blockId":1,"value":"id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.32,"y":264.36,"width":12.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"283, 264, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1619,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.8,"y":264.36,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"301, 264, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1620,"blockId":1,"value":"274.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.68,"y":264.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"316, 264, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1621,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.92,"y":264.36,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 264, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1622,"blockId":1,"value":"then","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.36,"y":264.36,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"399, 264, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1623,"blockId":1,"value":"piggy-backed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.24,"y":264.36,"width":65.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"426, 264, 65, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1624,"blockId":1,"value":"onto","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":497.64,"y":264.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"497, 264, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1625,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.12,"y":264.36,"width":14.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 264, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1626,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":400.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 400, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1627,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":478.44,"y":291.96,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"478, 291, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1628,"blockId":1,"value":"And,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":516.36,"y":291.96,"width":23.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"516, 291, 23, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1629,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1630,"blockId":1,"value":"discussed,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.6,"y":319.56,"width":48.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 319, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1631,"blockId":1,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":142.2,"y":319.56,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"142, 319, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1632,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.8,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1633,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.2,"y":319.56,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 319, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1634,"blockId":1,"value":"found","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.44,"y":319.56,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 319, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1635,"blockId":1,"value":"it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.04,"y":319.56,"width":6.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 319, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1636,"blockId":1,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":266.4,"y":319.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"266, 319, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1637,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.32,"y":319.56,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"289, 319, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1638,"blockId":1,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.8,"y":319.56,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 319, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1639,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.68,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1640,"blockId":1,"value":"FSIA","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.08,"y":319.56,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 319, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1641,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.76,"y":319.56,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1642,"blockId":1,"value":"exception,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.32,"y":319.56,"width":49.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 319, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1643,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1644,"blockId":1,"value":"conceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 374, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1645,"blockId":1,"value":"that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.76,"y":374.76,"width":231.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 374, 231, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1646,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.8,"y":374.76,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"355, 374, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1647,"blockId":1,"value":", 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.88,"y":374.76,"width":150.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 374, 150, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1648,"blockId":1,"value":"be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1649,"blockId":1,"value":"when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts."}],"Rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 370","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings.\r\n Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the\r\n court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to\r\n Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no\r\n mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered\r\n an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument\r\n surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby\r\n deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the\r\n Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And,\r\n as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception,\r\n Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually\r\n conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot\r\n be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,\r\n when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1650,"columnEnd":1669,"text":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.8","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.8","paragraphLabel":"4.C.8","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,","averageFontSize":11.981693363844393,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1650,"blockId":5,"value":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1651,"blockId":5,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1652,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":85.92,"y":485.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"85, 485, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1653,"blockId":5,"value":"EU did not abrogate the Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":105.12,"y":485.16,"width":161.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"105, 485, 161, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1654,"blockId":5,"value":"On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.4,"y":485.16,"width":264.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 485, 264, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1655,"blockId":5,"value":"terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":331.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 331, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1656,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.32,"y":512.76,"width":130.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 512, 130, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1657,"blockId":5,"value":"No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":142.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 142, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1658,"blockId":5,"value":"2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":215.52,"y":539.76,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 539, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1659,"blockId":5,"value":"], at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":219.6,"y":540.36,"width":19.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"219, 540, 19, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1660,"blockId":5,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.16,"y":540.36,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 540, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1661,"blockId":5,"value":"On February 7, 2022,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.24,"y":540.36,"width":104.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 540, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1662,"blockId":5,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.24,"y":540.36,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"366, 540, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1663,"blockId":5,"value":"the CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":392.4,"y":540.36,"width":46.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"392, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1664,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.8,"y":540.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1665,"blockId":5,"value":"issued,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":488.88,"y":540.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"488, 540, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1666,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.36,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 540, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":539.76,"Value":"No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1667,"blockId":5,"value":"Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":304.61,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 304, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1668,"blockId":5,"value":"3","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":377.16,"y":567.36,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 567, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1669,"blockId":5,"value":"to the Government of Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.24,"y":567.96,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 567, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.36,"Value":"Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession\r\n to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to\r\n terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF\r\n No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the\r\n Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1670,"columnEnd":1671,"text":" The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn2","paragraphId":"fn2","paragraphLabel":"2","rectangle":"72, 627, 192, 9","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","averageFontSize":9.916666666666666,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1670,"blockId":2,"value":"2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":627.36,"width":3.24,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 627, 3, 6"},{"type":3,"id":1671,"blockId":2,"value":"The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.73,"y":627.36,"width":187.23,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 627, 187, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":264.96,"MarginBottom":637.32,"MarginTop":627.36,"Value":"2 The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits."}],"Rectangle":"72, 627, 192, 9","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 2 The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.\r\n","MarginRight":264.96}},{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1672,"columnEnd":1687,"text":" A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21, 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022 represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”). 21","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn3","paragraphId":"fn3","paragraphLabel":"3","rectangle":"71, 638, 468, 101","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21, 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022 represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”). 21","averageFontSize":10.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1672,"blockId":3,"value":"3","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":638.88,"width":3.24,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 638, 3, 6"},{"type":6,"id":1673,"blockId":3,"value":"A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.73,"y":638.88,"width":443.33,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 638, 443, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1674,"blockId":3,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":526.32,"y":638.88,"width":13.68,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 638, 13, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":648.84,"MarginTop":638.88,"Value":"3 A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1675,"blockId":3,"value":"Merriam Webster, Note Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.4,"width":128.54,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 128, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1676,"blockId":3,"value":"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":"#0562C1","x":205.1,"y":650.4,"width":334.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"205, 650, 334, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":660.36,"MarginTop":650.4,"Value":"Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1677,"blockId":3,"value":"2022).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":661.92,"width":25.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 661, 25, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1678,"blockId":3,"value":"While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":102.96,"y":661.92,"width":437.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 661, 437, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":671.88,"MarginTop":661.92,"Value":"2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1679,"blockId":3,"value":"Note Verbales exchanged","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":673.44,"width":106.08,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 673, 106, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1680,"blockId":3,"value":"between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":182.28,"y":673.44,"width":245.77,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 673, 245, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1681,"blockId":3,"value":"Sweden in February 2022","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":432.11,"y":673.44,"width":107.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 673, 107, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":683.4000000000001,"MarginTop":673.44,"Value":"Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1682,"blockId":3,"value":"represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.85,"width":318.87,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 318, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1683,"blockId":3,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":396.24,"y":684.85,"width":13.92,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"396, 684, 13, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1684,"blockId":3,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":412.92,"y":684.85,"width":127.07,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 684, 127, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":694.8100000000001,"MarginTop":684.85,"Value":"represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No."},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1685,"blockId":3,"value":"181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":696.37,"width":467.97,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 696, 467, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.97,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1686,"blockId":3,"value":"constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":707.9,"width":337.2,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 707, 337, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":409.19,"MarginBottom":717.86,"MarginTop":707.9,"Value":"constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”)."},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1687,"blockId":3,"value":"21","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":300.0,"y":727.92,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"300, 727, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":300.0,"MarginRight":312.0,"MarginBottom":739.92,"MarginTop":727.92,"Value":"21"}],"Rectangle":"72, 638, 467, 101","MarginLeft":71.99,"Value":" 3 A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See\r\n Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,\r\n 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two\r\n Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022\r\n represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No.\r\n 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply\r\n constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”).\r\n 21\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1692,"columnEnd":1766,"text":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that, notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings, which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1. Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 453","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that, notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings, which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1. Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4","averageFontSize":11.99737532808399,"rowsOfText":17,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1692,"blockId":1,"value":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":397.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 397, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1693,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.72,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"474, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1694,"blockId":1,"value":"at 1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.68,"y":71.16,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 71, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1695,"blockId":1,"value":"At","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":528.24,"y":71.16,"width":11.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"528, 71, 11, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1696,"blockId":1,"value":"the start, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":60.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1697,"blockId":1,"value":"Joint","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.72,"y":98.76,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1698,"blockId":1,"value":"Interpretive Declaration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.72,"y":98.76,"width":115.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 98, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1699,"blockId":1,"value":"acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.64,"y":98.76,"width":258.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 98, 258, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1700,"blockId":1,"value":"between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":397.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 397, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1701,"blockId":1,"value":"as well as the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.16,"y":126.36,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 126, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1702,"blockId":1,"value":"CJEU’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1703,"blockId":1,"value":"decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.96,"y":153.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 153, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1704,"blockId":1,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.56,"y":153.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"160, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1705,"blockId":1,"value":"Achmea.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.56,"y":153.96,"width":41.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"175, 153, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1706,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.24,"y":153.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"228, 153, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1707,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.84,"y":153.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 153, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1708,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.12,"y":153.96,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1709,"blockId":1,"value":"It","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.28,"y":153.96,"width":7.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 153, 7, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1710,"blockId":1,"value":"also","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.12,"y":153.96,"width":19.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 153, 19, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1711,"blockId":1,"value":"recognized","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.08,"y":153.96,"width":52.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 153, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1712,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.16,"y":153.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1713,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.8,"y":153.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"400, 153, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1714,"blockId":1,"value":"Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":421.08,"y":153.96,"width":85.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"421, 153, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1715,"blockId":1,"value":"BIT’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.92,"y":153.96,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 153, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1716,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1717,"blockId":1,"value":"serve","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":25.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1718,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":103.44,"y":209.16,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"103, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1719,"blockId":1,"value":"legal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.52,"y":209.16,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 209, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1720,"blockId":1,"value":"basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.04,"y":209.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 209, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1721,"blockId":1,"value":"for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.28,"y":209.16,"width":14.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 209, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1722,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.44,"y":209.16,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 209, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1723,"blockId":1,"value":"proceedings.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":255.48,"y":209.16,"width":66.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 209, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1724,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.2,"y":209.16,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"334, 209, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1725,"blockId":1,"value":"The Note","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":359.52,"y":209.16,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"359, 209, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1726,"blockId":1,"value":"Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":413.88,"y":209.16,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"413, 209, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1727,"blockId":1,"value":"then","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":458.04,"y":209.16,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"458, 209, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1728,"blockId":1,"value":"stated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":484.92,"y":209.16,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"484, 209, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1729,"blockId":1,"value":"that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.0,"y":209.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 209, 21, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1730,"blockId":1,"value":"notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1731,"blockId":1,"value":"Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1732,"blockId":1,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1733,"blockId":1,"value":"will","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.8,"y":291.96,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1734,"blockId":1,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.04,"y":291.96,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"131, 291, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1735,"blockId":1,"value":"be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":151.92,"y":291.96,"width":11.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"151, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1736,"blockId":1,"value":"reopened” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":291.96,"width":72.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"168, 291, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1737,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.6,"y":291.96,"width":18.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1738,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.24,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1739,"blockId":1,"value":"“Interpretive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.52,"y":291.96,"width":61.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 291, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1740,"blockId":1,"value":"Declaration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.36,"y":291.96,"width":56.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 291, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1741,"blockId":1,"value":"covers","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.92,"y":291.96,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 291, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1742,"blockId":1,"value":"all","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.76,"y":291.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1743,"blockId":1,"value":"investor-State","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.28,"y":291.96,"width":66.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 291, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1744,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":305.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 305, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1745,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.56,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"385, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1746,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.52,"y":319.56,"width":9.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"401, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1747,"blockId":1,"value":"1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.96,"y":319.56,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 319, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1748,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania responded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":443.64,"y":319.56,"width":96.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"443, 319, 96, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1749,"blockId":1,"value":"positively to the Note Verbale.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":148.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 148, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1750,"blockId":1,"value":"On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.04,"y":347.16,"width":312.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"227, 347, 312, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1751,"blockId":1,"value":"of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1752,"blockId":1,"value":"confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1753,"blockId":1,"value":"together with this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":88.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 88, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1754,"blockId":1,"value":"[February 11, 2022]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":165.84,"y":429.96,"width":100.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"165, 429, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1755,"blockId":1,"value":"Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.8,"y":429.96,"width":268.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 429, 268, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1756,"blockId":1,"value":"Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":251.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 251, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1757,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.36,"y":457.56,"width":197.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 457, 197, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1758,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":531.0,"y":457.56,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"531, 457, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1759,"blockId":1,"value":"Thus, Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":73.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1760,"blockId":1,"value":"seems to have","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.04,"y":485.16,"width":67.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 485, 67, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1761,"blockId":1,"value":"agreed that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.32,"y":485.16,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 485, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1762,"blockId":1,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.08,"y":485.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"277, 485, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1763,"blockId":1,"value":"does not nullify its consent to arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.08,"y":485.16,"width":186.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 485, 186, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1764,"blockId":1,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.16,"y":485.16,"width":30.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"509, 485, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1765,"blockId":1,"value":"January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":463.39,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 463, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1766,"blockId":1,"value":"4","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":535.92,"y":512.16,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"535, 512, 4, 8"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.9399999999999,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.16,"Value":"January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4"}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 453","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At\r\n the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties\r\n between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the\r\n CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s\r\n arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot\r\n serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that,\r\n notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of\r\n Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,\r\n which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State\r\n arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded\r\n positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom\r\n of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and\r\n confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden\r\n together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive\r\n Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1.\r\n Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before\r\n January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1767,"columnEnd":1798,"text":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.9","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.9","paragraphLabel":"4.C.9","rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1767,"blockId":5,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1768,"blockId":5,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.76,"y":540.36,"width":46.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1769,"blockId":5,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":189.0,"y":540.36,"width":60.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 540, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1770,"blockId":5,"value":"contends","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.88,"y":540.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1771,"blockId":5,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.64,"y":540.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1772,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.8,"y":540.36,"width":14.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1773,"blockId":5,"value":"Note","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.84,"y":540.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 540, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1774,"blockId":5,"value":"Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.28,"y":540.36,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 540, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1775,"blockId":5,"value":"excludes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.6,"y":540.36,"width":42.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1776,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.76,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"485, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1777,"blockId":5,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.68,"y":540.36,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 540, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1778,"blockId":5,"value":"proceedings","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":57.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1779,"blockId":5,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.08,"y":567.96,"width":18.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"136, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1780,"blockId":5,"value":"produced","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.44,"y":567.96,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"160, 567, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1781,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":211.32,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"211, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1782,"blockId":5,"value":"Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":232.2,"y":567.96,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 567, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1783,"blockId":5,"value":"That","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.44,"y":567.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1784,"blockId":5,"value":"argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.76,"y":567.96,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1785,"blockId":5,"value":"rests","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":360.36,"y":567.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"360, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1786,"blockId":5,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.56,"y":567.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1787,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.8,"y":567.96,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1788,"blockId":5,"value":"definition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.8,"y":567.96,"width":46.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1789,"blockId":5,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.84,"y":567.96,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1790,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":497.04,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"497, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1791,"blockId":5,"value":"term","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":517.92,"y":567.96,"width":22.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"517, 567, 22, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1792,"blockId":5,"value":"“Concluded Arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":114.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 114, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1793,"blockId":5,"value":"Proceedings”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.92,"y":595.56,"width":63.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 595, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1794,"blockId":5,"value":"contained in a multilateral treaty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.96,"y":595.56,"width":160.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 595, 160, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1795,"blockId":5,"value":"to which Sweden is not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.36,"y":595.56,"width":116.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 595, 116, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"“Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1796,"blockId":5,"value":"even a signatory.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":83.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1797,"blockId":5,"value":"Br. Of Amicus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.96,"y":623.16,"width":72.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 623, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1798,"blockId":5,"value":"Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.52,"y":623.16,"width":300.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 623, 300, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 431, 95","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID\r\n proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term\r\n “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not\r\n even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1799,"columnEnd":1810,"text":" The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15, 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5 [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn4","paragraphId":"fn4","paragraphLabel":"4","rectangle":"72, 670, 468, 47","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15, 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5 [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id. ","averageFontSize":9.995061728395061,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1799,"blockId":1,"value":"4","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":670.32,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 670, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1800,"blockId":1,"value":"The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":78.84,"y":672.96,"width":461.17,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 672, 461, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":682.9200000000001,"MarginTop":670.32,"Value":"4 The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1801,"blockId":1,"value":"2022.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.84,"width":22.68,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 22, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1802,"blockId":1,"value":"This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":101.15,"y":684.84,"width":275.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"101, 684, 275, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1803,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":382.88,"y":684.84,"width":157.12,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 684, 157, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":694.8000000000001,"MarginTop":684.84,"Value":"2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1804,"blockId":1,"value":"[hereinafter Ex. D], at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":696.37,"width":90.36,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 696, 90, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1805,"blockId":1,"value":"1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":165.6,"y":696.37,"width":17.65,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"165, 696, 17, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1806,"blockId":1,"value":"And it again affirmed that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":189.71,"y":696.37,"width":107.02,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 696, 107, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1807,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":299.98,"y":696.37,"width":12.12,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 696, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1808,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration agreement between the countries terminated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":315.36,"y":696.37,"width":224.65,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 696, 224, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"[hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1809,"blockId":1,"value":"only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":707.89,"width":282.83,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 707, 282, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1810,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":359.75,"y":707.89,"width":26.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"359, 707, 26, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":386.5,"MarginBottom":717.85,"MarginTop":707.89,"Value":"only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 670, 467, 46","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 4 The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,\r\n 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5\r\n [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated\r\n only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.01}},{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1816,"columnEnd":1834,"text":"ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however, because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding” under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1816,"blockId":6,"value":"ECF No.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":42.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1817,"blockId":6,"value":"191","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.08,"y":71.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 71, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1818,"blockId":6,"value":"[hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":139.32,"y":71.16,"width":55.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"139, 71, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1819,"blockId":6,"value":"EC","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.48,"y":71.16,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"198, 71, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1820,"blockId":6,"value":"Amicus Br.], at 14.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":217.08,"y":71.16,"width":92.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"217, 71, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1821,"blockId":6,"value":"As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.96,"y":71.16,"width":224.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 71, 224, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1822,"blockId":6,"value":"to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":273.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1823,"blockId":6,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.32,"y":98.76,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"352, 98, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1824,"blockId":6,"value":"Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.48,"y":98.76,"width":167.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 98, 167, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1825,"blockId":6,"value":"to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":177.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 177, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1826,"blockId":6,"value":"17–18.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":252.96,"y":126.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"252, 126, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1827,"blockId":6,"value":"The court need not resolve the question,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.88,"y":126.36,"width":197.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 126, 197, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1828,"blockId":6,"value":"however,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.72,"y":126.36,"width":44.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 126, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1829,"blockId":6,"value":"because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1830,"blockId":6,"value":"of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1831,"blockId":6,"value":"that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1832,"blockId":6,"value":"under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1833,"blockId":6,"value":"so.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":13.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1834,"blockId":6,"value":"The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.68,"y":264.36,"width":430.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 264, 430, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":522.24,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons\r\n to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response\r\n to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however,\r\n because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading\r\n of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes\r\n that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”\r\n under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said\r\n so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1835,"columnEnd":1836,"text":" CONCLUSION AND ORDER ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hV","paragraphId":"hV","paragraphLabel":"V.","rectangle":"72, 291, 192, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1835,"blockId":7,"value":"V.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1836,"blockId":7,"value":"CONCLUSION AND ORDER","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":156.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":264.6,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER"}],"Rectangle":"72, 291, 192, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER\r\n","MarginRight":264.6}},{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1837,"columnEnd":1838,"text":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa5","paragraphLabel":"5.","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1837,"blockId":8,"value":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1838,"blockId":8,"value":"Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":168.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 168, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":240.36,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from\r\n Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}},{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1839,"columnEnd":1840,"text":"Dated: December 22, 2022
Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
IOAN MICULA, et al. ,
Petitioners,
v.
THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,
Respondent.
Civil No. 17-cv-02332 (APM)
","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":9,"blockId":2,"value":"IOAN","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":140.16,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 140, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":10,"blockId":2,"value":"MICULA,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.84,"y":140.16,"width":56.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 140, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":11,"blockId":2,"value":"et al.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":140.16,"width":26.95,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold, Italic","rectangle":"168, 140, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":12,"blockId":2,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.84,"y":140.16,"width":3.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"195, 140, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":199.32,"MarginBottom":152.16,"MarginTop":140.16,"Value":"IOAN MICULA, et al. ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":15,"blockId":2,"value":"Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":167.76,"width":58.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 167, 58, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":166.32,"MarginBottom":179.76,"MarginTop":167.76,"Value":"Petitioners,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":18,"blockId":2,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":195.36,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 195, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":144.0,"MarginRight":153.0,"MarginBottom":207.36,"MarginTop":195.36,"Value":"v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":22,"blockId":2,"value":"THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":222.96,"width":202.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 222, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":274.68,"MarginBottom":234.96,"MarginTop":222.96,"Value":"THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":25,"blockId":2,"value":"Respondent.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":250.56,"width":63.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 250, 63, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":171.72,"MarginBottom":262.56,"MarginTop":250.56,"Value":"Respondent."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":27,"blockId":2,"value":"_________________________________________","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":246.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 264, 246, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":318.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"_________________________________________"}],"Rectangle":"72, 140, 246, 136","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" IOAN MICULA, et al. ,\r\n Petitioners,\r\n v.\r\n THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA,\r\n Respondent.\r\n _________________________________________\r\n","MarginRight":318.0}}},{"Key":4,"Value":{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":29,"columnEnd":29,"text":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":null,"rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12","alignment":1,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":1,"id":29,"blockId":9,"value":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":193.08,"y":301.08,"width":225.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12"}],"MarginLeft":193.08,"MarginRight":418.8,"MarginBottom":313.08,"MarginTop":301.08,"Value":"MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER"}],"Rectangle":"193, 301, 225, 12","MarginLeft":193.08,"Value":" MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER\r\n","MarginRight":418.8}}},{"Key":5,"Value":{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":30,"columnEnd":31,"text":" INTRODUCTION ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hI","paragraphId":"hI","paragraphLabel":"I.","rectangle":"72, 328, 132, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":30,"blockId":10,"value":"I.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":328.68,"width":7.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 328, 7, 12"},{"type":2,"id":31,"blockId":10,"value":"INTRODUCTION","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":328.68,"width":96.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 328, 96, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":204.0,"MarginBottom":340.68,"MarginTop":328.68,"Value":"I. INTRODUCTION"}],"Rectangle":"72, 328, 132, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" I. INTRODUCTION\r\n","MarginRight":204.0}}},{"Key":6,"Value":{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":32,"columnEnd":66,"text":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”). In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa1.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa1.1","paragraphLabel":"1.1","rectangle":"72, 356, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”). In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now","averageFontSize":11.995061728395061,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":32,"blockId":11,"value":"The court is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":356.28,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 356, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":33,"blockId":11,"value":"compelled","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.76,"y":356.28,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 356, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":34,"blockId":11,"value":"once more","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.6,"y":356.28,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 356, 52, 12"},{"type":2,"id":35,"blockId":11,"value":"to revisit","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":285.48,"y":356.28,"width":44.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"285, 356, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":36,"blockId":11,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.56,"y":356.28,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 356, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":37,"blockId":11,"value":"seemingly never-ending","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":354.0,"y":356.28,"width":117.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"354, 356, 117, 12"},{"type":2,"id":38,"blockId":11,"value":"saga","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.28,"y":356.28,"width":21.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 356, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":39,"blockId":11,"value":"over an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.32,"y":356.28,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 356, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":368.28,"MarginTop":356.28,"Value":"The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":40,"blockId":11,"value":"international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":383.88,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 383, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":395.88,"MarginTop":383.88,"Value":"international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”)."},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":41,"blockId":11,"value":"In this latest installment,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":411.48,"width":119.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 411, 119, 12"},{"type":2,"id":42,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania seeks relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.28,"y":411.48,"width":101.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 411, 101, 12"},{"type":2,"id":43,"blockId":11,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.8,"y":411.48,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 411, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":44,"blockId":11,"value":"Federal Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":329.52,"y":411.48,"width":61.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"329, 411, 61, 12"},{"type":2,"id":45,"blockId":11,"value":"of Civil Procedure","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":394.8,"y":411.48,"width":89.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"394, 411, 89, 12"},{"type":2,"id":46,"blockId":11,"value":"60(b) from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.32,"y":411.48,"width":52.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 411, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":423.48,"MarginTop":411.48,"Value":"In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":47,"blockId":11,"value":"three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":439.08,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 439, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":451.08,"MarginTop":439.08,"Value":"three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":48,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":466.56,"width":367.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 466, 367, 12"},{"type":2,"id":49,"blockId":11,"value":"Taken together, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":446.28,"y":466.56,"width":93.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"446, 466, 93, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":478.56,"MarginTop":466.56,"Value":"Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":50,"blockId":11,"value":"Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":494.16,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 494, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":51,"blockId":11,"value":"(1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":127.44,"y":494.16,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"127, 494, 13, 12"},{"type":2,"id":52,"blockId":11,"value":"confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.56,"y":494.16,"width":394.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 494, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":506.16,"MarginTop":494.16,"Value":"Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":53,"blockId":11,"value":"under the International","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":521.76,"width":109.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 521, 109, 12"},{"type":2,"id":54,"blockId":11,"value":"Convention on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.04,"y":521.76,"width":71.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 521, 71, 12"},{"type":2,"id":55,"blockId":11,"value":"the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.68,"y":521.76,"width":280.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 521, 280, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":533.76,"MarginTop":521.76,"Value":"under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":56,"blockId":11,"value":"Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":549.36,"width":194.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 549, 194, 12"},{"type":2,"id":57,"blockId":11,"value":"“the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.92,"y":549.36,"width":19.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 549, 19, 12"},{"type":2,"id":58,"blockId":11,"value":"Convention”) and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.24,"y":549.36,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 549, 87, 12"},{"type":2,"id":59,"blockId":11,"value":"(2)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.6,"y":549.36,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"390, 549, 13, 12"},{"type":2,"id":60,"blockId":11,"value":"imposed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.92,"y":549.36,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 549, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":61,"blockId":11,"value":"sanctions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":456.0,"y":549.36,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"456, 549, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":62,"blockId":11,"value":"against","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":506.04,"y":549.36,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"506, 549, 33, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":561.36,"MarginTop":549.36,"Value":"Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":63,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":576.96,"width":388.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 576, 388, 12"},{"type":2,"id":64,"blockId":11,"value":"1","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":460.68,"y":576.36,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"460, 576, 4, 8"},{"type":2,"id":65,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.44,"y":576.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 576, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":66,"blockId":11,"value":"now","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.6,"y":576.96,"width":20.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 576, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":588.96,"MarginTop":576.36,"Value":"Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now"}],"Rectangle":"108, 356, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court is compelled once more to revisit the seemingly never-ending saga over an\r\n international arbitration award entered against Respondent Government of Romania (“Romania”).\r\n In this latest installment, Romania seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from\r\n three judgments (“the Judgments”) entered by this court in favor of Petitioners Ioan Micula, Viorel\r\n Micula, and three entities they control (together, “Micula” or “Petitioners”). Taken together, the\r\n Judgments (1) confirmed an arbitration award entered against Romania by a tribunal convened\r\n under the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and\r\n Nationals of Other States (“ICSID” or “the Convention”) and (2) imposed sanctions against\r\n Romania for its failure to comply with court-ordered, post-judgment discovery. 1 Romania now\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":8,"Value":{"pageNum":1,"columnStart":67,"columnEnd":108,"text":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I , this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"fn1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"fn1","paragraphLabel":"1","rectangle":"71, 626, 468, 90","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I , this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,","averageFontSize":9.99542857142857,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":67,"blockId":13,"value":"1","fontName":"Times","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":626.88,"width":3.29,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 626, 3, 6"},{"type":3,"id":68,"blockId":13,"value":"The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.88,"y":626.88,"width":262.19,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 626, 262, 9"},{"type":3,"id":69,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":342.94,"y":626.88,"width":139.91,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"342, 626, 139, 9"},{"type":3,"id":70,"blockId":13,"value":", 404 F. Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":482.86,"y":626.88,"width":57.14,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"482, 626, 57, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":636.84,"MarginTop":626.88,"Value":"1 The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":71,"blockId":13,"value":"3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) (","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":638.88,"width":97.56,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 638, 97, 9"},{"type":3,"id":72,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":169.55,"y":638.88,"width":35.05,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"169, 638, 35, 9"},{"type":3,"id":73,"blockId":13,"value":"),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":204.59,"y":638.88,"width":5.88,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"204, 638, 5, 9"},{"type":3,"id":74,"blockId":13,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":213.82,"y":638.88,"width":18.9,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"213, 638, 18, 9"},{"type":3,"id":75,"blockId":13,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":232.79,"y":638.88,"width":158.99,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 638, 158, 9"},{"type":3,"id":76,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":395.27,"y":638.88,"width":142.3,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"395, 638, 142, 9"},{"type":3,"id":77,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.58,"y":638.88,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 638, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":648.84,"MarginTop":638.88,"Value":"3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":78,"blockId":13,"value":"No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":650.41,"width":268.55,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 650, 268, 9"},{"type":3,"id":79,"blockId":13,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":342.94,"y":650.41,"width":18.9,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"342, 650, 18, 9"},{"type":3,"id":80,"blockId":13,"value":", No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":361.91,"y":650.41,"width":178.07,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"361, 650, 178, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":660.37,"MarginTop":650.41,"Value":"No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":81,"blockId":13,"value":"June 24, 2022) [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.98,"y":661.93,"width":109.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 661, 109, 9"},{"type":3,"id":82,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":184.18,"y":661.93,"width":37.74,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"184, 661, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":83,"blockId":13,"value":"]; and (3)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":221.86,"y":661.93,"width":37.79,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"221, 661, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":84,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":262.53,"y":661.93,"width":139.79,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"262, 661, 139, 9"},{"type":3,"id":85,"blockId":13,"value":", No. 17-cv-2332-APM,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":402.32,"y":661.93,"width":96.49,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"402, 661, 96, 9"},{"type":3,"id":86,"blockId":13,"value":"2021 WL","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":501.7,"y":661.93,"width":38.28,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 661, 38, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.98,"MarginRight":539.98,"MarginBottom":671.89,"MarginTop":661.93,"Value":"June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":87,"blockId":13,"value":"5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.97,"y":673.45,"width":130.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 673, 130, 9"},{"type":3,"id":88,"blockId":13,"value":"appeal filed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":205.42,"y":673.45,"width":47.57,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"205, 673, 47, 9"},{"type":3,"id":89,"blockId":13,"value":"December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":255.55,"y":673.45,"width":181.93,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 673, 181, 9"},{"type":3,"id":90,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":440.12,"y":673.45,"width":40.98,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"440, 673, 40, 9"},{"type":3,"id":91,"blockId":13,"value":"].","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":481.16,"y":673.45,"width":5.88,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"481, 673, 5, 9"},{"type":3,"id":92,"blockId":13,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":492.32,"y":673.45,"width":8.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"492, 673, 8, 9"},{"type":3,"id":93,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":503.35,"y":673.45,"width":34.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"503, 673, 34, 9"},{"type":3,"id":94,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.56,"y":673.45,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 673, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.97,"MarginRight":539.9599999999999,"MarginBottom":683.4100000000001,"MarginTop":673.45,"Value":"5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":95,"blockId":13,"value":"this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.96,"y":684.86,"width":468.01,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 684, 468, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.96,"MarginRight":539.97,"MarginBottom":694.82,"MarginTop":684.86,"Value":"this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":96,"blockId":13,"value":"sum of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.96,"y":696.38,"width":27.72,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 696, 27, 9"},{"type":3,"id":97,"blockId":13,"value":"$331,557,687.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":102.44,"y":696.38,"width":57.48,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 696, 57, 9"},{"type":3,"id":98,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":165.44,"y":696.38,"width":28.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"165, 696, 28, 9"},{"type":3,"id":99,"blockId":13,"value":"I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":196.4,"y":696.38,"width":3.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"196, 696, 3, 9"},{"type":3,"id":100,"blockId":13,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":199.76,"y":696.38,"width":122.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 696, 122, 9"},{"type":3,"id":101,"blockId":13,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":327.19,"y":696.38,"width":8.28,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 696, 8, 9"},{"type":3,"id":102,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":338.23,"y":696.38,"width":37.62,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 696, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":103,"blockId":13,"value":", this court denied Romania’s request for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":375.91,"y":696.38,"width":164.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 696, 164, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.96,"MarginRight":539.94,"MarginBottom":706.34,"MarginTop":696.38,"Value":"sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":104,"blockId":13,"value":"relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.95,"y":707.9,"width":265.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 707, 265, 9"},{"type":3,"id":105,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":341.96,"y":707.9,"width":37.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"341, 707, 37, 9"},{"type":3,"id":106,"blockId":13,"value":", 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":379.03,"y":707.9,"width":115.8,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 707, 115, 9"},{"type":3,"id":107,"blockId":13,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":496.88,"y":707.9,"width":40.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"496, 707, 40, 9"},{"type":3,"id":108,"blockId":13,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":537.55,"y":707.9,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 707, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.95,"MarginRight":539.9499999999999,"MarginBottom":717.86,"MarginTop":707.9,"Value":"relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,"}],"Rectangle":"72, 626, 467, 90","MarginLeft":71.95,"Value":" 1 The Judgments are contained in the following prior opinions: (1) Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp.\r\n 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020); (2) Micula v. Government of Romania ,\r\n No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2020 WL 6822695 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020), aff’d , No. 20-7116, 2022 WL 2281645 (D.C. Cir.\r\n June 24, 2022) [hereinafter Micula II ]; and (3) Micula v. Government of Romania , No. 17-cv-2332-APM, 2021 WL\r\n 5178852 (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021), appeal filed December 7, 2021, ECF No. 178 [hereinafter Micula III ]. In Micula I ,\r\n this court confirmed the arbitration award entered against Romania and entered judgment in favor of Petitioners in the\r\n sum of $331,557,687. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d. at 285–286. In Micula II , this court denied Romania’s request for\r\n relief from judgment and granted Petitioner’s request for sanctions. Micula II , 2020 WL 6822695 at *7. In Micula III ,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":7,"Value":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":113,"columnEnd":118,"text":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":113,"blockId":12,"value":"asks the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":38.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":114,"blockId":12,"value":"court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.64,"y":71.16,"width":426.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 71, 426, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":115,"blockId":12,"value":"of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":116,"blockId":12,"value":"Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":117,"blockId":12,"value":"the Judgments.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":72.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":118,"blockId":12,"value":"The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.0,"y":153.96,"width":358.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"150, 153, 358, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":508.32,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" asks the court to set aside the Judgments based on recent decisions issued by the Grand Chamber\r\n of the Court of Justice for the European Union—the highest court of the European Union—that\r\n Romania believes vitiates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction and thus entitles it to relief from\r\n the Judgments. The European Commission, as amicus curiae, supports Romania’s motion.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":10,"Value":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":119,"columnEnd":119,"text":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa1.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa1.2","paragraphLabel":"1.2","rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":119,"blockId":17,"value":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":181.56,"width":272.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":380.64,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 181, 272, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" For the reasons that follow, Romania’s motion is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":380.64}}},{"Key":11,"Value":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":120,"columnEnd":121,"text":" BACKGROUND ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hII","paragraphId":"hII","paragraphLabel":"II.","rectangle":"72, 209, 123, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":120,"blockId":18,"value":"II.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":12.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":121,"blockId":18,"value":"BACKGROUND","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 209, 87, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":195.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"II. BACKGROUND"}],"Rectangle":"72, 209, 123, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" II. BACKGROUND\r\n","MarginRight":195.95999999999998}}},{"Key":12,"Value":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":122,"columnEnd":138,"text":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions and will not be rehashed here. See e.g., Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2","paragraphLabel":"2.","rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions and will not be rehashed here. See e.g., Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":122,"blockId":19,"value":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":236.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 236, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":123,"blockId":19,"value":"and will not be rehashed here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":145.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 145, 12"},{"type":2,"id":124,"blockId":19,"value":"See e.g.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":224.04,"y":264.36,"width":37.15,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"224, 264, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":125,"blockId":19,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.24,"y":264.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 264, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":126,"blockId":19,"value":"Micula v. Government of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.6,"y":264.36,"width":167.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"267, 264, 167, 12"},{"type":2,"id":127,"blockId":19,"value":", 404 F.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.24,"y":264.36,"width":37.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 264, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":128,"blockId":19,"value":"Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":475.8,"y":264.36,"width":27.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"475, 264, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":129,"blockId":19,"value":"3d 265","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":506.76,"y":264.36,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"506, 264, 33, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"and will not be rehashed here. See e.g. , Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":130,"blockId":19,"value":"(D.D.C. 2019) (","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":77.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 77, 12"},{"type":2,"id":131,"blockId":19,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.0,"y":291.96,"width":41.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"150, 291, 41, 12"},{"type":2,"id":132,"blockId":19,"value":"),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.88,"y":291.96,"width":6.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 291, 6, 12"},{"type":2,"id":133,"blockId":19,"value":"aff’d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":202.68,"y":291.96,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"202, 291, 22, 12"},{"type":2,"id":134,"blockId":19,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.36,"y":291.96,"width":170.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 291, 170, 12"},{"type":2,"id":135,"blockId":19,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.32,"y":291.96,"width":47.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 291, 47, 12"},{"type":2,"id":136,"blockId":19,"value":"simply","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":454.44,"y":291.96,"width":32.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"454, 291, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":137,"blockId":19,"value":"recaps the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.04,"y":291.96,"width":48.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 291, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"(D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":138,"blockId":19,"value":"facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":206.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 206, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":278.64,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion."}],"Rectangle":"108, 236, 432, 95","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The factual background of this dispute is extensively covered in the court’s prior opinions\r\n and will not be rehashed here. See e.g. , Micula v. Government of Romania , 404 F. Supp. 3d 265\r\n (D.D.C. 2019) ( Micula I ), aff’d , 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The court simply recaps the\r\n facts relevant to Romania’s instant motion.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":13,"Value":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":139,"columnEnd":143,"text":" Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.A","paragraphId":"h2.A","paragraphLabel":"A.","rectangle":"108, 347, 396, 25","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":139,"blockId":20,"value":"A.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 347, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":140,"blockId":20,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":347.16,"width":55.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 347, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":141,"blockId":20,"value":"Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.48,"y":347.16,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"204, 347, 249, 12"},{"type":3,"id":142,"blockId":20,"value":"Bilateral","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":459.36,"y":347.16,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"459, 347, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":504.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"A. Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":143,"blockId":20,"value":"Investment Treaty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":360.96,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 360, 95, 12"}],"MarginLeft":144.0,"MarginRight":239.04000000000002,"MarginBottom":372.96,"MarginTop":360.96,"Value":"Investment Treaty"}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 395, 25","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" A. Romania’s Investment Incentive and the Sweden-Romania Bilateral\r\n Investment Treaty\r\n","MarginRight":504.0}}},{"Key":14,"Value":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":144,"columnEnd":153,"text":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.1","paragraphLabel":"2.A.1","rectangle":"72, 388, 468, 149","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":144,"blockId":21,"value":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":388.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 388, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":400.56,"MarginTop":388.56,"Value":"Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":145,"blockId":21,"value":"1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":416.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 416, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":428.16,"MarginTop":416.16,"Value":"1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":146,"blockId":21,"value":"a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":443.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 443, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":455.76,"MarginTop":443.76,"Value":"a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":147,"blockId":21,"value":"certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":471.36,"width":322.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 471, 322, 12"},{"type":2,"id":148,"blockId":21,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.68,"y":471.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"400, 471, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":149,"blockId":21,"value":"at 270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.64,"y":471.36,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 471, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":150,"blockId":21,"value":"Petitioners Viorel","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.16,"y":471.36,"width":84.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 471, 84, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":483.36,"MarginTop":471.36,"Value":"certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":151,"blockId":21,"value":"and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":498.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 498, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":510.96,"MarginTop":498.96,"Value":"and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":152,"blockId":21,"value":"the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":526.56,"width":307.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 526, 307, 12"},{"type":2,"id":153,"blockId":21,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.2,"y":526.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"385, 526, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":398.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":538.56,"MarginTop":526.56,"Value":"the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 388, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Following the overthrow of the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu in December\r\n 1989, Romania adopted a series of measures designed to attract and promote investment, including\r\n a measure called Emergency Government Ordinance No. 24/1998 (“EGO 24”). EGO 24 provided\r\n certain tax incentives to invest in “disfavored” regions of Romania. Id. at 270. Petitioners Viorel\r\n and Ioan Micula are Swedish nationals who, in 1998, began investing in Romania in reliance on\r\n the incentives offered by the Romanian government in EGO 24. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":15,"Value":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":154,"columnEnd":159,"text":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.2","paragraphLabel":"2.A.2","rectangle":"72, 554, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":154,"blockId":22,"value":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":554.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 554, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":566.16,"MarginTop":554.16,"Value":"In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":155,"blockId":22,"value":"(“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":581.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 581, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":593.76,"MarginTop":581.76,"Value":"(“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":156,"blockId":22,"value":"invested in the other country.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":609.36,"width":152.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 609, 152, 12"},{"type":3,"id":157,"blockId":22,"value":"Id","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.48,"y":609.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"234, 609, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":158,"blockId":22,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.44,"y":609.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"244, 609, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":159,"blockId":22,"value":"As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.16,"y":609.36,"width":282.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 609, 282, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":621.36,"MarginTop":609.36,"Value":"invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT"}],"Rectangle":"108, 554, 432, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" In 2002, Romania entered into a bilateral investment treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden\r\n (“Sweden-Romania BIT”), which “granted certain protections to each country’s investors who\r\n invested in the other country.” Id . As relevant here, Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":9,"Value":{"pageNum":2,"columnStart":160,"columnEnd":174,"text":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay discovery. Micula III, 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions, and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 44","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay discovery. Micula III, 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions, and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .","averageFontSize":10.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":160,"blockId":14,"value":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":673.44,"width":468.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.03,"MarginBottom":683.4000000000001,"MarginTop":673.44,"Value":"this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":161,"blockId":14,"value":"discovery.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.84,"width":41.52,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 41, 9"},{"type":6,"id":162,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":118.32,"y":684.84,"width":40.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"118, 684, 40, 9"},{"type":6,"id":163,"blockId":14,"value":", 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":159.12,"y":684.84,"width":114.84,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"159, 684, 114, 9"},{"type":6,"id":164,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":278.76,"y":684.84,"width":34.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"278, 684, 34, 9"},{"type":6,"id":165,"blockId":14,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":315.33,"y":684.84,"width":14.43,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 684, 14, 9"},{"type":6,"id":166,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula II","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":332.17,"y":684.84,"width":37.44,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"332, 684, 37, 9"},{"type":6,"id":167,"blockId":14,"value":"were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":372.0,"y":684.84,"width":168.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 684, 168, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.03,"MarginBottom":694.8000000000001,"MarginTop":684.84,"Value":"discovery. Micula III , 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":168,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula III","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.01,"y":696.37,"width":41.34,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 696, 41, 9"},{"type":6,"id":169,"blockId":14,"value":"remains pending before the D.C. Circuit.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":115.78,"y":696.37,"width":165.87,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"115, 696, 165, 9"},{"type":6,"id":170,"blockId":14,"value":"Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":287.54,"y":696.37,"width":209.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"287, 696, 209, 9"},{"type":6,"id":171,"blockId":14,"value":"decisions,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":500.42,"y":696.37,"width":39.59,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"500, 696, 39, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.01,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions,"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":172,"blockId":14,"value":"and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.01,"y":707.89,"width":202.32,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 707, 202, 9"},{"type":6,"id":173,"blockId":14,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":276.85,"y":707.89,"width":34.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"276, 707, 34, 9"},{"type":6,"id":174,"blockId":14,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":310.93,"y":707.89,"width":2.4,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"310, 707, 2, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.01,"MarginRight":313.33,"MarginBottom":717.85,"MarginTop":707.89,"Value":"and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I ."}],"Rectangle":"72, 673, 468, 43","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" this court granted Petitioners’ motion for judgment on accrued sanctions and denied Romania’s motion to stay\r\n discovery. Micula III , 2021 WL 5178852 at *3–4. Micula I and Micula II were affirmed on appeal and the appeal of\r\n Micula III remains pending before the D.C. Circuit. Any reference to “the Judgments” refers to all three decisions,\r\n and any reference to “the Judgment” refers only to Micula I .\r\n","MarginRight":540.03}}},{"Key":16,"Value":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":180,"columnEnd":183,"text":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":180,"blockId":23,"value":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":181,"blockId":23,"value":"either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":182,"blockId":23,"value":"the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":291.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 291, 12"},{"type":3,"id":183,"blockId":23,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.84,"y":126.36,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"369, 126, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":401.88,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" provides that disputes concerning investments are to be settled by international arbitration, before\r\n either an ICSID arbitral tribunal or an ad hoc tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of\r\n the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. See id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":17,"Value":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":184,"columnEnd":194,"text":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state- sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects they had planned.” Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.A.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.A.3","paragraphLabel":"2.A.3","rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state- sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects they had planned.” Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":184,"blockId":24,"value":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":153.96,"width":332.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 153, 332, 12"},{"type":3,"id":185,"blockId":24,"value":"Romania took that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":153.96,"width":91.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 153, 91, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":186,"blockId":24,"value":"action as part of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":82.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":187,"blockId":24,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":159.96,"y":181.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"159, 181, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":188,"blockId":24,"value":"process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.64,"y":181.56,"width":360.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 181, 360, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.92,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":189,"blockId":24,"value":"sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":350.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 350, 12"},{"type":3,"id":190,"blockId":24,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.32,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"427, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":191,"blockId":24,"value":"Romania’s decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":445.56,"y":209.16,"width":94.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"445, 209, 94, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":192,"blockId":24,"value":"caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":193,"blockId":24,"value":"they had planned.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 90, 12"},{"type":3,"id":194,"blockId":24,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.24,"y":264.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"168, 264, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":181.20000000000002,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"they had planned.” Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" In August 2004, Romania announced that it would repeal EGO 24. Romania took that\r\n action as part of the process of joining the European Union (“EU”), which considered state-\r\n sponsored investment incentives, like EGO 24, to be unlawful “state aid.” Id. Romania’s decision\r\n caused Petitioners “to suffer cash constraints that prevented them from completing the projects\r\n they had planned.” Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":18,"Value":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":195,"columnEnd":196,"text":" Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.B","paragraphId":"h2.B","paragraphLabel":"B.","rectangle":"108, 291, 345, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":195,"blockId":25,"value":"B.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":196,"blockId":25,"value":"Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":291.96,"width":309.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 291, 309, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":453.72,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"B. Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU"}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 345, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" B. Arbitration Proceedings and Romania’s Accession to the EU\r\n","MarginRight":453.72}}},{"Key":19,"Value":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":197,"columnEnd":231,"text":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.B.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.B.1","paragraphLabel":"2.B.1","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":197,"blockId":26,"value":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":198,"blockId":26,"value":"Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":199,"blockId":26,"value":"ICSID tribunal.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":75.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 75, 12"},{"type":2,"id":200,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.68,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"154, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":201,"blockId":26,"value":"In January 2007, while","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.08,"y":374.76,"width":111.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 374, 111, 12"},{"type":2,"id":202,"blockId":26,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.76,"y":374.76,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 374, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":203,"blockId":26,"value":"arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.12,"y":374.76,"width":230.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 374, 230, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":204,"blockId":26,"value":"formally joined the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 95, 12"},{"type":2,"id":205,"blockId":26,"value":"EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":171.6,"y":402.36,"width":18.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"171, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":206,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.68,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"199, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":207,"blockId":26,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.64,"y":402.36,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 402, 35, 12"},{"type":2,"id":208,"blockId":26,"value":"In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":402.36,"width":279.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 402, 279, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":209,"blockId":26,"value":"Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":210,"blockId":26,"value":"(the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.96,"y":429.96,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 429, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":211,"blockId":26,"value":"“Final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":155.16,"y":429.96,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"155, 429, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":212,"blockId":26,"value":"Decision”)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.88,"y":429.96,"width":51.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 429, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":213,"blockId":26,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.44,"y":429.96,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 429, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":214,"blockId":26,"value":"awarded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":274.32,"y":429.96,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"274, 429, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":215,"blockId":26,"value":"them","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.72,"y":429.96,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 429, 24, 12"},{"type":2,"id":216,"blockId":26,"value":"monetary","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.32,"y":429.96,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"352, 429, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":217,"blockId":26,"value":"damages","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":404.16,"y":429.96,"width":42.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"404, 429, 42, 12"},{"type":2,"id":218,"blockId":26,"value":"plus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.88,"y":429.96,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"452, 429, 20, 12"},{"type":2,"id":219,"blockId":26,"value":"interest","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.52,"y":429.96,"width":35.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 429, 35, 12"},{"type":2,"id":220,"blockId":26,"value":"(the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.4,"y":429.96,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 429, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":221,"blockId":26,"value":"“Award”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":50.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":222,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.04,"y":457.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"131, 457, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":223,"blockId":26,"value":"at 270–71.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":147.0,"y":457.56,"width":53.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"147, 457, 53, 12"},{"type":2,"id":224,"blockId":26,"value":"Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.52,"y":457.56,"width":303.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 457, 303, 12"},{"type":2,"id":225,"blockId":26,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":517.44,"y":457.56,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"517, 457, 22, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"“Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":226,"blockId":26,"value":"Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":383.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 383, 12"},{"type":2,"id":227,"blockId":26,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":458.04,"y":485.16,"width":30.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"458, 485, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":228,"blockId":26,"value":"the ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.4,"y":485.16,"width":48.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 485, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":229,"blockId":26,"value":"tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":176.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 176, 12"},{"type":2,"id":230,"blockId":26,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.04,"y":512.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"254, 512, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":231,"blockId":26,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.0,"y":512.76,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 512, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":302.64,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On August 2, 2005, in response to Romania’s repeal of EGO 24 and pursuant to the\r\n Sweden-Romania BIT, Petitioners initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an\r\n ICSID tribunal. Id. In January 2007, while the arbitration proceedings were pending, Romania\r\n formally joined the EU. Id. at 271. In December 2013, the ICSID tribunal ruled in favor of\r\n Petitioners (the “Final Decision”) and awarded them monetary damages plus interest (the\r\n “Award”). Id. at 270–71. Important for our purposes, Romania formally joined the EU after\r\n Petitioners invoked their right to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT but before the ICSID\r\n tribunal ruled in favor of Petitioners. Id. at 271.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":20,"Value":{"pageNum":3,"columnStart":232,"columnEnd":256,"text":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.B.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.B.2","paragraphLabel":"2.B.2","rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":232,"blockId":4,"value":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 540, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":233,"blockId":4,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":234,"blockId":4,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.08,"y":567.96,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 567, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":235,"blockId":4,"value":"advised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.16,"y":567.96,"width":36.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 567, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":236,"blockId":4,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.0,"y":567.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 567, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":237,"blockId":4,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.56,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"283, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":238,"blockId":4,"value":"implementing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.8,"y":567.96,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 567, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":239,"blockId":4,"value":"or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":380.88,"y":567.96,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"380, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":240,"blockId":4,"value":"executing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.08,"y":567.96,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":241,"blockId":4,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.0,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":242,"blockId":4,"value":"Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.88,"y":567.96,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 567, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":243,"blockId":4,"value":"would","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.76,"y":567.96,"width":30.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"509, 567, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":244,"blockId":4,"value":"constitute impermissible new state aid”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":198.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":245,"blockId":4,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.64,"y":595.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":246,"blockId":4,"value":"issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.32,"y":595.56,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 595, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":247,"blockId":4,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.84,"y":595.56,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 595, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":248,"blockId":4,"value":"“suspension","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.52,"y":595.56,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 595, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":249,"blockId":4,"value":"injunction”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.88,"y":595.56,"width":54.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"407, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":250,"blockId":4,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":467.4,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"467, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":251,"blockId":4,"value":"prohibited","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.8,"y":595.56,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 595, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":252,"blockId":4,"value":"Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":253,"blockId":4,"value":"whether the Award constituted state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":204.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 204, 12"},{"type":3,"id":254,"blockId":4,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":284.64,"y":650.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"284, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":255,"blockId":4,"value":"On March 30, 2015, the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.0,"y":650.76,"width":234.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 650, 234, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":256,"blockId":4,"value":"issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Shortly after the ICSID tribunal rendered the Final Decision and issued the Award, “the\r\n European Commission advised Romania that implementing or executing the Award would\r\n constitute impermissible new state aid” and issued a “suspension injunction” that prohibited\r\n Romania from fulfilling the award until the European Commission “reached a final decision on\r\n whether the Award constituted state aid.” Id. On March 30, 2015, the European Commission\r\n issued a decision finding that the Award constituted state aid in violation of EU law and instructed\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":21,"Value":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":262,"columnEnd":268,"text":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”), which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”), which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":262,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":242.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":263,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.16,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"320, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":264,"blockId":5,"value":"Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.88,"y":71.16,"width":201.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"338, 71, 201, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":265,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":266,"blockId":5,"value":"which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":267,"blockId":5,"value":"Union (“CJEU”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":83.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":268,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.28,"y":153.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"161, 153, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":174.24,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Union (“CJEU”). Id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 94","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania to cease payment (“State Aid Decision”). Id. Petitioners filed an appeal of the State Aid\r\n Decision with the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“General Court”),\r\n which is a constituent court of the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice of the European\r\n Union (“CJEU”). Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":22,"Value":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":269,"columnEnd":270,"text":" General Court Decision ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.C","paragraphId":"h2.C","paragraphLabel":"C.","rectangle":"108, 181, 157, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" General Court Decision ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":269,"blockId":6,"value":"C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":181.56,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 181, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":270,"blockId":6,"value":"General Court Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":181.56,"width":121.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 181, 121, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":265.32,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"C. General Court Decision"}],"Rectangle":"108, 181, 157, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" C. General Court Decision\r\n","MarginRight":265.32}}},{"Key":23,"Value":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":271,"columnEnd":302,"text":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.” Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General Court Decision to the CJEU. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.C","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.C","paragraphLabel":"2.C","rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.” Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General Court Decision to the CJEU. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":271,"blockId":7,"value":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":272,"blockId":7,"value":"State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":233.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 233, 12"},{"type":2,"id":273,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":312.96,"y":236.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"312, 236, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":274,"blockId":7,"value":"at 274.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.92,"y":236.76,"width":34.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 236, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":275,"blockId":7,"value":"The General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":370.92,"y":236.76,"width":91.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"370, 236, 91, 12"},{"type":2,"id":276,"blockId":7,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.32,"y":236.76,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"466, 236, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":277,"blockId":7,"value":"“that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":516.72,"y":236.76,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"516, 236, 23, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":278,"blockId":7,"value":"EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":279,"blockId":7,"value":"thus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 20, 12"},{"type":2,"id":280,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":99.36,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"99, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":281,"blockId":7,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":121.32,"y":291.96,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"121, 291, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":282,"blockId":7,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":174.6,"y":291.96,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"174, 291, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":283,"blockId":7,"value":"“lacked","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.76,"y":291.96,"width":36.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 291, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":284,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":286.56,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"286, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":285,"blockId":7,"value":"‘competence’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.64,"y":291.96,"width":65.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 291, 65, 12"},{"type":2,"id":286,"blockId":7,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.12,"y":291.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 291, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":287,"blockId":7,"value":"declare","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.8,"y":291.96,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 291, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":288,"blockId":7,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":439.92,"y":291.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"439, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":289,"blockId":7,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.24,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":290,"blockId":7,"value":"investment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.2,"y":291.96,"width":52.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 291, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":291,"blockId":7,"value":"incentives—which Romania offered","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":174.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 174, 12"},{"type":2,"id":292,"blockId":7,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":249.84,"y":319.56,"width":30.65,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"249, 319, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":293,"blockId":7,"value":"acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.44,"y":319.56,"width":256.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"283, 319, 256, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":294,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 347, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":295,"blockId":7,"value":"at 275.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.96,"y":347.16,"width":32.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 347, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":296,"blockId":7,"value":"The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.72,"y":347.16,"width":413.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"126, 347, 413, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":297,"blockId":7,"value":"state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":298,"blockId":7,"value":"for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":287.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 287, 12"},{"type":2,"id":299,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.44,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"367, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":300,"blockId":7,"value":"Romania appealed the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.8,"y":402.36,"width":151.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 402, 151, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":301,"blockId":7,"value":"Court Decision to the CJEU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":137.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 137, 12"},{"type":2,"id":302,"blockId":7,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.64,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"215, 429, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":228.6,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Court Decision to the CJEU. Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On June 18, 2019, the General Court issued a ruling annulling the European Commission’s\r\n State Aid Decision (“General Court Decision”). Id. at 274. The General Court explained “that\r\n EU law became applicable to Romania only upon its accession to the EU on January 1, 2007,” and\r\n thus the European Commission “lacked the ‘competence’ to declare that the investment\r\n incentives—which Romania offered before acceding to the EU—violated EU rules on state aid.”\r\n Id. at 275. The General Court further held that “satisfying the Award would not constitute illegal\r\n state aid, even though it was entered after accession,” because the Award “compensated Petitioners\r\n for Romania’s pre-EU-accession repeal of the incentives.” Id. Romania appealed the General\r\n Court Decision to the CJEU. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":24,"Value":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":303,"columnEnd":304,"text":" The Judgments ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.D","paragraphId":"h2.D","paragraphLabel":"D.","rectangle":"108, 457, 114, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The Judgments ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":303,"blockId":8,"value":"D.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 457, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":304,"blockId":8,"value":"The Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":457.56,"width":78.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 457, 78, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":222.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"D. The Judgments"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 114, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" D. The Judgments\r\n","MarginRight":222.95999999999998}}},{"Key":25,"Value":{"pageNum":4,"columnStart":305,"columnEnd":346,"text":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.1","paragraphLabel":"2.D.1","rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":305,"blockId":9,"value":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":485.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 485, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":306,"blockId":9,"value":"granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":231.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 231, 12"},{"type":2,"id":307,"blockId":9,"value":"Id","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.72,"y":512.76,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"309, 512, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":308,"blockId":9,"value":". at 285.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.8,"y":512.76,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 512, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":309,"blockId":9,"value":"This court determined that it had the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.92,"y":512.76,"width":175.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 512, 175, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":310,"blockId":9,"value":"subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":311,"blockId":9,"value":"Immunities Act (“FSIA”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":126.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 126, 12"},{"type":2,"id":312,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.96,"y":567.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"204, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":313,"blockId":9,"value":"at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.92,"y":567.96,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 567, 33, 12"},{"type":2,"id":314,"blockId":9,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.88,"y":567.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":315,"blockId":9,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.56,"y":567.96,"width":17.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 567, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":316,"blockId":9,"value":"argued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.08,"y":567.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 567, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":317,"blockId":9,"value":"that jurisdiction was improper","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.96,"y":567.96,"width":145.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 567, 145, 12"},{"type":2,"id":318,"blockId":9,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.64,"y":567.96,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 567, 27, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":319,"blockId":9,"value":"the FSIA arbitration exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":150.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 150, 12"},{"type":2,"id":320,"blockId":9,"value":"because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.2,"y":595.56,"width":313.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 595, 313, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":321,"blockId":9,"value":"invalid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":36.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":322,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.68,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"118, 623, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":323,"blockId":9,"value":"at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.64,"y":623.16,"width":36.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 623, 36, 12"},{"type":2,"id":324,"blockId":9,"value":"Romania’s argument was predicated on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":182.04,"y":623.16,"width":218.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 623, 218, 12"},{"type":2,"id":325,"blockId":9,"value":"CJEU’s decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.6,"y":623.16,"width":97.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 623, 97, 12"},{"type":2,"id":326,"blockId":9,"value":"Slovak","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.84,"y":623.16,"width":32.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"507, 623, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":327,"blockId":9,"value":"Republic v. Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":99.55,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 650, 99, 12"},{"type":2,"id":328,"blockId":9,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":171.6,"y":650.76,"width":3.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"171, 650, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":329,"blockId":9,"value":"which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.76,"y":650.76,"width":360.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 650, 360, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":330,"blockId":9,"value":"“under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 32, 12"},{"type":2,"id":331,"blockId":9,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.04,"y":678.36,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 678, 29, 12"},{"type":2,"id":332,"blockId":9,"value":"an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.84,"y":678.36,"width":11.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 678, 11, 12"},{"type":2,"id":333,"blockId":9,"value":"investor","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.52,"y":678.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"161, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":334,"blockId":9,"value":"from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":205.68,"y":678.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"205, 678, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":335,"blockId":9,"value":"one","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.36,"y":678.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 678, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":336,"blockId":9,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.16,"y":678.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 678, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":337,"blockId":9,"value":"those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":272.64,"y":678.36,"width":25.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"272, 678, 25, 12"},{"type":2,"id":338,"blockId":9,"value":"Member","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":303.48,"y":678.36,"width":40.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"303, 678, 40, 12"},{"type":2,"id":339,"blockId":9,"value":"States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.44,"y":678.36,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 678, 28, 12"},{"type":2,"id":340,"blockId":9,"value":"may,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":383.52,"y":678.36,"width":23.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"383, 678, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":341,"blockId":9,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.68,"y":678.36,"width":9.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 678, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":342,"blockId":9,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.56,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":343,"blockId":9,"value":"event","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.6,"y":678.36,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 678, 26, 12"},{"type":2,"id":344,"blockId":9,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.04,"y":678.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 678, 10, 12"},{"type":2,"id":345,"blockId":9,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.52,"y":678.36,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 678, 5, 12"},{"type":2,"id":346,"blockId":9,"value":"dispute","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.2,"y":678.36,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 678, 34, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"“under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute"}],"Rectangle":"108, 485, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On September 11, 2019, while Romania’s appeal before the CJEU was pending, this court\r\n granted Micula’s petition to confirm the Award. Id . at 285. This court determined that it had the\r\n subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign\r\n Immunities Act (“FSIA”). Id. at 280. Romania had argued that jurisdiction was improper under\r\n the FSIA arbitration exception because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was\r\n invalid. Id. at 277. Romania’s argument was predicated on the CJEU’s decision in Slovak\r\n Republic v. Achmea , which held that EU law prohibited agreements between Member States\r\n “under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":26,"Value":{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":352,"columnEnd":378,"text":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 277.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":352,"blockId":10,"value":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":353,"blockId":10,"value":"State before an arbitral tribunal.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":159.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 159, 12"},{"type":3,"id":354,"blockId":10,"value":"Mem. of L. in Opp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.2,"y":98.76,"width":94.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 98, 94, 12"},{"type":3,"id":355,"blockId":10,"value":"to Pet.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.36,"y":98.76,"width":30.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 98, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":356,"blockId":10,"value":"to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":370.68,"y":98.76,"width":169.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"370, 98, 169, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":357,"blockId":10,"value":"Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":283.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 283, 12"},{"type":3,"id":358,"blockId":10,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.56,"y":126.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"358, 126, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":359,"blockId":10,"value":"] ¶ 60;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":126.36,"width":30.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 126, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":360,"blockId":10,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":431.28,"y":126.36,"width":40.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"431, 126, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":361,"blockId":10,"value":", 404 F. Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.2,"y":126.36,"width":67.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 126, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":362,"blockId":10,"value":"3d at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":47.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":363,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania maintained that under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.64,"y":153.96,"width":150.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 153, 150, 12"},{"type":3,"id":364,"blockId":10,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.48,"y":153.96,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"279, 153, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":365,"blockId":10,"value":"the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.24,"y":153.96,"width":218.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 153, 218, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":366,"blockId":10,"value":"BIT was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":41.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":367,"blockId":10,"value":"void","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":181.56,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 181, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":368,"blockId":10,"value":"as of Romania’s accession to the EU in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.0,"y":181.56,"width":190.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 181, 190, 12"},{"type":3,"id":369,"blockId":10,"value":"January 2007,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.32,"y":181.56,"width":67.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 181, 67, 12"},{"type":3,"id":370,"blockId":10,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.12,"y":181.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 181, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":371,"blockId":10,"value":"thus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":425.64,"y":181.56,"width":20.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"425, 181, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":372,"blockId":10,"value":"the court could not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":181.56,"width":91.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 181, 91, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":373,"blockId":10,"value":"rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":374,"blockId":10,"value":"view shared by the European Commission, which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 249, 12"},{"type":3,"id":375,"blockId":10,"value":"appeared as amicus curiae.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":326.88,"y":236.76,"width":134.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"326, 236, 134, 12"},{"type":3,"id":376,"blockId":10,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":471.12,"y":236.76,"width":42.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"471, 236, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":377,"blockId":10,"value":", 404","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":513.96,"y":236.76,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"513, 236, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":378,"blockId":10,"value":"F. Supp. 3d at 277.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":90.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":162.95999999999998,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"F. Supp. 3d at 277."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member\r\n State before an arbitral tribunal.” Mem. of L. in Opp. to Pet. to Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and\r\n Enter Judg., ECF No. 51, Ex. 3, ECF No. 51-3 [hereinafter Achmea ] ¶ 60; Micula I , 404 F. Supp.\r\n 3d at 277. Romania maintained that under Achmea the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT was void as of Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007, and thus the court could not\r\n rely on it for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the arbitration exception of the FSIA—a\r\n view shared by the European Commission, which appeared as amicus curiae. Micula I , 404\r\n F. Supp. 3d at 277.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":27,"Value":{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":379,"columnEnd":423,"text":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons. Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.” Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet. To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.2","paragraphLabel":"2.D.2","rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 343","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons. Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.” Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet. To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":13,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":379,"blockId":11,"value":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":217.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 291, 217, 12"},{"type":3,"id":380,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.84,"y":291.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 291, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":381,"blockId":11,"value":"-related arguments for three reasons.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.48,"y":291.96,"width":173.52,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"366, 291, 173, 24"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":315.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":382,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":383,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.96,"y":319.56,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 319, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":384,"blockId":11,"value":"First,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.04,"y":319.56,"width":24.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"128, 319, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":385,"blockId":11,"value":"the court found","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.36,"y":319.56,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 319, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":386,"blockId":11,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":233.64,"y":319.56,"width":36.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"233, 319, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":387,"blockId":11,"value":"facts of this case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.0,"y":319.56,"width":80.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 319, 80, 12"},{"type":3,"id":388,"blockId":11,"value":"were","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.88,"y":319.56,"width":23.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"356, 319, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":389,"blockId":11,"value":"“materially different” than those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":383.4,"y":319.56,"width":156.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"383, 319, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":390,"blockId":11,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":391,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":84.6,"y":347.16,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"84, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":392,"blockId":11,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":123.12,"y":347.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"123, 347, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":393,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":132.6,"y":347.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"132, 347, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":394,"blockId":11,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.16,"y":347.16,"width":9.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"152, 347, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":395,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":165.24,"y":347.16,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"165, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":396,"blockId":11,"value":"“both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":207.0,"y":347.16,"width":333.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"207, 347, 333, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":397,"blockId":11,"value":"proceeding commenced,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":118.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 118, 12"},{"type":3,"id":398,"blockId":11,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.48,"y":374.76,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"195, 374, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":399,"blockId":11,"value":"the Slovak Republic","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":222.72,"y":374.76,"width":100.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"222, 374, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":400,"blockId":11,"value":"entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.72,"y":374.76,"width":212.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 374, 212, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":401,"blockId":11,"value":"action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":288.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 288, 12"},{"type":3,"id":402,"blockId":11,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.6,"y":402.36,"width":30.65,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"363, 402, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":403,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania acceded to the EU.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":402.36,"width":142.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 402, 142, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":404,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 429, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":405,"blockId":11,"value":"Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":90.72,"y":429.96,"width":449.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"90, 429, 449, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":406,"blockId":11,"value":"application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":291.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 291, 12"},{"type":3,"id":407,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.6,"y":457.56,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"366, 457, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":408,"blockId":11,"value":"” because the governing law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.24,"y":457.56,"width":134.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 457, 134, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":409,"blockId":11,"value":"was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":312.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 312, 12"},{"type":3,"id":410,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.88,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"389, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":411,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":485.16,"width":134.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 485, 134, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":412,"blockId":11,"value":"To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":413,"blockId":11,"value":"Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":414,"blockId":11,"value":"this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":163.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 163, 12"},{"type":3,"id":415,"blockId":11,"value":"Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.4,"y":567.96,"width":294.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 567, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":416,"blockId":11,"value":"controlled, this court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":100.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":417,"blockId":11,"value":"reasoned that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":176.04,"y":595.56,"width":64.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"176, 595, 64, 12"},{"type":3,"id":418,"blockId":11,"value":"the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.6,"y":595.56,"width":296.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 595, 296, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":419,"blockId":11,"value":"way that implicates the core rationale of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":192.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 192, 12"},{"type":3,"id":420,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.48,"y":623.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"267, 623, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":421,"blockId":11,"value":".”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.12,"y":623.16,"width":8.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 623, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":422,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.52,"y":623.16,"width":40.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"320, 623, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":423,"blockId":11,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":361.44,"y":623.16,"width":118.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"361, 623, 118, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":479.52,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280."}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 432, 344","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" This court considered and rejected Romania’s Achmea -related arguments for three reasons.\r\n Id. at 279. First, the court found that the facts of this case were “materially different” than those\r\n in Achmea . Id. In Achmea “both the challenged government action occurred, and the arbitration\r\n proceeding commenced, after the Slovak Republic entered the EU,” as opposed to the instant\r\n action where “all key events to the parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.”\r\n Id. Second, the Final Decision issued by the ICSID tribunal did not “relate to the interpretation or\r\n application of EU law in the sense that concerned the court in Achmea ” because the governing law\r\n was the Sweden-Romania BIT’s “substantive rules,” not EU law. Id. at 279–80 (cleaned up); Pet.\r\n To Confirm ICSID Arb. Award and Enter Judg., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1–1-4 [hereinafter\r\n Final Decision] ¶ 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for\r\n this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Because the substantive rules of the Sweden-Romania BIT\r\n controlled, this court reasoned that the ICSID tribunal “did not decide a question of EU law in a\r\n way that implicates the core rationale of Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 280.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":28,"Value":{"pageNum":5,"columnStart":424,"columnEnd":438,"text":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which, as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.D.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.D.3","paragraphLabel":"2.D.3","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which, as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":424,"blockId":12,"value":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":425,"blockId":12,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":426,"blockId":12,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":88.44,"y":678.36,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"88, 678, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":427,"blockId":12,"value":"above,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.6,"y":678.36,"width":31.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 678, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":428,"blockId":12,"value":"overturned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.64,"y":678.36,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 678, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":429,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.08,"y":678.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":430,"blockId":12,"value":"State","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.32,"y":678.36,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 678, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":431,"blockId":12,"value":"Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.8,"y":678.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"289, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":432,"blockId":12,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.4,"y":678.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"314, 678, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":433,"blockId":12,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.48,"y":678.36,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 678, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":434,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.96,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":435,"blockId":12,"value":"grounds","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.08,"y":678.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":436,"blockId":12,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.32,"y":678.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":437,"blockId":12,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.8,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":438,"blockId":12,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.92,"y":678.36,"width":46.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 678, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Finally, this court found support for its conclusion in the General Court Decision which,\r\n as explained above, overturned the State Aid Decision on the grounds that the European\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":29,"Value":{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":444,"columnEnd":468,"text":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 260","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":10,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":444,"blockId":13,"value":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":445,"blockId":13,"value":"compatibility with EU state aid law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":179.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 179, 12"},{"type":3,"id":446,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.12,"y":98.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"258, 98, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":447,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":274.08,"y":98.76,"width":169.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"274, 98, 169, 12"},{"type":3,"id":448,"blockId":13,"value":"The General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":98.76,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 98, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":449,"blockId":13,"value":"determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":450,"blockId":13,"value":"law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":451,"blockId":13,"value":"2007,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":32.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":452,"blockId":13,"value":"and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.88,"y":181.56,"width":267.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 181, 267, 12"},{"type":3,"id":453,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.08,"y":181.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 181, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":454,"blockId":13,"value":"“infringements committed by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":181.56,"width":142.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 181, 142, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":455,"blockId":13,"value":"Romania” occurred before 2007.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":162.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 162, 12"},{"type":3,"id":456,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.2,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"244, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":457,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.16,"y":209.16,"width":187.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 209, 187, 12"},{"type":3,"id":458,"blockId":13,"value":"Furthermore, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":457.68,"y":209.16,"width":82.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"457, 209, 82, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":459,"blockId":13,"value":"General Court found that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":122.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 122, 12"},{"type":3,"id":460,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.12,"y":236.76,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"198, 236, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":461,"blockId":13,"value":"did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":240.36,"y":236.76,"width":299.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"240, 236, 299, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":462,"blockId":13,"value":"Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":385.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 385, 12"},{"type":3,"id":463,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.8,"y":264.36,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"466, 264, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":464,"blockId":13,"value":"This court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.56,"y":264.36,"width":52.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 264, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":465,"blockId":13,"value":"determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":426.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 426, 12"},{"type":3,"id":466,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":291.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 291, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":467,"blockId":13,"value":"did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":358.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 358, 12"},{"type":3,"id":468,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":436.92,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"436, 319, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":449.88,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 260","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Commission “lacked the competence to review Romania’s pre-accession actions and the Award’s\r\n compatibility with EU state aid law.” Id. at 280 (citing Final Decision ¶ 86). The General Court\r\n determined that the European Commission lacked competence to review the Award because “EU\r\n law became applicable in Romania only as from its accession to the European Union on 1 January\r\n 2007,” and both the “the events giving rise to the Award” and the “infringements committed by\r\n Romania” occurred before 2007. Id. at 280 (quoting Final Decision ¶ 77). Furthermore, the\r\n General Court found that Achmea did not affect the Award’s validity because, when issuing the\r\n Final Decision, the ICSID tribunal “did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. This court\r\n determined that the rationale of the General Court Decision supported the conclusion that Achmea\r\n did not render void the arbitration agreement in the Sweden-Romania BIT. Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":30,"Value":{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":469,"columnEnd":470,"text":" CJEU Decisions ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"h2.E","paragraphId":"h2.E","paragraphLabel":"E.","rectangle":"108, 347, 118, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" CJEU Decisions ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":469,"blockId":14,"value":"E.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 347, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":470,"blockId":14,"value":"CJEU Decisions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":347.16,"width":82.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 347, 82, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":226.32,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"E. CJEU Decisions"}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 118, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" E. CJEU Decisions\r\n","MarginRight":226.32}}},{"Key":31,"Value":{"pageNum":6,"columnStart":471,"columnEnd":507,"text":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”). See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU; and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112– 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.1","paragraphLabel":"2.E.1","rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”). See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU; and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112– 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":471,"blockId":15,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":374.76,"width":50.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 374, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":472,"blockId":15,"value":"reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.0,"y":374.76,"width":378.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 374, 378, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”)."},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":473,"blockId":15,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":16.61,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 402, 16, 12"},{"type":2,"id":474,"blockId":15,"value":"Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.56,"y":402.36,"width":448.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 402, 448, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":475,"blockId":15,"value":"Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":476,"blockId":15,"value":"that (1) the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":166.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 166, 12"},{"type":2,"id":477,"blockId":15,"value":"had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.52,"y":457.56,"width":297.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 457, 297, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":478,"blockId":15,"value":"which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":479,"blockId":15,"value":"and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":480,"blockId":15,"value":"Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":408.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 408, 12"},{"type":2,"id":481,"blockId":15,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.36,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"486, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":482,"blockId":15,"value":"¶¶ 112–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.08,"y":540.36,"width":37.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 540, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112–"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":483,"blockId":15,"value":"15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":2,"id":484,"blockId":15,"value":"In other words,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":94.8,"y":567.96,"width":74.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"94, 567, 74, 12"},{"type":2,"id":485,"blockId":15,"value":"if the ICSID tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.28,"y":567.96,"width":102.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 567, 102, 12"},{"type":2,"id":486,"blockId":15,"value":"“granted”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.6,"y":567.96,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":487,"blockId":15,"value":"the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.12,"y":567.96,"width":51.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 567, 51, 12"},{"type":2,"id":488,"blockId":15,"value":"after Romania joined the EU in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.2,"y":567.96,"width":154.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"385, 567, 154, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":489,"blockId":15,"value":"January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":490,"blockId":15,"value":"of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":248.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 248, 12"},{"type":2,"id":491,"blockId":15,"value":"The General Court had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":329.4,"y":623.16,"width":114.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"329, 623, 114, 12"},{"type":2,"id":492,"blockId":15,"value":"concluded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.92,"y":623.16,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 623, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":493,"blockId":15,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":502.68,"y":623.16,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"502, 623, 37, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":494,"blockId":15,"value":"Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":495,"blockId":15,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":496,"blockId":15,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":678.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 678, 17, 12"},{"type":2,"id":497,"blockId":15,"value":"occurred","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":140.28,"y":678.36,"width":41.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"140, 678, 41, 12"},{"type":2,"id":498,"blockId":15,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.64,"y":678.36,"width":30.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"188, 678, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":499,"blockId":15,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.72,"y":678.36,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 678, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":500,"blockId":15,"value":"joined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.52,"y":678.36,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 678, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":501,"blockId":15,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":312.0,"y":678.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"312, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":502,"blockId":15,"value":"EU,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.24,"y":678.36,"width":18.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":503,"blockId":15,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":678.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 678, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":504,"blockId":15,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.8,"y":678.36,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 678, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":505,"blockId":15,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.36,"y":678.36,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 678, 60, 12"},{"type":2,"id":506,"blockId":15,"value":"was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.68,"y":678.36,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 678, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":507,"blockId":15,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":524.76,"y":678.36,"width":15.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"524, 678, 15, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not"}],"Rectangle":"108, 374, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU reversed the General Court Decision on January 25, 2022 (“CJEU Decision”).\r\n See Gov. of Romania’s Mem. of Supp. of its Mot. for Relief from Judg., ECF No. 181 [hereinafter\r\n Romania Mot.], Ex. A, ECF No. 181-2 [hereinafter CJEU Decision]. The CJEU Decision reasoned\r\n that (1) the European Commission had the “competence” to review measures taken by Romania\r\n which might constitute state aid as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU;\r\n and (2) “in order to determine whether the Commission was competent to adopt the [State Aid\r\n Decision] . . . it was necessary to define the date on which” the Award was “granted.” Id. ¶¶ 112–\r\n 15. In other words, if the ICSID tribunal “granted” the Award after Romania joined the EU in\r\n January 2007, the European Commission had the authority to decide whether Romania’s payment\r\n of the Award would constitute unlawful state aid. The General Court had concluded that the\r\n Award was “granted” in 2005 when Romania repealed the incentives provided in EGO 24, and\r\n because this occurred before Romania joined the EU, the European Commission was not\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":32,"Value":{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":513,"columnEnd":537,"text":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151. The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151. The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":513,"blockId":16,"value":"competent to render the State Aid Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":219.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":514,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.24,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"297, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":515,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 126.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":313.32,"y":71.16,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"313, 71, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":516,"blockId":16,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":71.16,"width":51.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 71, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":517,"blockId":16,"value":"disagreed.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.88,"y":71.16,"width":49.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"407, 71, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":518,"blockId":16,"value":"It held that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.08,"y":71.16,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"466, 71, 73, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":519,"blockId":16,"value":"Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":520,"blockId":16,"value":"“was actually granted after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":109.2,"y":98.76,"width":133.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"109, 98, 133, 12"},{"type":3,"id":521,"blockId":16,"value":"[Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.8,"y":98.76,"width":292.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"247, 98, 292, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":522,"blockId":16,"value":"arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":223.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 223, 12"},{"type":3,"id":523,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.92,"y":126.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"301, 126, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":524,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 134.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":318.12,"y":126.36,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"318, 126, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":525,"blockId":16,"value":"Because the CJEU determined that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":354.0,"y":126.36,"width":168.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"354, 126, 168, 12"},{"type":3,"id":526,"blockId":16,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.24,"y":126.36,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 126, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":527,"blockId":16,"value":"Award was “granted” after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":131.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":528,"blockId":16,"value":"Romania joined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":207.24,"y":153.96,"width":77.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"207, 153, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":529,"blockId":16,"value":"the EU, it reversed the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":288.24,"y":153.96,"width":184.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"288, 153, 184, 12"},{"type":3,"id":530,"blockId":16,"value":"Decision and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.16,"y":153.96,"width":63.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 153, 63, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":531,"blockId":16,"value":"held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":413.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 413, 12"},{"type":3,"id":532,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.8,"y":181.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"493, 181, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":533,"blockId":16,"value":"¶ 151.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":510.72,"y":181.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"510, 181, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":534,"blockId":16,"value":"The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":535,"blockId":16,"value":"the “General Court did not examine.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":179.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 179, 12"},{"type":3,"id":536,"blockId":16,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.88,"y":236.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"257, 236, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":537,"blockId":16,"value":"¶¶ 154–55.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.84,"y":236.76,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 236, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":326.88,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" competent to render the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 126. The CJEU disagreed. It held that the\r\n Award “was actually granted after [Romania’s] accession [to the EU], by the adoption of the\r\n arbitral award” by the ICSID tribunal in 2013. Id. ¶ 134. Because the CJEU determined that the\r\n Award was “granted” after Romania joined the EU, it reversed the General Court Decision and\r\n held that the European Commission was competent to adopt the State Aid Decision. Id. ¶ 151.\r\n The CJEU “referred back to the General Court” the remaining arguments raised by the parties that\r\n the “General Court did not examine.” Id. ¶¶ 154–55.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":33,"Value":{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":538,"columnEnd":579,"text":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.2","paragraphLabel":"2.E.2","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":538,"blockId":17,"value":"The CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":50.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":539,"blockId":17,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.24,"y":264.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 264, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":540,"blockId":17,"value":"further","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.32,"y":264.36,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 264, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":541,"blockId":17,"value":"stated that the General Court was wrong to find that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.44,"y":264.36,"width":253.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"244, 264, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":542,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":264.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 264, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":543,"blockId":17,"value":"was “irrelevant” to the instant case.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":173.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 173, 12"},{"type":3,"id":544,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":253.56,"y":291.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"253, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":545,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 137.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.36,"y":291.96,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 291, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":546,"blockId":17,"value":"In the CJEU’s view, because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.56,"y":291.96,"width":141.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"307, 291, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":547,"blockId":17,"value":"Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.88,"y":291.96,"width":51.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"452, 291, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":548,"blockId":17,"value":"sought","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.08,"y":291.96,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 291, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":549,"blockId":17,"value":"damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":550,"blockId":17,"value":"in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":551,"blockId":17,"value":"Court had suggested.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":99.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":552,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.0,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"177, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":553,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 140. Accordingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":192.72,"y":374.76,"width":97.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"192, 374, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":554,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.68,"y":374.76,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"292, 374, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":555,"blockId":17,"value":"had some applicability.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":333.84,"y":374.76,"width":110.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"333, 374, 110, 12"},{"type":3,"id":556,"blockId":17,"value":"The CJEU rejected","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":374.76,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 374, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":557,"blockId":17,"value":"Micula’s argument that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":112.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 112, 12"},{"type":3,"id":558,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":187.8,"y":402.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"187, 402, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":559,"blockId":17,"value":"was wholly irrelevant because of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":229.68,"y":402.36,"width":159.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"229, 402, 159, 12"},{"type":3,"id":560,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":392.04,"y":402.36,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"392, 402, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":561,"blockId":17,"value":"consent to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.24,"y":402.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 402, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":562,"blockId":17,"value":"arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.92,"y":402.36,"width":40.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 402, 40, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":563,"blockId":17,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":564,"blockId":17,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":102.96,"y":429.96,"width":220.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 429, 220, 12"},{"type":3,"id":565,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.36,"y":429.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 429, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":566,"blockId":17,"value":"any consent to arbitration given by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":368.88,"y":429.96,"width":171.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"368, 429, 171, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":567,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":385.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 385, 12"},{"type":3,"id":568,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":466.08,"y":457.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"466, 457, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":569,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 145.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.36,"y":457.56,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 457, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":570,"blockId":17,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.28,"y":457.56,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 457, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":571,"blockId":17,"value":"CJEU did not make a final ruling on how","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":215.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 215, 12"},{"type":3,"id":572,"blockId":17,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.56,"y":485.16,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"292, 485, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":573,"blockId":17,"value":"should be applied, holding only that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.48,"y":485.16,"width":203.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 485, 203, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":574,"blockId":17,"value":"European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":292.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 292, 12"},{"type":3,"id":575,"blockId":17,"value":"Decision and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.44,"y":512.76,"width":63.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 512, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":576,"blockId":17,"value":"remanding the case to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.04,"y":512.76,"width":105.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 512, 105, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":577,"blockId":17,"value":"the General Court for further proceedings.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 202, 12"},{"type":3,"id":578,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.56,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"280, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":579,"blockId":17,"value":"¶ 156.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":296.52,"y":540.36,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"296, 540, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":326.03999999999996,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU Decision further stated that the General Court was wrong to find that Achmea\r\n was “irrelevant” to the instant case. Id. ¶ 137. In the CJEU’s view, because Petitioners sought\r\n damages for injuries suffered after 2007, the parties dispute “cannot be regarded as being confined\r\n in all respects to a period during which Romania . . . was not yet bound by” EU law, as the General\r\n Court had suggested. Id. ¶ 140. Accordingly, Achmea had some applicability. The CJEU rejected\r\n Micula’s argument that Achmea was wholly irrelevant because of Romania’s consent to arbitrate\r\n under the Sweden-Romania BIT, finding that under Achmea any consent to arbitration given by\r\n Romania from the date of Romania’s accession to the EU “lacked any force.” Id. ¶ 145. The\r\n CJEU did not make a final ruling on how Achmea should be applied, holding only that the\r\n European Commission was competent to issue the State Aid Decision and remanding the case to\r\n the General Court for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 156.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":34,"Value":{"pageNum":7,"columnStart":580,"columnEnd":601,"text":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2 [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa2.E.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa2.E.3","paragraphLabel":"2.E.3","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2 [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":580,"blockId":18,"value":"On","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":581,"blockId":18,"value":"September","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.64,"y":567.96,"width":51.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"128, 567, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":582,"blockId":18,"value":"21,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.88,"y":567.96,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":583,"blockId":18,"value":"2022,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":206.88,"y":567.96,"width":27.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"206, 567, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":584,"blockId":18,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.88,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":585,"blockId":18,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":567.96,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":586,"blockId":18,"value":"issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":295.2,"y":567.96,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"295, 567, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":587,"blockId":18,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":331.2,"y":567.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"331, 567, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":588,"blockId":18,"value":"second","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.36,"y":567.96,"width":33.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 567, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":589,"blockId":18,"value":"relevant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.48,"y":567.96,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":590,"blockId":18,"value":"ruling (“Second","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.12,"y":567.96,"width":79.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"426, 567, 79, 12"},{"type":3,"id":591,"blockId":18,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.32,"y":567.96,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 567, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":592,"blockId":18,"value":"Decision”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":593,"blockId":18,"value":"Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.04,"y":595.56,"width":405.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 595, 405, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":594,"blockId":18,"value":"[hereinafter Second CJEU Decision].","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":181.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":595,"blockId":18,"value":"In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.6,"y":623.16,"width":278.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 623, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"[hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":596,"blockId":18,"value":"EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":349.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 349, 12"},{"type":3,"id":597,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.36,"y":650.76,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"426, 650, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":598,"blockId":18,"value":"¶¶ 42–43. The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.08,"y":650.76,"width":97.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 650, 97, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":599,"blockId":18,"value":"so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":420.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 420, 12"},{"type":3,"id":600,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":498.12,"y":678.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"498, 678, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":601,"blockId":18,"value":"¶¶ 1–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":513.96,"y":678.36,"width":25.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"513, 678, 25, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 431, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" On September 21, 2022, the CJEU issued a second relevant ruling (“Second CJEU\r\n Decision”). Romania’s Notice of Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 199, Ex. 2, ECF No. 199-2\r\n [hereinafter Second CJEU Decision]. In the Second CJEU Decision, the court held that, under\r\n EU law, the Award could not be enforced in the courts of Member States. Id. ¶¶ 42–43. The court\r\n so held following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeals. Id. ¶¶ 1–\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":35,"Value":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":607,"columnEnd":615,"text":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":607,"blockId":19,"value":"2, 27–28.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":44.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":608,"blockId":19,"value":"The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.28,"y":71.16,"width":417.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"122, 71, 417, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":609,"blockId":19,"value":"consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":610,"blockId":19,"value":"BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":611,"blockId":19,"value":"its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":612,"blockId":19,"value":"to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":613,"blockId":19,"value":"Member State.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":70.51,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 70, 12"},{"type":3,"id":614,"blockId":19,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":148.56,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"148, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":615,"blockId":19,"value":"¶¶ 34–43.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.52,"y":209.16,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"164, 209, 47, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":211.56,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 2, 27–28. The CJEU reasoned that Romania’s accession to the EU meant that it had withdrawn its\r\n consent to resolve matters pertaining to EU law through arbitration under the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT and, because the “dispute before the arbitral tribunal cannot be regarded as being confined in\r\n its entirety to” the period before Romania acceded to the EU, the Award—which was determined\r\n to constitute state aid by the European Commission—could not be enforced by the court of a\r\n Member State. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":36,"Value":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":616,"columnEnd":617,"text":" LEGAL STANDARD ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIII","paragraphId":"hIII","paragraphLabel":"III.","rectangle":"72, 236, 147, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" LEGAL STANDARD ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":616,"blockId":20,"value":"III.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":17.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 236, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":617,"blockId":20,"value":"LEGAL STANDARD","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":236.76,"width":111.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 236, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":219.72,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"III. LEGAL STANDARD"}],"Rectangle":"72, 236, 147, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" III. LEGAL STANDARD\r\n","MarginRight":219.72}}},{"Key":37,"Value":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":618,"columnEnd":627,"text":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.1","paragraphLabel":"3.1","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":618,"blockId":21,"value":"According to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":63.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 63, 12"},{"type":2,"id":619,"blockId":21,"value":"Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.32,"y":264.36,"width":46.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 264, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":620,"blockId":21,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.36,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":621,"blockId":21,"value":"CJEU Decisions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.72,"y":264.36,"width":79.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 264, 79, 12"},{"type":2,"id":622,"blockId":21,"value":"mean","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.12,"y":264.36,"width":25.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"327, 264, 25, 12"},{"type":2,"id":623,"blockId":21,"value":"“that the agreement to arbitrate in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.76,"y":264.36,"width":183.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"356, 264, 183, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":624,"blockId":21,"value":"BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":274.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 274, 12"},{"type":2,"id":625,"blockId":21,"value":"Romania Mot. at 1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":291.96,"width":92.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 291, 92, 12"},{"type":2,"id":626,"blockId":21,"value":"It seeks relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.76,"y":291.96,"width":90.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"449, 291, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":627,"blockId":21,"value":"the Judgments under Rule 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":156.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":228.84,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"the Judgments under Rule 60(b)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 431, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" According to Romania, the CJEU Decisions mean “that the agreement to arbitrate in the\r\n BIT was void the moment that Romania entered the EU.” Romania Mot. at 1. It seeks relief from\r\n the Judgments under Rule 60(b).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":38,"Value":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":628,"columnEnd":660,"text":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.2","paragraphLabel":"3.2","rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","averageFontSize":11.983695652173912,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":628,"blockId":22,"value":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":347.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 347, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":629,"blockId":22,"value":"judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":391.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 391, 12"},{"type":3,"id":630,"blockId":22,"value":"United Student","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":468.84,"y":374.76,"width":71.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"468, 374, 71, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":631,"blockId":22,"value":"Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 402, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":632,"blockId":22,"value":"Funds,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":96.96,"y":402.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"96, 402, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":633,"blockId":22,"value":"Inc.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.24,"y":402.36,"width":18.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":634,"blockId":22,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.88,"y":402.36,"width":8.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"164, 402, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":635,"blockId":22,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":181.44,"y":402.36,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"181, 402, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":636,"blockId":22,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":225.6,"y":402.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"225, 402, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":637,"blockId":22,"value":"559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":236.88,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"236, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":638,"blockId":22,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":263.16,"y":402.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"263, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":639,"blockId":22,"value":"260,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.8,"y":402.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"292, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":640,"blockId":22,"value":"269","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.08,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"322, 402, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":641,"blockId":22,"value":"(2010)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.36,"y":402.36,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 402, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":642,"blockId":22,"value":"(internal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.68,"y":402.36,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 402, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":643,"blockId":22,"value":"quotations","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":437.64,"y":402.36,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"437, 402, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":644,"blockId":22,"value":"omitted);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.96,"y":402.36,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 402, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted);"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":645,"blockId":22,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":646,"blockId":22,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":432.48,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 432, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":647,"blockId":22,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":429.96,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 429, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":648,"blockId":22,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":432.48,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 432, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":649,"blockId":22,"value":". P. 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":429.96,"width":47.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 429, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":650,"blockId":22,"value":"The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":183.84,"y":429.96,"width":356.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"183, 429, 356, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96000000000004,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":651,"blockId":22,"value":"of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":652,"blockId":22,"value":"of all the facts.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":78.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 78, 12"},{"type":3,"id":653,"blockId":22,"value":"Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":158.04,"y":485.16,"width":201.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"158, 485, 201, 12"},{"type":3,"id":654,"blockId":22,"value":", 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":359.4,"y":485.16,"width":148.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"359, 485, 148, 12"},{"type":3,"id":655,"blockId":22,"value":"1980)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.04,"y":485.16,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 485, 27, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980)"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":656,"blockId":22,"value":"(cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":62.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":657,"blockId":22,"value":"District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":140.16,"y":512.76,"width":399.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"140, 512, 399, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"(cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":658,"blockId":22,"value":"grant a Rule 60(b) motion.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":132.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 132, 12"},{"type":3,"id":659,"blockId":22,"value":"Twelve John Does v. D.C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":210.96,"y":540.36,"width":124.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"210, 540, 124, 12"},{"type":3,"id":660,"blockId":22,"value":", 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.0,"y":540.36,"width":190.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 540, 190, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":526.6800000000001,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 347, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Rule 60(b) “provides an exception to finality that allows a party to seek relief from a final\r\n judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.” United Student\r\n Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 269 (2010) (internal quotations omitted);\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). The rule requires courts to strike a “delicate balance between the sanctity\r\n of final judgments and the incessant command of a court’s conscience that justice be done in light\r\n of all the facts.” Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris , 636 F.2d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1980)\r\n (cleaned up). District courts are “vested with a large measure of discretion in deciding whether to\r\n grant a Rule 60(b) motion.” Twelve John Does v. D.C. , 841 F.2d 1133, 1138 (D.C. Cir. 1988).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":39,"Value":{"pageNum":8,"columnStart":661,"columnEnd":680,"text":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270; F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa3.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa3.3","paragraphLabel":"3.3","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270; F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","averageFontSize":11.973741794310722,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":661,"blockId":23,"value":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":242.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":662,"blockId":23,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.24,"y":567.96,"width":182.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 567, 182, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":663,"blockId":23,"value":"relieve a party from a final judgment if","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":198.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":664,"blockId":23,"value":"‘the judgment is void.’”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.52,"y":595.56,"width":119.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 595, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":665,"blockId":23,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":404.64,"y":595.56,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"404, 595, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":666,"blockId":23,"value":", 559 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":448.8,"y":595.56,"width":51.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"448, 595, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":667,"blockId":23,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.2,"y":595.56,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 595, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":668,"blockId":23,"value":"270;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":518.52,"y":595.56,"width":21.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"518, 595, 21, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270;"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":669,"blockId":23,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":670,"blockId":23,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":625.68,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 625, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":671,"blockId":23,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":623.16,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 623, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":672,"blockId":23,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":625.68,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 625, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":673,"blockId":23,"value":". P. 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":623.16,"width":61.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 623, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":674,"blockId":23,"value":"“[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.48,"y":623.16,"width":341.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"198, 623, 341, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":675,"blockId":23,"value":"the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":330.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 330, 12"},{"type":3,"id":676,"blockId":23,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.8,"y":650.76,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"409, 650, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":677,"blockId":23,"value":", 559 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":453.84,"y":650.76,"width":49.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"453, 650, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":678,"blockId":23,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.0,"y":650.76,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 650, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":679,"blockId":23,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.24,"y":650.76,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 650, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":680,"blockId":23,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania invokes three subsections of Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b)(4) “authorizes the court to\r\n relieve a party from a final judgment if ‘the judgment is void.’” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270;\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4). “[A] void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that\r\n the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270.\r\n Rule 60(b)(5) is applicable “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":40,"Value":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":686,"columnEnd":734,"text":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32, 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32, 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).","averageFontSize":11.955963302752293,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":686,"blockId":24,"value":"reversed, or vacated.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":107.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 107, 12"},{"type":3,"id":687,"blockId":24,"value":"Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.16,"y":71.16,"width":161.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"188, 71, 161, 12"},{"type":3,"id":688,"blockId":24,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.8,"y":71.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 71, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":689,"blockId":24,"value":"Case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.12,"y":71.16,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 71, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":690,"blockId":24,"value":"No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.84,"y":71.16,"width":155.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 71, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":691,"blockId":24,"value":"8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":219.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":692,"blockId":24,"value":"NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.72,"y":98.76,"width":181.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"294, 98, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":693,"blockId":24,"value":"215 F.3d 32,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.16,"y":98.76,"width":60.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 98, 60, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":694,"blockId":24,"value":"35 (D.C. Cir. 2000);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":99.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":695,"blockId":24,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.68,"y":126.36,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"175, 126, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":696,"blockId":24,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":182.28,"y":128.88,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 128, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":697,"blockId":24,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.88,"y":126.36,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 126, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":698,"blockId":24,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":222.96,"y":128.88,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"222, 128, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":699,"blockId":24,"value":". P. 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":232.92,"y":126.36,"width":61.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 126, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":700,"blockId":24,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.16,"y":126.36,"width":128.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 126, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":701,"blockId":24,"value":"provision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.4,"y":126.36,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 126, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":702,"blockId":24,"value":"that “grants","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.6,"y":126.36,"width":56.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 126, 56, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":703,"blockId":24,"value":"federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":33.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":704,"blockId":24,"value":"courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.64,"y":153.96,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 153, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":705,"blockId":24,"value":"broad","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.32,"y":153.96,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 153, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":706,"blockId":24,"value":"authority","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":178.2,"y":153.96,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"178, 153, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":707,"blockId":24,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.92,"y":153.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":708,"blockId":24,"value":"relieve","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":241.68,"y":153.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"241, 153, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":709,"blockId":24,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.72,"y":153.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 153, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":710,"blockId":24,"value":"party","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.4,"y":153.96,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 153, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":711,"blockId":24,"value":"from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.52,"y":153.96,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 153, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":712,"blockId":24,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.2,"y":153.96,"width":5.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 153, 5, 12"},{"type":3,"id":713,"blockId":24,"value":"final","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":360.0,"y":153.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"360, 153, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":714,"blockId":24,"value":"judgment . . . provided","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.36,"y":153.96,"width":109.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 153, 109, 12"},{"type":3,"id":715,"blockId":24,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.84,"y":153.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":716,"blockId":24,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.24,"y":153.96,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 153, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":717,"blockId":24,"value":"motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":718,"blockId":24,"value":"(b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":36.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":719,"blockId":24,"value":"Liljeberg","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":128.04,"y":209.16,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"128, 209, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":720,"blockId":24,"value":"v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":181.92,"y":209.16,"width":8.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"181, 209, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":721,"blockId":24,"value":"Health","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.16,"y":209.16,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 209, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":722,"blockId":24,"value":"Servs.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.64,"y":209.16,"width":29.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"242, 209, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":723,"blockId":24,"value":"Acquisition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.52,"y":209.16,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"281, 209, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":724,"blockId":24,"value":"Corp.,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":346.2,"y":209.16,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"346, 209, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":725,"blockId":24,"value":"486","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.76,"y":209.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 209, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":726,"blockId":24,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.6,"y":209.16,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 209, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":727,"blockId":24,"value":"847,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":445.8,"y":209.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"445, 209, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":728,"blockId":24,"value":"863","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.64,"y":209.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 209, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":729,"blockId":24,"value":"(1988);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.48,"y":209.16,"width":35.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 209, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"(b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988);"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":730,"blockId":24,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":731,"blockId":24,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":239.28,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 239, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":732,"blockId":24,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":236.76,"width":28.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 236, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":733,"blockId":24,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.28,"y":239.28,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 239, 9, 9"},{"type":3,"id":734,"blockId":24,"value":". P. 60(b)(6).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.24,"y":236.76,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 236, 61, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":191.04000000000002,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" reversed, or vacated.” Rafii v. Islamic Republic of Iran , Case No. 01-cv-850-CKK, 2005 WL\r\n 8167693, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2005) (citing NLRB v. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, 215 F.3d 32,\r\n 35 (D.C. Cir. 2000); F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(5). Rule 60(b)(6) is a residual provision that “grants\r\n federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment . . . provided that the\r\n motion . . . is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through\r\n (b)(5).” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988);\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(6).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":41,"Value":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":735,"columnEnd":736,"text":" DISCUSSION ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV","paragraphId":"hIV","paragraphLabel":"IV.","rectangle":"72, 264, 109, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" DISCUSSION ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":735,"blockId":25,"value":"IV.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":16.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 264, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":736,"blockId":25,"value":"DISCUSSION","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":73.46,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 264, 73, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":181.45999999999998,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"IV. DISCUSSION"}],"Rectangle":"72, 264, 109, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" IV. DISCUSSION\r\n","MarginRight":181.45999999999998}}},{"Key":42,"Value":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":737,"columnEnd":738,"text":" Rule 60(b)(4) ","indentLevel":2,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.A","paragraphId":"hIV.A","paragraphLabel":"A.","rectangle":"108, 291, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" Rule 60(b)(4) ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":737,"blockId":26,"value":"A.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":2,"id":738,"blockId":26,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":291.96,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 291, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"A. Rule 60(b)(4)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 291, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" A. Rule 60(b)(4)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}}},{"Key":43,"Value":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":739,"columnEnd":789,"text":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.1","paragraphLabel":"4.A.1","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":739,"blockId":33,"value":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":209.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 209, 12"},{"type":2,"id":740,"blockId":33,"value":"for judgments that are “void.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.4,"y":319.56,"width":144.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 319, 144, 12"},{"type":2,"id":741,"blockId":33,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":471.72,"y":319.56,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"471, 319, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":742,"blockId":33,"value":", 559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":515.76,"y":319.56,"width":24.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"515, 319, 24, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":743,"blockId":33,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":744,"blockId":33,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":96.6,"y":347.16,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"96, 347, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":745,"blockId":33,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.48,"y":347.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 347, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":746,"blockId":33,"value":"The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.84,"y":347.16,"width":404.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 347, 404, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":747,"blockId":33,"value":"certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":748,"blockId":33,"value":"or the opportunity to be heard.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":155.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 155, 12"},{"type":2,"id":749,"blockId":33,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":235.08,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"235, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":750,"blockId":33,"value":"at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":251.04,"y":402.36,"width":34.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"251, 402, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":751,"blockId":33,"value":"Because Romania does not allege any due process","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.04,"y":402.36,"width":246.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 402, 246, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":752,"blockId":33,"value":"violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":753,"blockId":33,"value":"instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":754,"blockId":33,"value":"fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":406.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 406, 12"},{"type":2,"id":755,"blockId":33,"value":"Lee Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.96,"y":485.16,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"486, 485, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":756,"blockId":33,"value":"Hosp. v. Becerra","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":84.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 512, 84, 12"},{"type":2,"id":757,"blockId":33,"value":", 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.72,"y":512.76,"width":254.59,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 512, 254, 12"},{"type":2,"id":758,"blockId":33,"value":"The Supreme Court has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":420.96,"y":512.76,"width":119.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"420, 512, 119, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":759,"blockId":33,"value":"explained","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":760,"blockId":33,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.92,"y":540.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":761,"blockId":33,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.28,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":762,"blockId":33,"value":"“list","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.28,"y":540.36,"width":19.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"170, 540, 19, 12"},{"type":2,"id":763,"blockId":33,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":196.56,"y":540.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"196, 540, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":764,"blockId":33,"value":"such","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.88,"y":540.36,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 540, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":765,"blockId":33,"value":"infirmities","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":241.2,"y":540.36,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"241, 540, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":766,"blockId":33,"value":"is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.48,"y":540.36,"width":8.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 540, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":767,"blockId":33,"value":"exceedingly","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":311.76,"y":540.36,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"311, 540, 57, 12"},{"type":2,"id":768,"blockId":33,"value":"short;","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":376.08,"y":540.36,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"376, 540, 27, 12"},{"type":2,"id":769,"blockId":33,"value":"otherwise,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.8,"y":540.36,"width":49.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 540, 49, 12"},{"type":2,"id":770,"blockId":33,"value":"Rule 60(b)(4)’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.72,"y":540.36,"width":74.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 540, 74, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":771,"blockId":33,"value":"exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":2,"id":772,"blockId":33,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":124.2,"y":567.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"124, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":2,"id":773,"blockId":33,"value":"finality","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":139.2,"y":567.96,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"139, 567, 34, 12"},{"type":2,"id":774,"blockId":33,"value":"would","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.52,"y":567.96,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 567, 30, 12"},{"type":2,"id":775,"blockId":33,"value":"swallow","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.28,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":2,"id":776,"blockId":33,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.88,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":2,"id":777,"blockId":33,"value":"rule.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.16,"y":567.96,"width":26.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 567, 26, 12"},{"type":2,"id":778,"blockId":33,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.44,"y":567.96,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"319, 567, 44, 12"},{"type":2,"id":779,"blockId":33,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":363.48,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"363, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":780,"blockId":33,"value":"559","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.12,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":2,"id":781,"blockId":33,"value":"U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":395.76,"y":567.96,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"395, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":782,"blockId":33,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":422.76,"y":567.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"422, 567, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":783,"blockId":33,"value":"270.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":437.04,"y":567.96,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"437, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":784,"blockId":33,"value":"Importantly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":469.44,"y":567.96,"width":59.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"469, 567, 59, 12"},{"type":2,"id":785,"blockId":33,"value":"a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":534.6,"y":567.96,"width":5.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"534, 567, 5, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":786,"blockId":33,"value":"“judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":369.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 369, 12"},{"type":2,"id":787,"blockId":33,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.48,"y":595.56,"width":86.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"450, 595, 86, 12"},{"type":2,"id":788,"blockId":33,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":537.0,"y":595.56,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 595, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"“judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. ,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":789,"blockId":33,"value":"10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":160.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 160, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":232.32,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" A party can seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4) for judgments that are “void.” Espinosa , 559\r\n U.S. at 270. The rule “applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a\r\n certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice\r\n or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. Because Romania does not allege any due process\r\n violation, the “sole issue” is whether the Judgments entered against Romania “represent[ ] the rare\r\n instance of a judgment involving a certain type of jurisdictional error, one signifying the kind of\r\n fundamental infirmity that may be raised even after the judgment becomes final.” Lee Mem’l\r\n Hosp. v. Becerra , 10 F.4th 859, 863 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court has\r\n explained that the “list of such infirmities is exceedingly short; otherwise, Rule 60(b)(4)’s\r\n exception to finality would swallow the rule.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 270. Importantly, a\r\n “judgment is not void simply because it is or may have been erroneous.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. ,\r\n 10 F.4th at 863 (ellipsis omitted).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":44,"Value":{"pageNum":9,"columnStart":790,"columnEnd":799,"text":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.2","paragraphLabel":"4.A.2","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":790,"blockId":34,"value":"The Applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":73.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 650, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":791,"blockId":34,"value":"Standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.44,"y":650.76,"width":47.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"184, 650, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":792,"blockId":34,"value":"As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":238.08,"y":650.76,"width":218.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"238, 650, 218, 12"},{"type":3,"id":793,"blockId":34,"value":"the standard","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":460.08,"y":650.76,"width":58.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"460, 650, 58, 12"},{"type":3,"id":794,"blockId":34,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.0,"y":650.76,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 650, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":795,"blockId":34,"value":"governs","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":796,"blockId":34,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.24,"y":678.36,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 678, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":797,"blockId":34,"value":"request for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.64,"y":678.36,"width":53.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"170, 678, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":798,"blockId":34,"value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.0,"y":678.36,"width":131.37,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 678, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":799,"blockId":34,"value":"Romania acknowledges that courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":368.16,"y":678.36,"width":171.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"368, 678, 171, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The Applicable Standard. As a threshold matter, the parties disagree on the standard that\r\n governs Romania’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Romania acknowledges that courts\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":45,"Value":{"pageNum":10,"columnStart":805,"columnEnd":847,"text":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis” standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter , there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends, warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 343","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis” standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’ for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter , there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends, warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":13,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":805,"blockId":35,"value":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":806,"blockId":35,"value":"standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":43.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":807,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 14.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.04,"y":98.76,"width":99.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"122, 98, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":808,"blockId":35,"value":"Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.36,"y":98.76,"width":311.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"228, 98, 311, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":809,"blockId":35,"value":"for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":810,"blockId":35,"value":"for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":80.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 80, 12"},{"type":3,"id":811,"blockId":35,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.08,"y":153.96,"width":44.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"160, 153, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":812,"blockId":35,"value":", 559 U.S. at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":204.24,"y":153.96,"width":86.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"204, 153, 86, 12"},{"type":3,"id":813,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania nevertheless","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.56,"y":153.96,"width":106.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 153, 106, 12"},{"type":3,"id":814,"blockId":35,"value":"asks the court to conduct a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":408.6,"y":153.96,"width":131.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"408, 153, 131, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":815,"blockId":35,"value":"more stringent review.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":108.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 108, 12"},{"type":3,"id":816,"blockId":35,"value":"It argues that “","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.48,"y":181.56,"width":70.97,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 181, 70, 12"},{"type":3,"id":817,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.4,"y":181.56,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"257, 181, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":818,"blockId":35,"value":"review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":298.2,"y":181.56,"width":241.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"298, 181, 241, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":819,"blockId":35,"value":"contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":253.97,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":820,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":331.44,"y":209.16,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"331, 209, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":821,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania points to the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.24,"y":209.16,"width":104.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 209, 104, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":822,"blockId":35,"value":"D.C. Circuit’s decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":129.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 129, 12"},{"type":3,"id":823,"blockId":35,"value":"Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":206.04,"y":236.76,"width":171.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"206, 236, 171, 12"},{"type":3,"id":824,"blockId":35,"value":"Republic of Iran","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.56,"y":236.76,"width":82.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"382, 236, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":825,"blockId":35,"value":"as creating an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":468.12,"y":236.76,"width":71.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"468, 236, 71, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":826,"blockId":35,"value":"exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":306.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 306, 12"},{"type":3,"id":827,"blockId":35,"value":"motions","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.84,"y":264.36,"width":38.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 264, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":828,"blockId":35,"value":"using the arguable basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.96,"y":264.36,"width":116.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 264, 116, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":829,"blockId":35,"value":"standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":43.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":830,"blockId":35,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":122.52,"y":291.96,"width":32.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"122, 291, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":831,"blockId":35,"value":";","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":155.04,"y":291.96,"width":3.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"155, 291, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":832,"blockId":35,"value":"734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":161.88,"y":291.96,"width":157.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"161, 291, 157, 12"},{"type":3,"id":833,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania argues that, under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":325.92,"y":291.96,"width":133.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"325, 291, 133, 12"},{"type":3,"id":834,"blockId":35,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.84,"y":291.96,"width":74.1,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"462, 291, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":835,"blockId":35,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":537.0,"y":291.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"537, 291, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":836,"blockId":35,"value":"there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":357.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 357, 12"},{"type":3,"id":837,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.84,"y":319.56,"width":37.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"432, 319, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":838,"blockId":35,"value":"review proper","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.16,"y":319.56,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 319, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":839,"blockId":35,"value":"if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":273.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":840,"blockId":35,"value":"or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.6,"y":347.16,"width":10.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"348, 347, 10, 12"},{"type":3,"id":841,"blockId":35,"value":"(2) “the determination of jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":362.4,"y":347.16,"width":177.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"362, 347, 177, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":842,"blockId":35,"value":"implicates the FSIA.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":104.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":843,"blockId":35,"value":"Romania Mot. at 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":182.16,"y":374.76,"width":99.02,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 374, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":844,"blockId":35,"value":"The presence of either condition, Romania contends,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":287.16,"y":374.76,"width":252.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"287, 374, 252, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":845,"blockId":35,"value":"warrants","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":41.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":846,"blockId":35,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.28,"y":402.36,"width":37.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"116, 402, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":847,"blockId":35,"value":"review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":156.84,"y":402.36,"width":303.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"156, 402, 303, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":460.44000000000005,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 343","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" generally review Rule 60(b)(4) motions asserting jurisdictional infirmity using an “arguable basis”\r\n standard. Romania Mot. at 14. Under that standard, relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is reserved “only\r\n for the exceptional case in which the court that rendered judgment lacked even an ‘arguable basis’\r\n for jurisdiction.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania nevertheless asks the court to conduct a\r\n more stringent review. It argues that “ de novo review is appropriate any time a foreign sovereign\r\n contends that jurisdiction under the FSIA is lacking.” Romania Mot. at 15. Romania points to the\r\n D.C. Circuit’s decision in Bell Helicopter Textron v. Islamic Republic of Iran as creating an\r\n exception to the general rule that courts should review 60(b)(4) motions using the arguable basis\r\n standard. See id. ; 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Romania argues that, under Bell Helicopter ,\r\n there is a “two-exception approach” to the arguable basis standard, making de novo review proper\r\n if (1) “jurisdiction was established via default judgment” or (2) “the determination of jurisdiction\r\n implicates the FSIA.” Romania Mot. at 15. The presence of either condition, Romania contends,\r\n warrants de novo review for purposes of a Rule 60(b)(4) jurisdictional challenge.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":46,"Value":{"pageNum":10,"columnStart":848,"columnEnd":882,"text":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review. Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which, they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23 (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present. Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.3","paragraphLabel":"4.A.3","rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review. Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which, they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23 (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present. Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":848,"blockId":36,"value":"Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":429.96,"width":54.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 429, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":849,"blockId":36,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.32,"y":429.96,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 429, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":850,"blockId":36,"value":"surprisingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.64,"y":429.96,"width":60.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 429, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":851,"blockId":36,"value":"reject","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.96,"y":429.96,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 429, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":852,"blockId":36,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":292.56,"y":429.96,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"292, 429, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":853,"blockId":36,"value":"insistence","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":351.6,"y":429.96,"width":47.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"351, 429, 47, 12"},{"type":3,"id":854,"blockId":36,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":429.96,"width":12.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 429, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":855,"blockId":36,"value":"more","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":424.92,"y":429.96,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"424, 429, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":856,"blockId":36,"value":"exacting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":456.6,"y":429.96,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"456, 429, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":857,"blockId":36,"value":"review.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.24,"y":429.96,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 429, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":858,"blockId":36,"value":"Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":264.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 264, 12"},{"type":3,"id":859,"blockId":36,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":339.36,"y":457.56,"width":165.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"339, 457, 165, 12"},{"type":3,"id":860,"blockId":36,"value":"which,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.6,"y":457.56,"width":32.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 457, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":861,"blockId":36,"value":"they contend, clarified that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":126.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 126, 12"},{"type":3,"id":862,"blockId":36,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.76,"y":485.16,"width":72.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 485, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":863,"blockId":36,"value":"applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.88,"y":485.16,"width":264.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 485, 264, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":864,"blockId":36,"value":"sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":360.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 360, 12"},{"type":3,"id":865,"blockId":36,"value":"Pet.’s Mem. of L. in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.04,"y":512.76,"width":99.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 512, 99, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":866,"blockId":36,"value":"Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":433.29,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 433, 12"},{"type":3,"id":867,"blockId":36,"value":"22–23","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.88,"y":540.36,"width":30.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"509, 540, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":868,"blockId":36,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":869,"blockId":36,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.64,"y":567.96,"width":85.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"116, 567, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":870,"blockId":36,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.72,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":871,"blockId":36,"value":"10 F.4th at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.68,"y":567.96,"width":53.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 567, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":872,"blockId":36,"value":"864).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":266.28,"y":567.96,"width":25.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"266, 567, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":873,"blockId":36,"value":"In other words, according to Petitioners,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":299.4,"y":567.96,"width":198.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 567, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":874,"blockId":36,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.36,"y":567.96,"width":38.59,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"501, 567, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.95,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"(quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":875,"blockId":36,"value":"review under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":62.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":876,"blockId":36,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.68,"y":595.56,"width":73.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"136, 595, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":877,"blockId":36,"value":"applies only when a court enters a default judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.76,"y":595.56,"width":242.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 595, 242, 12"},{"type":3,"id":878,"blockId":36,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":457.44,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"457, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":879,"blockId":36,"value":"the judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":477.84,"y":595.56,"width":62.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"477, 595, 62, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":880,"blockId":36,"value":"is entered against a foreign sovereign.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":181.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":881,"blockId":36,"value":"These are not alternative conditions; both must be present.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":259.8,"y":623.16,"width":280.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"259, 623, 280, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":882,"blockId":36,"value":"Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject"}],"Rectangle":"108, 429, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Petitioners, not surprisingly, reject Romania’s insistence on more exacting review.\r\n Petitioners rely on the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Lee Memorial Hospital v. Becerra which,\r\n they contend, clarified that Bell Helicopter applies only in the “particular context” where “a foreign\r\n sovereign . . . decline[s] to enter an appearance in the previous litigation.” Pet.’s Mem. of L. in\r\n Supp. of Pet.’s Opp’n to Romania’s Mot., ECF No. 184 [hereinafter Micula Opp’n] at 22–23\r\n (quoting Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864). In other words, according to Petitioners, de novo\r\n review under Bell Helicopter applies only when a court enters a default judgment and the judgment\r\n is entered against a foreign sovereign. These are not alternative conditions; both must be present.\r\n Because Romania “appeared and contested the entry of the Judgment” and “this Court’s subject\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":47,"Value":{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":888,"columnEnd":891,"text":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":888,"blockId":37,"value":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":889,"blockId":37,"value":"carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":396.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 396, 12"},{"type":3,"id":890,"blockId":37,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.84,"y":98.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"474, 98, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":891,"blockId":37,"value":"at 23.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.8,"y":98.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 98, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":517.44,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" matter jurisdiction prior to the entry of the Judgment,” Micula continues, “Romania has failed to\r\n carry its burden to demonstrate why the arguable basis standard should not apply.” Id. at 23.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":48,"Value":{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":892,"columnEnd":931,"text":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1181–82).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.4","paragraphLabel":"4.A.4","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1181–82).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":892,"blockId":38,"value":"This court agrees","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":84.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 126, 84, 12"},{"type":3,"id":893,"blockId":38,"value":"with Petitioners","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":197.16,"y":126.36,"width":77.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"197, 126, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":894,"blockId":38,"value":"that the arguable basis standard applies here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.4,"y":126.36,"width":221.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"278, 126, 221, 12"},{"type":3,"id":895,"blockId":38,"value":"In","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.56,"y":126.36,"width":9.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 126, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":896,"blockId":38,"value":"Lee","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.6,"y":126.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"522, 126, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":897,"blockId":38,"value":"Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":91.3,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 153, 91, 12"},{"type":3,"id":898,"blockId":38,"value":", the D.C. Circuit described","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":163.32,"y":153.96,"width":129.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"163, 153, 129, 12"},{"type":3,"id":899,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":295.92,"y":153.96,"width":73.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"295, 153, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":900,"blockId":38,"value":"as “one specific situation” in which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":371.76,"y":153.96,"width":168.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"371, 153, 168, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":901,"blockId":38,"value":"the court did not apply the arguable basis standard.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":244.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 244, 12"},{"type":3,"id":902,"blockId":38,"value":"Lee Mem’l Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.56,"y":181.56,"width":83.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"322, 181, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":903,"blockId":38,"value":", 10 F.4th at 864.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.6,"y":181.56,"width":81.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 181, 81, 12"},{"type":3,"id":904,"blockId":38,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.44,"y":181.56,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 181, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":905,"blockId":38,"value":"emphasized that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":77.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 77, 12"},{"type":3,"id":906,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.52,"y":209.16,"width":73.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"152, 209, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":907,"blockId":38,"value":"“involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":229.08,"y":209.16,"width":310.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"229, 209, 310, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":908,"blockId":38,"value":"who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":909,"blockId":38,"value":"against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":352.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 352, 12"},{"type":3,"id":910,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":433.56,"y":264.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"433, 264, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":911,"blockId":38,"value":"The court further","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.4,"y":264.36,"width":84.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 264, 84, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":912,"blockId":38,"value":"observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":263.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 263, 12"},{"type":3,"id":913,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.16,"y":291.96,"width":73.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 291, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":914,"blockId":38,"value":"from those cases in which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.96,"y":291.96,"width":125.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 291, 125, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":915,"blockId":38,"value":"“‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"“‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":916,"blockId":38,"value":"who had appeared.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":97.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":917,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.84,"y":347.16,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"177, 347, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":918,"blockId":38,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.0,"y":347.16,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"195, 347, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":919,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.76,"y":347.16,"width":74.77,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"239, 347, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":920,"blockId":38,"value":", 734 F.3d at 1182).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.52,"y":347.16,"width":98.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"314, 347, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":921,"blockId":38,"value":"Applying arguable-basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":421.2,"y":347.16,"width":118.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"421, 347, 118, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":922,"blockId":38,"value":"review in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":44.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":923,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.88,"y":374.76,"width":73.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"119, 374, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":924,"blockId":38,"value":", the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":193.56,"y":374.76,"width":346.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"193, 374, 346, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":925,"blockId":38,"value":"not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":261.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 261, 12"},{"type":3,"id":926,"blockId":38,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.84,"y":402.36,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 402, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":927,"blockId":38,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.76,"y":402.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"401, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":928,"blockId":38,"value":"(quoting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.32,"y":402.36,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 402, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":929,"blockId":38,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.72,"y":402.36,"width":74.17,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"462, 402, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":930,"blockId":38,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":536.88,"y":402.36,"width":3.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"536, 402, 3, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter ,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":931,"blockId":38,"value":"734 F.3d at 1181–82).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":106.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 106, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":178.32,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"734 F.3d at 1181–82)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" This court agrees with Petitioners that the arguable basis standard applies here. In Lee\r\n Memorial Hospital , the D.C. Circuit described Bell Helicopter as “one specific situation” in which\r\n the court did not apply the arguable basis standard. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. The court\r\n emphasized that Bell Helicopter “involved a default judgment entered against a foreign sovereign\r\n who did not appear to defend itself from the suit, but who later moved to vacate the judgment\r\n against it under Rule 60(b)(4)” for lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Id. The court further\r\n observed that it had distinguished the circumstances in Bell Helicopter from those cases in which\r\n “‘the objecting party had appeared in the challenged proceeding’ or was in privity with a party\r\n who had appeared.” Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter , 734 F.3d at 1182). Applying arguable-basis\r\n review in Bell Helicopter , the court emphasized, would “create a high risk for parties who choose\r\n not to appear” based on the belief that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter ,\r\n 734 F.3d at 1181–82).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":49,"Value":{"pageNum":11,"columnStart":932,"columnEnd":965,"text":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies. That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.5","paragraphLabel":"4.A.5","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies. That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":932,"blockId":39,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":112.18,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 457, 112, 12"},{"type":3,"id":933,"blockId":39,"value":"confirms that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":223.2,"y":457.56,"width":63.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"223, 457, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":934,"blockId":39,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.28,"y":457.56,"width":37.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"290, 457, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":935,"blockId":39,"value":"review under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.96,"y":457.56,"width":63.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 457, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":936,"blockId":39,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.2,"y":457.56,"width":73.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"397, 457, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":937,"blockId":39,"value":"is appropriate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.24,"y":457.56,"width":65.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"474, 457, 65, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":938,"blockId":39,"value":"only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":442.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 442, 12"},{"type":3,"id":939,"blockId":39,"value":"But","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.84,"y":485.16,"width":17.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 485, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":940,"blockId":39,"value":"when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":941,"blockId":39,"value":"That is precisely what occurred here.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":181.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 181, 12"},{"type":3,"id":942,"blockId":39,"value":"Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.84,"y":540.36,"width":278.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 540, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":943,"blockId":39,"value":"contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":253.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 253, 12"},{"type":3,"id":944,"blockId":39,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":327.96,"y":567.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"327, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":945,"blockId":39,"value":"rendered void the Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.12,"y":567.96,"width":170.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 567, 170, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":946,"blockId":39,"value":"BIT’s arbitration agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":138.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 138, 12"},{"type":3,"id":947,"blockId":39,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":218.4,"y":595.56,"width":61.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"218, 595, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":948,"blockId":39,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":279.96,"y":595.56,"width":141.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"279, 595, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":949,"blockId":39,"value":"The court rejected that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":429.0,"y":595.56,"width":111.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"429, 595, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":950,"blockId":39,"value":"argument.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":951,"blockId":39,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.6,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"126, 623, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":952,"blockId":39,"value":"Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.8,"y":623.16,"width":394.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 623, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":953,"blockId":39,"value":"standard in the circumstances in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 155, 12"},{"type":3,"id":954,"blockId":39,"value":"Bell Helicopter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.24,"y":650.76,"width":74.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"231, 650, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":955,"blockId":39,"value":"are absent here.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.76,"y":650.76,"width":81.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 650, 81, 12"},{"type":3,"id":956,"blockId":39,"value":"Lee Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":396.84,"y":650.76,"width":52.18,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"396, 650, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":957,"blockId":39,"value":"Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":452.52,"y":650.76,"width":28.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"452, 650, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":958,"blockId":39,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.84,"y":650.76,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 650, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":959,"blockId":39,"value":"10 F.4th at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.32,"y":650.76,"width":52.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 650, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":960,"blockId":39,"value":"864.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":961,"blockId":39,"value":"Romania’s contention that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":100.2,"y":678.36,"width":128.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"100, 678, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":962,"blockId":39,"value":"de novo","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.84,"y":678.36,"width":38.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"231, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":963,"blockId":39,"value":"review is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.24,"y":678.36,"width":45.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 678, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":964,"blockId":39,"value":"applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":321.84,"y":678.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"321, 678, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":965,"blockId":39,"value":"under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":374.76,"y":678.36,"width":165.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"374, 678, 165, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Lee Memorial Hospital confirms that de novo review under Bell Helicopter is appropriate\r\n only when a foreign sovereign that has not appeared seeks relief from a default judgment. But\r\n when a foreign sovereign appears and contests jurisdiction, the “arguable basis” standard applies.\r\n That is precisely what occurred here. Romania appeared and had a full and fair opportunity to\r\n contest the court’s jurisdiction. It did so, arguing that Achmea rendered void the Sweden-Romania\r\n BIT’s arbitration agreement. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–80. The court rejected that\r\n argument. Id. Thus, “the considerations that led [the D.C. Circuit] away from the arguable basis\r\n standard in the circumstances in Bell Helicopter are absent here.” Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at\r\n 864. Romania’s contention that de novo review is applicable under Rule 60(b)(4) whenever the\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":50,"Value":{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":971,"columnEnd":975,"text":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":971,"blockId":40,"value":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":326.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 326, 12"},{"type":3,"id":972,"blockId":40,"value":"Lee Memorial Hospital","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.92,"y":71.16,"width":111.82,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"400, 71, 111, 12"},{"type":3,"id":973,"blockId":40,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":512.76,"y":71.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"512, 71, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":974,"blockId":40,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.52,"y":71.16,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 71, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":975,"blockId":40,"value":"court therefore applies the arguable basis test.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":219.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 219, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":291.48,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"court therefore applies the arguable basis test."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" jurisdictional inquiry implicates the FSIA cannot be sustained under Lee Memorial Hospital . The\r\n court therefore applies the arguable basis test.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":51,"Value":{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":976,"columnEnd":1001,"text":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.6","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.6","paragraphLabel":"4.A.6","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":976,"blockId":41,"value":"Arguable Basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":74.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"108, 126, 74, 12"},{"type":3,"id":977,"blockId":41,"value":"Review","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.36,"y":126.36,"width":34.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"186, 126, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":978,"blockId":41,"value":".","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.92,"y":126.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 126, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":979,"blockId":41,"value":"Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.72,"y":126.36,"width":308.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"231, 126, 308, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":980,"blockId":41,"value":"must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":981,"blockId":41,"value":"situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":982,"blockId":41,"value":"arguable basis for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":150.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 150, 12"},{"type":3,"id":983,"blockId":41,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.4,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"227, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":984,"blockId":41,"value":"(cleaned up).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":243.36,"y":209.16,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"243, 209, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":985,"blockId":41,"value":"Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":310.56,"y":209.16,"width":229.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"310, 209, 229, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":986,"blockId":41,"value":"case.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":28.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":987,"blockId":41,"value":"Espinosa","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":109.2,"y":236.76,"width":44.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"109, 236, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":988,"blockId":41,"value":", 559 U.S. at 271.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":153.24,"y":236.76,"width":88.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"153, 236, 88, 12"},{"type":3,"id":989,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.32,"y":236.76,"width":289.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 236, 289, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":990,"blockId":41,"value":"jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":991,"blockId":41,"value":"jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":992,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":212.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 212, 12"},{"type":3,"id":993,"blockId":41,"value":"Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.04,"y":319.56,"width":249.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 319, 249, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":994,"blockId":41,"value":"to carefully consider","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":995,"blockId":41,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.4,"y":347.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"173, 347, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":996,"blockId":41,"value":"and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":215.04,"y":347.16,"width":324.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 347, 324, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":997,"blockId":41,"value":"to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":998,"blockId":41,"value":"agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":418.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 418, 12"},{"type":3,"id":999,"blockId":41,"value":"there was","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.16,"y":402.36,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 402, 45, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1000,"blockId":41,"value":"never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":200.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 200, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1001,"blockId":41,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.52,"y":429.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"278, 429, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":291.47999999999996,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Arguable Basis Review . Under the arguable basis standard, a “total want of jurisdiction\r\n must be distinguished from an error in the exercise of jurisdiction,” and “only in the former\r\n situation could it be said that the court that rendered the contested judgment lacked even an\r\n arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). Generally, relief is reserved for “the exceptional\r\n case.” Espinosa , 559 U.S. at 271. Romania argues that there was never an arguable basis for\r\n jurisdiction because the “sole basis” for this court’s determination that it had subject matter\r\n jurisdiction “was its own interpretation and application of EU law”—an interpretation which, in\r\n Romania’s view, the CJEU Decision refutes. Romania Mot. at 16–17. Because this court “elected\r\n to carefully consider Achmea and predict how the CJEU would rule with respect to its application\r\n to the [Sweden-Romania] BIT”—and was wrong in its prediction—there “was never[] a valid\r\n agreement to arbitrate” as required by the FSIA arbitration exception and, accordingly, there was\r\n never an “arguable basis for jurisdiction.” Id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":52,"Value":{"pageNum":12,"columnStart":1002,"columnEnd":1020,"text":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir. 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81. Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id. at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.7","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.7","paragraphLabel":"4.A.7","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir. 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81. Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id. at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of ","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1002,"blockId":42,"value":"The court disagrees.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":96.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1003,"blockId":42,"value":"Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.64,"y":457.56,"width":330.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 457, 330, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1004,"blockId":42,"value":"agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1005,"blockId":42,"value":"must be established.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":104.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1006,"blockId":42,"value":"LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.16,"y":512.76,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"185, 512, 202, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1007,"blockId":42,"value":", 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.72,"y":512.76,"width":152.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 512, 152, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1008,"blockId":42,"value":"2021).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":30.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1009,"blockId":42,"value":"This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.64,"y":540.36,"width":368.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 540, 368, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1010,"blockId":42,"value":"Article 7","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":483.12,"y":540.36,"width":43.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"483, 540, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1011,"blockId":42,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":530.04,"y":540.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"530, 540, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1012,"blockId":42,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1013,"blockId":42,"value":"ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":259.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 259, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1014,"blockId":42,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":338.64,"y":595.56,"width":61.79,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"338, 595, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1015,"blockId":42,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.44,"y":595.56,"width":139.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"400, 595, 139, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1016,"blockId":42,"value":"Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":448.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 448, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1017,"blockId":42,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":526.92,"y":623.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 623, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1018,"blockId":42,"value":"at 281.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":33.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1019,"blockId":42,"value":"The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.52,"y":650.76,"width":327.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 650, 327, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1020,"blockId":42,"value":"Micula v. Gov’t of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":449.16,"y":650.76,"width":90.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"449, 650, 90, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court disagrees. Under the FSIA arbitration exception, “the existence of an arbitration\r\n agreement, an arbitration award[,] and a treaty governing the award are all jurisdictional facts that\r\n must be established.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova , 985 F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir.\r\n 2021). This court determined that (1) an arbitration agreement existed, specifically Article 7 of\r\n the Sweden-Romania BIT; (2) an arbitration award was issued by an ICSID tribunal; and (3) the\r\n ICSID Convention was a treaty governing the award. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 276–81.\r\n Based on those findings, this court determined the FSIA arbitration exception was applicable. Id.\r\n at 281. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s jurisdictional determination. Micula v. Gov’t of\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":53,"Value":{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1026,"columnEnd":1028,"text":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1026,"blockId":43,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 71, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1027,"blockId":43,"value":", 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":115.32,"y":71.16,"width":424.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"115, 71, 424, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1028,"blockId":43,"value":"exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":331.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 331, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":403.08,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 39","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania , 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (holding that “the district court properly invoked the\r\n exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards” under the FSIA).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":54,"Value":{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1029,"columnEnd":1125,"text":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction” before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s] Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966, which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted). Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is disingenuous.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.8","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.8","paragraphLabel":"4.A.8","rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 508","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction” before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s] Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966, which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted). Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is disingenuous.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":19,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1029,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":126.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1030,"blockId":1,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":30.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1031,"blockId":1,"value":"the D.C. Circuit.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.68,"y":153.96,"width":82.22,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 153, 82, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1032,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot. at 6.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":197.28,"y":153.96,"width":96.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"197, 153, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1033,"blockId":1,"value":"In actuality,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.28,"y":153.96,"width":58.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 153, 58, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1034,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania conceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.92,"y":153.96,"width":92.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 153, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1035,"blockId":1,"value":"it.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":461.88,"y":153.96,"width":9.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"461, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1036,"blockId":1,"value":"It","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.12,"y":153.96,"width":7.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 153, 7, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1037,"blockId":1,"value":"said in its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":491.52,"y":153.96,"width":48.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"491, 153, 48, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1038,"blockId":1,"value":"opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1039,"blockId":1,"value":"Petition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":37.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1040,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.44,"y":209.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1041,"blockId":1,"value":"Confirm","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.8,"y":209.16,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"136, 209, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1042,"blockId":1,"value":"[the]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.48,"y":209.16,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 209, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1043,"blockId":1,"value":"Arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":218.04,"y":209.16,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"218, 209, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1044,"blockId":1,"value":"Award . . . pursuant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.44,"y":209.16,"width":95.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 209, 95, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1045,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.48,"y":209.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1046,"blockId":1,"value":"28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":402.84,"y":209.16,"width":110.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"402, 209, 110, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1047,"blockId":1,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.6,"y":209.16,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 209, 17, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1048,"blockId":1,"value":"22 U.S.C. § 1650a.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":96.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1049,"blockId":1,"value":"Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.52,"y":236.76,"width":203.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 236, 203, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1050,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula v. Gov’t of Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.68,"y":236.76,"width":131.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"379, 236, 131, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1051,"blockId":1,"value":", Case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.44,"y":236.76,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 236, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1052,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1053,"blockId":1,"value":"exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1054,"blockId":1,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1055,"blockId":1,"value":"authorizes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.04,"y":319.56,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1056,"blockId":1,"value":"federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.24,"y":319.56,"width":33.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 319, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1057,"blockId":1,"value":"courts","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.36,"y":319.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 319, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1058,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":236.4,"y":319.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"236, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1059,"blockId":1,"value":"enforce","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":251.64,"y":319.56,"width":36.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"251, 319, 36, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1060,"blockId":1,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.52,"y":319.56,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 319, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1061,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.48,"y":319.56,"width":50.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 319, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1062,"blockId":1,"value":"awards.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.28,"y":319.56,"width":37.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 319, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1063,"blockId":1,"value":"Based","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.24,"y":319.56,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 319, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1064,"blockId":1,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.04,"y":319.56,"width":12.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1065,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":487.92,"y":319.56,"width":52.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"487, 319, 52, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1066,"blockId":1,"value":"concession, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":73.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1067,"blockId":1,"value":"D.C. Circuit wrote:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":148.8,"y":347.16,"width":93.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"148, 347, 93, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1068,"blockId":1,"value":"“As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.4,"y":347.16,"width":294.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 347, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1069,"blockId":1,"value":"the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":273.53,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1070,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":353.16,"y":374.76,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"353, 374, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1071,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.12,"y":374.76,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 374, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1072,"blockId":1,"value":"805 F. App’x","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":393.96,"y":374.76,"width":66.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"393, 374, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1073,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.8,"y":374.76,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 374, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1074,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":476.28,"y":374.76,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"476, 374, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1075,"blockId":1,"value":"The court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":492.96,"y":374.76,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"492, 374, 47, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1076,"blockId":1,"value":"noted","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1077,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":104.76,"y":402.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"104, 402, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1078,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdictional","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.52,"y":402.36,"width":63.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 402, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1079,"blockId":1,"value":"argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":194.88,"y":402.36,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"194, 402, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1080,"blockId":1,"value":"raised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.24,"y":402.36,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 402, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1081,"blockId":1,"value":"only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.92,"y":402.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 402, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1082,"blockId":1,"value":"by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.28,"y":402.36,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 402, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1083,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":326.4,"y":402.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"326, 402, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1084,"blockId":1,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":347.16,"y":402.36,"width":45.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"347, 402, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1085,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.12,"y":402.36,"width":60.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"399, 402, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1086,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":465.96,"y":402.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"465, 402, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1087,"blockId":1,"value":"amicus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":482.04,"y":402.36,"width":33.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"482, 402, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1088,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":522.0,"y":402.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"522, 402, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1089,"blockId":1,"value":"“Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"“Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1090,"blockId":1,"value":"concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1091,"blockId":1,"value":"the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":318.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 318, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1092,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"397, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1093,"blockId":1,"value":"It cannot be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":417.6,"y":485.16,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"417, 485, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1094,"blockId":1,"value":"true","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":478.92,"y":485.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"478, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1095,"blockId":1,"value":"that this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":501.12,"y":485.16,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"501, 485, 38, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1096,"blockId":1,"value":"court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1097,"blockId":1,"value":"exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1098,"blockId":1,"value":"raised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":28.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1099,"blockId":1,"value":"by","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.2,"y":567.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1100,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":123.84,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"123, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1101,"blockId":1,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.12,"y":567.96,"width":45.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1102,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":195.72,"y":567.96,"width":63.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"195, 567, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1103,"blockId":1,"value":"Lee","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.6,"y":567.96,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"270, 567, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1104,"blockId":1,"value":"Mem’l","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.52,"y":567.96,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"293, 567, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1105,"blockId":1,"value":"Hosp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.36,"y":567.96,"width":28.27,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"330, 567, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1106,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":567.96,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1107,"blockId":1,"value":"10 F.4th","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.32,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1108,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.92,"y":567.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 567, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1109,"blockId":1,"value":"864","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.2,"y":567.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1110,"blockId":1,"value":"(citation","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.84,"y":567.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 567, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1111,"blockId":1,"value":"omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":496.44,"y":567.96,"width":43.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"496, 567, 43, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.12,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted)."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1112,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1113,"blockId":1,"value":"contention","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.4,"y":595.56,"width":50.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"131, 595, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1114,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":189.48,"y":595.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 595, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1115,"blockId":1,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":214.92,"y":595.56,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"214, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1116,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.76,"y":595.56,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 595, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1117,"blockId":1,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.8,"y":595.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 595, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1118,"blockId":1,"value":"no","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":296.52,"y":595.56,"width":11.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"296, 595, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1119,"blockId":1,"value":"“arguable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.84,"y":595.56,"width":46.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 595, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1120,"blockId":1,"value":"basis”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.72,"y":595.56,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 595, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1121,"blockId":1,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.44,"y":595.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 595, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1122,"blockId":1,"value":"exercise","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.24,"y":595.56,"width":39.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 595, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1123,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":469.92,"y":595.56,"width":54.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"469, 595, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1124,"blockId":1,"value":"is","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":532.08,"y":595.56,"width":7.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"532, 595, 7, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1125,"blockId":1,"value":"disingenuous.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":66.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":138.36,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"disingenuous."}],"Rectangle":"108, 126, 432, 509","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania coyly now says that it “did not reference the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”\r\n before the D.C. Circuit. Romania Mot. at 6. In actuality, Romania conceded it. It said in its\r\n opening briefing on appeal that “[t]he District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over [Micula’s]\r\n Petition to Confirm [the] Arbitration Award . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) and\r\n 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.” Br. of Resp’t-Appellant Gov’t of Romania, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania , Case\r\n No. 19-7127, Doc. No. 1835247 at 1. Those code provisions, respectively, are the FSIA arbitration\r\n exception and Section 3 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Act of 1966,\r\n which authorizes federal courts to enforce ICSID arbitration awards. Based on Romania’s\r\n concession, the D.C. Circuit wrote: “As Romania now agrees, the district court properly invoked\r\n the exception for actions to enforce arbitration awards.” Micula , 805 F. App’x at 1. The court\r\n noted the jurisdictional argument raised only by the European Commission as amicus that\r\n “Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified by its ascension to the European Union,” but\r\n concluded that, “as the district court carefully explained, Romania did not join the EU until after\r\n the underlying events here, so the arbitration agreement applied.” Id. It cannot be true that this\r\n court lacked a “total want of jurisdiction” when Romania itself conceded on appeal that the court’s\r\n exercise of jurisdiction was proper and the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the jurisdictional argument\r\n raised by the European Commission. Lee Mem’l Hosp. , 10 F.4th at 864 (citation omitted).\r\n Romania’s contention that this court had no “arguable basis” to exercise jurisdiction is\r\n disingenuous.\r\n","MarginRight":540.12}}},{"Key":55,"Value":{"pageNum":13,"columnStart":1126,"columnEnd":1131,"text":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.9","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.9","paragraphLabel":"4.A.9","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1126,"blockId":1,"value":"The CJEU’s recent rulings","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":128.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1127,"blockId":1,"value":"do","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.64,"y":650.76,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1128,"blockId":1,"value":"not alter that conclusion.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.88,"y":650.76,"width":119.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 650, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1129,"blockId":1,"value":"The CJEU Decision held","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":380.64,"y":650.76,"width":120.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"380, 650, 120, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1130,"blockId":1,"value":"that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.12,"y":650.76,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 650, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1131,"blockId":1,"value":"European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The CJEU’s recent rulings do not alter that conclusion. The CJEU Decision held that the\r\n European Commission possessed the authority to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of an\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":56,"Value":{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1137,"columnEnd":1163,"text":"arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that, because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)— the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1137,"blockId":2,"value":"arbitration award against Romania that issued","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":219.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 219, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1138,"blockId":2,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.48,"y":71.16,"width":22.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"294, 71, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1139,"blockId":2,"value":"Romania acceded to the EU would violate the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":320.04,"y":71.16,"width":219.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"320, 71, 219, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1140,"blockId":2,"value":"prohibition on state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":119.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 119, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1141,"blockId":2,"value":"CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":201.72,"y":98.76,"width":134.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"201, 98, 134, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1142,"blockId":2,"value":"More specifically, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.84,"y":98.76,"width":108.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 98, 108, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1143,"blockId":2,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":459.72,"y":98.76,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"459, 98, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1144,"blockId":2,"value":"held that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":493.32,"y":98.76,"width":46.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"493, 98, 46, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1145,"blockId":2,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":37.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1146,"blockId":2,"value":"the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.4,"y":126.36,"width":426.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 126, 426, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1147,"blockId":2,"value":"of the Award’s issuance","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":116.21,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1148,"blockId":2,"value":"(which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":191.52,"y":153.96,"width":224.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"191, 153, 224, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1149,"blockId":2,"value":"not,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.92,"y":153.96,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1150,"blockId":2,"value":"as the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.64,"y":153.96,"width":99.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 153, 99, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1151,"blockId":2,"value":"held,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":23.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1152,"blockId":2,"value":"at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":99.0,"y":181.56,"width":234.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"99, 181, 234, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1153,"blockId":2,"value":"(which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.2,"y":181.56,"width":202.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 181, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.76,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1154,"blockId":2,"value":"the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":236.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 236, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1155,"blockId":2,"value":"Id. ¶¶","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":314.64,"y":209.16,"width":28.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"314, 209, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1156,"blockId":2,"value":"123–25.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.96,"y":209.16,"width":39.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 209, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1157,"blockId":2,"value":"As to the arbitration agreement","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.96,"y":209.16,"width":149.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"390, 209, 149, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1158,"blockId":2,"value":"itself, the CJEU Decision says little.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":176.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 176, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1159,"blockId":2,"value":"It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":255.24,"y":236.76,"width":284.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 236, 284, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1160,"blockId":2,"value":"Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1161,"blockId":2,"value":"to the EU onwards.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":92.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1162,"blockId":2,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":170.52,"y":291.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"170, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1163,"blockId":2,"value":"¶ 145.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":186.6,"y":291.96,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"186, 291, 29, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":216.12,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" arbitration award against Romania that issued after Romania acceded to the EU would violate the\r\n prohibition on state aid. CJEU Decision ¶¶ 123–27. More specifically, the CJEU held that,\r\n because the relevant time for assessing the European Commission’s competence was at the time\r\n of the Award’s issuance (which post-dated Romania’s accession)—and not, as the General Court\r\n held, at the time Romania withdrew the tax incentives (which pre-dated Romania’s accession)—\r\n the Award was subject to the EU’s state aid laws. Id. ¶¶ 123–25. As to the arbitration agreement\r\n itself, the CJEU Decision says little. It states only that Romania’s consent to arbitrate under the\r\n Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “lacked any force” from the time Romania acceded\r\n to the EU onwards. Id. ¶ 145.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":57,"Value":{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1164,"columnEnd":1185,"text":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm. Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.10","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.10","paragraphLabel":"4.A.10","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm. Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1164,"blockId":3,"value":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":367.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 367, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1165,"blockId":3,"value":"(1) Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":479.88,"y":319.56,"width":60.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"479, 319, 60, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1166,"blockId":3,"value":"consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1167,"blockId":3,"value":"request for arbitration in July 2005, two years","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":226.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 226, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1168,"blockId":3,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.88,"y":374.76,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"302, 374, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1169,"blockId":3,"value":"Romania acceded to the European Union","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.68,"y":374.76,"width":202.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 374, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1170,"blockId":3,"value":"(and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"(and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1171,"blockId":3,"value":"made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1172,"blockId":3,"value":"Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":267.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 457, 267, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1173,"blockId":3,"value":", 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":339.96,"y":457.56,"width":175.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"339, 457, 175, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1174,"blockId":3,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":521.28,"y":457.56,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"521, 457, 18, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1175,"blockId":3,"value":"arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1176,"blockId":3,"value":"pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":226.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 226, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1177,"blockId":3,"value":"28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.0,"y":512.76,"width":115.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 512, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1178,"blockId":3,"value":"Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":425.4,"y":512.76,"width":114.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"425, 512, 114, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1179,"blockId":3,"value":"Gov’t of Belize","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":72.79,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 540, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1180,"blockId":3,"value":", 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.72,"y":540.36,"width":395.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"144, 540, 395, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1181,"blockId":3,"value":"arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":323.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 323, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1182,"blockId":3,"value":"The CJEU Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.44,"y":567.96,"width":97.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 567, 97, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1183,"blockId":3,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":505.32,"y":567.96,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"505, 567, 34, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1184,"blockId":3,"value":"invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1185,"blockId":3,"value":"or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":191.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 191, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":263.28,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"or when Petitioners filed for arbitration."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" That ruling does not change the “jurisdictional facts” found by this court: (1) Romania\r\n consented to arbitration under the Sweden-Romania BIT in May 2002, (2) Petitioners filed a\r\n request for arbitration in July 2005, two years before Romania acceded to the European Union\r\n (and thus at a time when Romania could, and did, consent to arbitrate), and (3) the ICSID tribunal\r\n made its award pursuant to the agreement to arbitrate, which this court is authorized to confirm.\r\n Process & Indus. Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The\r\n arbitration exception to the FSIA grants federal courts jurisdiction to “confirm an award made\r\n pursuant to a[] [valid] agreement to arbitrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6); Belize Soc. Dev. Ltd. v.\r\n Gov’t of Belize , 794 F.3d 99, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (stating that a “valid” agreement to submit to\r\n arbitration is required to exercise jurisdiction under § 1605(a)(6)). The CJEU Decision did not\r\n invalidate or nullify Romania’s consent to arbitrate at the time it entered the treaty with Sweden\r\n or when Petitioners filed for arbitration.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":58,"Value":{"pageNum":14,"columnStart":1186,"columnEnd":1191,"text":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that, under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.11","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.11","paragraphLabel":"4.A.11","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that, under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1186,"blockId":4,"value":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":300.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 300, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1187,"blockId":4,"value":"That ruling held only that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.12,"y":650.76,"width":125.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 650, 125, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1188,"blockId":4,"value":"under EU law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":69.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 678, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1189,"blockId":4,"value":", a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":141.96,"y":678.36,"width":286.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"141, 678, 286, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1190,"blockId":4,"value":"because","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":432.48,"y":678.36,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 678, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1191,"blockId":4,"value":"the European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.84,"y":678.36,"width":65.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"474, 678, 65, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 431, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The Second CJEU Decision does not compel a contrary result. That ruling held only that,\r\n under EU law , a court of a Member State could not enforce the Award because the European\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":59,"Value":{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1197,"columnEnd":1237,"text":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id. ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed. Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised jurisdiction.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id. ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed. Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised jurisdiction.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1197,"blockId":5,"value":"Commission had deemed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":123.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1198,"blockId":5,"value":"the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.2,"y":71.16,"width":51.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 71, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1199,"blockId":5,"value":"incompatible with","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.28,"y":71.16,"width":87.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 71, 87, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1200,"blockId":5,"value":"the EU’s state aid rules.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":346.2,"y":71.16,"width":117.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"346, 71, 117, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1201,"blockId":5,"value":"Second CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.08,"y":71.16,"width":67.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"472, 71, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1202,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1203,"blockId":5,"value":"¶ 46.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.68,"y":98.76,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1204,"blockId":5,"value":"Specifically, the court held:","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":150.24,"y":98.76,"width":135.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"150, 98, 135, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1205,"blockId":5,"value":"“EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.4,"y":98.76,"width":249.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 98, 249, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1206,"blockId":5,"value":"court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1207,"blockId":5,"value":"[the State Aid","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":69.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1208,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.56,"y":153.96,"width":394.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 153, 394, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"[the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1209,"blockId":5,"value":"event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1210,"blockId":5,"value":"awards them.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":71.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 71, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1211,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":153.96,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"153, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1212,"blockId":5,"value":"Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.48,"y":209.16,"width":216.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 209, 216, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1213,"blockId":5,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.24,"y":209.16,"width":35.86,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"399, 209, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1214,"blockId":5,"value":"invalidate or","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":440.28,"y":209.16,"width":62.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"440, 209, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1215,"blockId":5,"value":"nullify","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.08,"y":209.16,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 209, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1216,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":315.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 315, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1217,"blockId":5,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":390.12,"y":236.76,"width":30.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"390, 236, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1218,"blockId":5,"value":"it acceded to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.36,"y":236.76,"width":98.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 236, 98, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1219,"blockId":5,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":526.92,"y":236.76,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 236, 13, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1220,"blockId":5,"value":"¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1221,"blockId":5,"value":"accession to the European Union”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":171.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 171, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1222,"blockId":5,"value":"Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":249.48,"y":291.96,"width":290.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"249, 291, 290, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1223,"blockId":5,"value":"there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1224,"blockId":5,"value":"Neither","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1225,"blockId":5,"value":"CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.48,"y":347.16,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 347, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1226,"blockId":5,"value":"ruling","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.76,"y":347.16,"width":28.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 347, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1227,"blockId":5,"value":"therefore","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.16,"y":347.16,"width":43.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"185, 347, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1228,"blockId":5,"value":"upends","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.96,"y":347.16,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 347, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1229,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.64,"y":347.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 347, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1230,"blockId":5,"value":"arguable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.0,"y":347.16,"width":41.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"297, 347, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1231,"blockId":5,"value":"basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.88,"y":347.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1232,"blockId":5,"value":"upon","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":375.48,"y":347.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1233,"blockId":5,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.08,"y":347.16,"width":29.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 347, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1234,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.2,"y":347.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 347, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1235,"blockId":5,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.44,"y":347.16,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 347, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1236,"blockId":5,"value":"exercised","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":494.76,"y":347.16,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"494, 347, 45, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1237,"blockId":5,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 57, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":129.72,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"jurisdiction."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 315","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Commission had deemed the Award incompatible with the EU’s state aid rules. Second CJEU\r\n Decision ¶ 46. Specifically, the court held: “EU law . . . must be interpreted as meaning that a\r\n court of a Member State seised of the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of\r\n [the State Aid Decision] . . . is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not, in any\r\n event, enforce it in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain payment of the damages which it\r\n awards them.” Id. Again, as in its earlier decision, the CJEU did not invalidate or nullify\r\n Romania’s agreement to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT before it acceded to the EU. Id.\r\n ¶ 40 (stating that Romania’s consent to the arbitration procedure became void “as from Romania’s\r\n accession to the European Union”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact found by the court—that\r\n there was a valid agreement to arbitrate before Romania acceded to the EU—remains undisturbed.\r\n Neither CJEU ruling therefore upends the arguable basis upon which the court exercised\r\n jurisdiction.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":60,"Value":{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1238,"columnEnd":1238,"text":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.A.12","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.A.12","paragraphLabel":"4.A.12","rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1238,"blockId":6,"value":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":402.36,"width":428.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":536.28,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4)."}],"Rectangle":"108, 402, 428, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" For the stated reasons, this court denies Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4).\r\n","MarginRight":536.28}}},{"Key":61,"Value":{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1239,"columnEnd":1240,"text":" Rule 60(b)(5) ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.B","paragraphId":"hIV.B","paragraphLabel":"B.","rectangle":"108, 429, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1239,"blockId":7,"value":"B.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":429.96,"width":11.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 429, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1240,"blockId":7,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":429.96,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 429, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"B. Rule 60(b)(5)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 429, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" B. Rule 60(b)(5)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}}},{"Key":62,"Value":{"pageNum":15,"columnStart":1241,"columnEnd":1258,"text":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.1","paragraphLabel":"4.B.1","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1241,"blockId":8,"value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1242,"blockId":8,"value":"has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":193.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 193, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1243,"blockId":8,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.96,"y":485.16,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"270, 485, 23, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1244,"blockId":8,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.36,"y":485.16,"width":124.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 485, 124, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1245,"blockId":8,"value":"Romania does not claim","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":424.44,"y":485.16,"width":115.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"424, 485, 115, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1246,"blockId":8,"value":"that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1247,"blockId":8,"value":"that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1248,"blockId":8,"value":"or somehow part of the same proceeding.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":203.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 203, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1249,"blockId":8,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.76,"y":567.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"281, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1250,"blockId":8,"value":";","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.72,"y":567.96,"width":3.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 567, 3, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1251,"blockId":8,"value":"see also","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.08,"y":567.96,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"301, 567, 38, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1252,"blockId":8,"value":"Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.6,"y":567.96,"width":197.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 567, 197, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1253,"blockId":8,"value":"11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":205.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 205, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1254,"blockId":8,"value":"(“This ground is limited to cases in which the present","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.04,"y":595.56,"width":258.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 595, 258, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1255,"blockId":8,"value":"judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":431.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 431, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1256,"blockId":8,"value":"For a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.2,"y":623.16,"width":28.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 623, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1257,"blockId":8,"value":"judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1258,"blockId":8,"value":"the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 233","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is available “when the judgment is based on a prior action that\r\n has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5. Romania does not claim\r\n that the Judgment has been satisfied, thus the application of Rule 60(b)(5) is “limited to a judgment\r\n that has been reversed or otherwise vacated—based in the sense of res judicata, collateral estoppel,\r\n or somehow part of the same proceeding.” Id. ; see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,\r\n 11 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2863 (3d ed.) (“This ground is limited to cases in which the present\r\n judgment is based on the prior judgment in the sense of claim or issue preclusion.”). For a\r\n judgment to be “based” on a prior judgment, the “relationship between the present judgment and\r\n the prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":63,"Value":{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1264,"columnEnd":1276,"text":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering the present judgment has since been reversed”).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering the present judgment has since been reversed”).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":7,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1264,"blockId":9,"value":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1265,"blockId":9,"value":"example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":270.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 270, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1266,"blockId":9,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.2,"y":98.76,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"349, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1267,"blockId":9,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.6,"y":98.76,"width":123.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 98, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1268,"blockId":9,"value":"(internal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":499.56,"y":98.76,"width":40.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"499, 98, 40, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1269,"blockId":9,"value":"quotation marks and citation omitted).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":191.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 191, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1270,"blockId":9,"value":"Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":273.84,"y":126.36,"width":266.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"273, 126, 266, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1271,"blockId":9,"value":"Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1272,"blockId":9,"value":"[that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":296.09,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 296, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1273,"blockId":9,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":374.52,"y":181.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"374, 181, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1274,"blockId":9,"value":"; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":387.48,"y":181.56,"width":152.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"387, 181, 152, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"[that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1275,"blockId":9,"value":"60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1276,"blockId":9,"value":"the present judgment has since been reversed”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":228.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 228, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":300.84000000000003,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"the present judgment has since been reversed”)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 177","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" case; rather, the prior judgment must be a necessary element of the decision, giving rise, for\r\n example, to the cause of action or a successful defense.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (internal\r\n quotation marks and citation omitted). Reliance on “persuasive precedents in support of the\r\n Court’s position” are insufficient to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(5); there must be a “single case\r\n [that provides] a necessary element for the Court’s decision.” Id. ; Wright & Miller § 2863 (Rule\r\n 60(b)(5) “does not apply merely because a case relied on as precedent by the court in rendering\r\n the present judgment has since been reversed”).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":64,"Value":{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1277,"columnEnd":1292,"text":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore, Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action” (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.2","paragraphLabel":"4.B.2","rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore, Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action” (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1277,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":264.36,"width":297.99,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 264, 297, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1278,"blockId":10,"value":"finding","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":411.0,"y":264.36,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"411, 264, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1279,"blockId":10,"value":"“depend[s] on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.72,"y":264.36,"width":89.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 264, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1280,"blockId":10,"value":"General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":303.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 303, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1281,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania Mot. at 17.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.56,"y":291.96,"width":100.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 291, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1282,"blockId":10,"value":"Therefore,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":489.48,"y":291.96,"width":50.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"489, 291, 50, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1283,"blockId":10,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1284,"blockId":10,"value":"says, the jurisdictional holding","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.56,"y":319.56,"width":147.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 319, 147, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1285,"blockId":10,"value":"underlying","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":269.76,"y":319.56,"width":51.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"269, 319, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1286,"blockId":10,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":324.96,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"324, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1287,"blockId":10,"value":"Judgments","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.84,"y":319.56,"width":51.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 319, 51, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1288,"blockId":10,"value":"was based on a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":397.44,"y":319.56,"width":72.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"397, 319, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1289,"blockId":10,"value":"“prior action”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.52,"y":319.56,"width":66.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 319, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1290,"blockId":10,"value":"(the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"(the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1291,"blockId":10,"value":"Rule 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":68.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 68, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1292,"blockId":10,"value":"The court is unpersuaded.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":146.52,"y":374.76,"width":123.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"146, 374, 123, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":270.48,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded."}],"Rectangle":"108, 264, 432, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania argues that this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding “depend[s] on the\r\n General Court Decision that the [CJEU Decision] overturned.” Romania Mot. at 17. Therefore,\r\n Romania says, the jurisdictional holding underlying the Judgments was based on a “prior action”\r\n (the General Court Decision) that has been reversed (by the CJEU Decision), meriting relief under\r\n Rule 60(b)(5). The court is unpersuaded.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":65,"Value":{"pageNum":16,"columnStart":1293,"columnEnd":1330,"text":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.3","paragraphLabel":"4.B.3","rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1293,"blockId":11,"value":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":402.36,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 402, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1294,"blockId":11,"value":"Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":350.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 350, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1295,"blockId":11,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":429.0,"y":429.96,"width":18.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"429, 429, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1296,"blockId":11,"value":"court relied on the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.96,"y":429.96,"width":89.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 429, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1297,"blockId":11,"value":"General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":280.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 280, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1298,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":356.28,"y":457.56,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"356, 457, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1299,"blockId":11,"value":"did not render the arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":398.64,"y":457.56,"width":141.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"398, 457, 141, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1300,"blockId":11,"value":"exception","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":46.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1301,"blockId":11,"value":"inapplicable.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":125.16,"y":485.16,"width":61.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"125, 485, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1302,"blockId":11,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":200.16,"y":485.16,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"200, 485, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1303,"blockId":11,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":223.32,"y":485.16,"width":33.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"223, 485, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1304,"blockId":11,"value":"I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.0,"y":485.16,"width":4.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"264, 485, 4, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1305,"blockId":11,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":267.96,"y":485.16,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"267, 485, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1306,"blockId":11,"value":"404","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.56,"y":485.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"277, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1307,"blockId":11,"value":"F.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":302.16,"y":485.16,"width":9.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"302, 485, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1308,"blockId":11,"value":"Supp.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":318.48,"y":485.16,"width":27.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"318, 485, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1309,"blockId":11,"value":"3d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.8,"y":485.16,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"352, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1310,"blockId":11,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":371.4,"y":485.16,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"371, 485, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1311,"blockId":11,"value":"279–80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":386.64,"y":485.16,"width":39.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"386, 485, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1312,"blockId":11,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":438.84,"y":485.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"438, 485, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1313,"blockId":11,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":464.04,"y":485.16,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"464, 485, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1314,"blockId":11,"value":"primarily","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.24,"y":485.16,"width":44.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 485, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1315,"blockId":11,"value":"distinguished","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":64.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 64, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1316,"blockId":11,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.96,"y":512.76,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 512, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1317,"blockId":11,"value":"on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":180.36,"y":512.76,"width":359.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"180, 512, 359, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1318,"blockId":11,"value":"one.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":20.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1319,"blockId":11,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":98.28,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"98, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1320,"blockId":11,"value":"at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.24,"y":540.36,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 540, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1321,"blockId":11,"value":"It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":152.76,"y":540.36,"width":387.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"152, 540, 387, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1322,"blockId":11,"value":"establish the factual differences,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":152.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 152, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1323,"blockId":11,"value":"see","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.28,"y":567.96,"width":15.29,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"227, 567, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1324,"blockId":11,"value":"Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":245.64,"y":567.96,"width":294.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"245, 567, 294, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1325,"blockId":11,"value":"Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":409.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 409, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1326,"blockId":11,"value":"The factual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":486.24,"y":595.56,"width":53.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"486, 595, 53, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1327,"blockId":11,"value":"distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":365.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 365, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1328,"blockId":11,"value":"Next, the court said","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":444.84,"y":623.16,"width":95.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"444, 623, 95, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1329,"blockId":11,"value":"that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1330,"blockId":11,"value":"tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned"}],"Rectangle":"108, 402, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" At bottom, Romania’s arguments are based on a mischaracterization of the role the General\r\n Court Decision played in this court’s subject matter jurisdiction finding. The court relied on the\r\n General Court Decision as the third of three reasons why Achmea did not render the arbitration\r\n exception inapplicable. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279–80. The court primarily\r\n distinguished Achmea on the grounds that the facts of that case are “materially different” than this\r\n one. Id. at 279. It is true, as Romania notes, that this court cited to the General Court Decision to\r\n establish the factual differences, see Romania Mot. at 17, but the court only used the General Court\r\n Decision for expediency to establish historical facts that otherwise were not in dispute. The factual\r\n distinctions that the court noted when entering judgment remain true today. Next, the court said\r\n that “a close inspection of the Final Decision shows that the dispute before the ICSID arbitral\r\n tribunal did not ‘relate to the interpretation or application of EU law’ in the sense that concerned\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":66,"Value":{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1336,"columnEnd":1346,"text":"the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279– 80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 67","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":3,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1336,"blockId":12,"value":"the court in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":55.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1337,"blockId":12,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.4,"y":71.16,"width":38.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"131, 71, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1338,"blockId":12,"value":".”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.92,"y":71.16,"width":8.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 71, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1339,"blockId":12,"value":"Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":185.4,"y":71.16,"width":41.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"185, 71, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1340,"blockId":12,"value":", 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.92,"y":71.16,"width":121.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 71, 121, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1341,"blockId":12,"value":"For this, the court drew upon a “close","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.56,"y":71.16,"width":184.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"355, 71, 184, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1342,"blockId":12,"value":"inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":393.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 393, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1343,"blockId":12,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.64,"y":98.76,"width":31.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"470, 98, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1344,"blockId":12,"value":"at 279–","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":504.72,"y":98.76,"width":35.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"504, 98, 35, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.88,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279–"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1345,"blockId":12,"value":"80.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":15.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1346,"blockId":12,"value":"The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":93.0,"y":126.36,"width":422.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"93, 126, 422, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":515.88,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 467, 67","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" the court in Achmea .” Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 279. For this, the court drew upon a “close\r\n inspection” of the arbitration ruling and nowhere cited the General Court Decision. See id. at 279–\r\n 80. The CJEU Decision in no way affects the court’s reading of the ICSID tribunal’s ruling.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":67,"Value":{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1347,"columnEnd":1390,"text":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288 (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision, at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.B.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.B.4","paragraphLabel":"4.B.4","rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 370","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288 (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision, at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":14,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1347,"blockId":13,"value":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":153.96,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1348,"blockId":13,"value":"a legal proposition.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":93.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 93, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1349,"blockId":13,"value":"Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":172.2,"y":181.56,"width":367.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"172, 181, 367, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1350,"blockId":13,"value":"tread upon substantive EU law.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":163.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 163, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1351,"blockId":13,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.12,"y":209.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"246, 209, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1352,"blockId":13,"value":"at 280.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.12,"y":209.16,"width":34.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"264, 209, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1353,"blockId":13,"value":"Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.12,"y":209.16,"width":230.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 209, 230, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1354,"blockId":13,"value":"authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1355,"blockId":13,"value":"would constitute state aid.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":128.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1356,"blockId":13,"value":"It does not call into question","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":208.08,"y":264.36,"width":141.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"208, 264, 141, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1357,"blockId":13,"value":"the merits","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":353.28,"y":264.36,"width":48.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"353, 264, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1358,"blockId":13,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":405.84,"y":264.36,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"405, 264, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1359,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":419.76,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"419, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1360,"blockId":13,"value":"Award, which rested","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":438.36,"y":264.36,"width":101.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"438, 264, 101, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1361,"blockId":13,"value":"primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":333.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 333, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1362,"blockId":13,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.68,"y":291.96,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"412, 291, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1363,"blockId":13,"value":"Final Decision ¶¶ 288","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":433.2,"y":291.96,"width":106.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"433, 291, 106, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1364,"blockId":13,"value":"(noting","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1365,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":113.4,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"113, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1366,"blockId":13,"value":"parties’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.76,"y":319.56,"width":35.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 319, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1367,"blockId":13,"value":"agreement","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.48,"y":319.56,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1368,"blockId":13,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":234.12,"y":319.56,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"234, 319, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1369,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.84,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1370,"blockId":13,"value":"BIT’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.2,"y":319.56,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 319, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1371,"blockId":13,"value":"“substantive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.12,"y":319.56,"width":59.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 319, 59, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1372,"blockId":13,"value":"rules”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":381.12,"y":319.56,"width":28.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"381, 319, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1373,"blockId":13,"value":"supplied","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.52,"y":319.56,"width":40.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 319, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1374,"blockId":13,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":463.92,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"463, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1375,"blockId":13,"value":"“applicable","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.28,"y":319.56,"width":54.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"485, 319, 54, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"(noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1376,"blockId":13,"value":"law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1377,"blockId":13,"value":"is the BIT itself.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":89.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 89, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1378,"blockId":13,"value":"Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":167.04,"y":374.76,"width":372.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"167, 374, 372, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1379,"blockId":13,"value":"its reading of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":61.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1380,"blockId":13,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.08,"y":402.36,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"136, 402, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1381,"blockId":13,"value":"does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":177.72,"y":402.36,"width":362.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"177, 402, 362, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1382,"blockId":13,"value":"at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":280.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 280, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1383,"blockId":13,"value":"Such relief requires the prior decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":358.68,"y":429.96,"width":181.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"358, 429, 181, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1384,"blockId":13,"value":"to be a “necessary element of the decision.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":206.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 206, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1385,"blockId":13,"value":"Rafii","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.44,"y":457.56,"width":23.38,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"283, 457, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1386,"blockId":13,"value":", 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":306.84,"y":457.56,"width":233.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"306, 457, 233, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1387,"blockId":13,"value":"must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":402.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 402, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1388,"blockId":13,"value":"The General","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.24,"y":485.16,"width":59.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 485, 59, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1389,"blockId":13,"value":"Court Decision was not that.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":136.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 136, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1390,"blockId":13,"value":"Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":214.92,"y":512.76,"width":282.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"214, 512, 282, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":497.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 153, 432, 371","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Only after setting forth these two reasons did the court cite the General Court Decision for\r\n a legal proposition. Even then, it was only to “confirm[] that the ICSID arbitral tribunal did not\r\n tread upon substantive EU law.” Id. at 280. Again, the CJEU Decision addresses only the\r\n authority of the European Commission to determine whether Romania’s satisfaction of the Award\r\n would constitute state aid. It does not call into question the merits of the Award, which rested\r\n primarily on the panel’s interpretation of the Sweden-Romania BIT. See Final Decision ¶¶ 288\r\n (noting the parties’ agreement that the BIT’s “substantive rules” supplied the “applicable\r\n law”), 318 (“There is no dispute among the Parties that the primary source of law for this Tribunal\r\n is the BIT itself.”). Ultimately, the fact that this court cited the General Court Decision to buttress\r\n its reading of Achmea does not mean that the Judgments were based on the General Court Decision,\r\n at least not in a way that merits relief under Rule 60(b)(5). Such relief requires the prior decision\r\n to be a “necessary element of the decision.” Rafii , 2005 WL 8167693 at *5 (“[T]he prior judgment\r\n must be closer than that of a later case relying on the precedent of an earlier case.”). The General\r\n Court Decision was not that. Romania’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":68,"Value":{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1391,"columnEnd":1392,"text":" Rule 60(b)(6) ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hIV.C","paragraphId":"hIV.C","paragraphLabel":"C.","rectangle":"108, 540, 103, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1391,"blockId":14,"value":"C.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 540, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1392,"blockId":14,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":144.0,"y":540.36,"width":67.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"144, 540, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":211.68,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"C. Rule 60(b)(6)"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 103, 12","MarginLeft":108.0,"Value":" C. Rule 60(b)(6)\r\n","MarginRight":211.68}}},{"Key":69,"Value":{"pageNum":17,"columnStart":1393,"columnEnd":1413,"text":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.1","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.1","paragraphLabel":"4.C.1","rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme","averageFontSize":11.973741794310722,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1393,"blockId":15,"value":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":567.96,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1394,"blockId":15,"value":"F","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":6.67,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 6, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1395,"blockId":15,"value":"ED","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":78.6,"y":598.08,"width":12.61,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 598, 12, 9"},{"type":2,"id":1396,"blockId":15,"value":". R. C","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.2,"y":595.56,"width":27.92,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 595, 27, 24"},{"type":2,"id":1397,"blockId":15,"value":"IV","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":9.0,"color":null,"x":119.16,"y":598.08,"width":9.96,"height":9.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 598, 9, 9"},{"type":2,"id":1398,"blockId":15,"value":". P. 60(b).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.12,"y":595.56,"width":48.12,"height":24.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 595, 48, 24"},{"type":2,"id":1399,"blockId":15,"value":"This","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.44,"y":595.56,"width":21.35,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"184, 595, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1400,"blockId":15,"value":"residual","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":209.4,"y":595.56,"width":37.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"209, 595, 37, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1401,"blockId":15,"value":"provision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":250.92,"y":595.56,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"250, 595, 45, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1402,"blockId":15,"value":"“grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":299.88,"y":595.56,"width":240.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 595, 240, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":619.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1403,"blockId":15,"value":"party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1404,"blockId":15,"value":"enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":219.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 219, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1405,"blockId":15,"value":"Liljeberg,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":297.96,"y":650.76,"width":47.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"297, 650, 47, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1406,"blockId":15,"value":"486 U.S.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.0,"y":650.76,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 650, 43, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1407,"blockId":15,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":394.8,"y":650.76,"width":8.62,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"394, 650, 8, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1408,"blockId":15,"value":"863.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.92,"y":650.76,"width":21.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 650, 21, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1409,"blockId":15,"value":"Because the language","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.12,"y":650.76,"width":104.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 650, 104, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1410,"blockId":15,"value":"of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":213.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 213, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1411,"blockId":15,"value":"Twelve John Does","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.56,"y":678.36,"width":90.06,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"289, 678, 90, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1412,"blockId":15,"value":", 841 F.2d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":379.68,"y":678.36,"width":50.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"379, 678, 50, 12"},{"type":2,"id":1413,"blockId":15,"value":"at 1140, the Supreme","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.76,"y":678.36,"width":105.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 678, 105, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme"}],"Rectangle":"108, 567, 432, 123","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief from judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”\r\n F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). This residual provision “grants federal courts broad authority to relieve a\r\n party from a final judgment” as long as relief “is not premised on one of the grounds for relief\r\n enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5).” Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863. Because the language\r\n of Rule 60(b)(6) is “essentially boundless,” Twelve John Does , 841 F.2d at 1140, the Supreme\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":70,"Value":{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1419,"columnEnd":1432,"text":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v. United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v. United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1419,"blockId":16,"value":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":396.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 396, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1420,"blockId":16,"value":"Ackermann v.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":472.56,"y":71.16,"width":67.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"472, 71, 67, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1421,"blockId":16,"value":"United States","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":63.95,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 98, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1422,"blockId":16,"value":", 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.96,"y":98.76,"width":404.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 98, 404, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1423,"blockId":16,"value":"sparingly used,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":78.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 78, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1424,"blockId":16,"value":"Good Luck Nursing Home","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.32,"y":126.36,"width":128.57,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"154, 126, 128, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1425,"blockId":16,"value":", 636 F.2d","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":282.84,"y":126.36,"width":50.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"282, 126, 50, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1426,"blockId":16,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":336.72,"y":126.36,"width":8.62,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"336, 126, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1427,"blockId":16,"value":"577.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.08,"y":126.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 126, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1428,"blockId":16,"value":"“Intervening developments in the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.52,"y":126.36,"width":162.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 126, 162, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1429,"blockId":16,"value":"law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1430,"blockId":16,"value":"60(b)(6).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1431,"blockId":16,"value":"Agostini v. Felton","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":126.24,"y":181.56,"width":85.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"126, 181, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1432,"blockId":16,"value":", 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":212.04,"y":181.56,"width":131.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"212, 181, 131, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":343.32,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Court has clarified that relief is only appropriate in “extraordinary situation[s],” Ackermann v.\r\n United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950), and the D.C. Circuit has cautioned that it “should be only\r\n sparingly used,” Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577. “Intervening developments in the\r\n law by themselves rarely constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule\r\n 60(b)(6).” Agostini v. Felton , 521 U.S. 203, 239 (1997).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":71,"Value":{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1433,"columnEnd":1467,"text":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic] extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling Statute.” Id. at 22–23.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.2","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.2","paragraphLabel":"4.C.2","rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 288","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic] extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling Statute.” Id. at 22–23.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":11,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1433,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":209.16,"width":230.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 209, 230, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1434,"blockId":17,"value":"law does not usually constitute and [sic]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":342.24,"y":209.16,"width":197.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"342, 209, 197, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic]"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1435,"blockId":17,"value":"extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1436,"blockId":17,"value":"that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":445.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 445, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1437,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":520.8,"y":264.36,"width":19.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"520, 264, 19, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1438,"blockId":17,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1439,"blockId":17,"value":"circumstance.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":85.08,"y":291.96,"width":71.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"85, 291, 71, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1440,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":164.04,"y":291.96,"width":229.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"164, 291, 229, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1441,"blockId":17,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.04,"y":291.96,"width":43.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"401, 291, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1442,"blockId":17,"value":"maintains “that the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":447.96,"y":291.96,"width":92.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"447, 291, 92, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1443,"blockId":17,"value":"CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1444,"blockId":17,"value":"and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1445,"blockId":17,"value":"the dispute.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":60.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1446,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":138.6,"y":374.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"138, 374, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1447,"blockId":17,"value":"at 22.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":154.68,"y":374.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"154, 374, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1448,"blockId":17,"value":"The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":187.32,"y":374.76,"width":352.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"187, 374, 352, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1449,"blockId":17,"value":"with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1450,"blockId":17,"value":"issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1451,"blockId":17,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1452,"blockId":17,"value":"US","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":86.76,"y":457.56,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"86, 457, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1453,"blockId":17,"value":"courts,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":107.52,"y":457.56,"width":32.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"107, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1454,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":145.2,"y":457.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"145, 457, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1455,"blockId":17,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":167.88,"y":457.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"167, 457, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1456,"blockId":17,"value":"United","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":188.04,"y":457.56,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"188, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1457,"blockId":17,"value":"States’","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":226.08,"y":457.56,"width":32.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"226, 457, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1458,"blockId":17,"value":"obligations","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":264.12,"y":457.56,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"264, 457, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1459,"blockId":17,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":322.92,"y":457.56,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"322, 457, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1460,"blockId":17,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.56,"y":457.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"355, 457, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1461,"blockId":17,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":375.72,"y":457.56,"width":31.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"375, 457, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1462,"blockId":17,"value":"Convention","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":412.32,"y":457.56,"width":56.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 457, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1463,"blockId":17,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.88,"y":457.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 457, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1464,"blockId":17,"value":"Enabling","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":496.56,"y":457.56,"width":43.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"496, 457, 43, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1465,"blockId":17,"value":"Statute.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":41.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1466,"blockId":17,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.64,"y":485.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"119, 485, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1467,"blockId":17,"value":"at 22–23.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.6,"y":485.16,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 485, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":180.24,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Statute.” Id. at 22–23."}],"Rectangle":"108, 209, 432, 288","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania acknowledges that “a mere change in law does not usually constitute and [sic]\r\n extraordinary circumstance for purposes of 60(b)(6),” but argues that the rule “is not absolute” and\r\n that exceptional circumstances exist here because “there has been a change in controlling law and\r\n in circumstance.” Romania Mot. at 20–21 (emphasis in original). Romania maintains “that the\r\n CJEU has unequivocally ruled that there was no arbitration agreement between intra-EU investors\r\n and Romania,” which “merits relief on its own” because it “dramatically altered the landscape of\r\n the dispute.” Id. at 22. The “Judgments rest upon an interpretation of EU law that is inconsistent\r\n with, and expressly rejected by[,] Europe’s highest court,” Romania continues, which “implicates\r\n issues of national concern for Romania, jurisdiction and autonomy for the EU, foreign sovereignty\r\n in US courts, and the United States’ obligations under the ICSID Convention and Enabling\r\n Statute.” Id. at 22–23.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":72,"Value":{"pageNum":18,"columnStart":1468,"columnEnd":1478,"text":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.3","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.3","paragraphLabel":"4.C.3","rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 150","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":6,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1468,"blockId":18,"value":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":512.76,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 512, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1469,"blockId":18,"value":"not established a bas[is]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":116.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1470,"blockId":18,"value":"for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":192.48,"y":540.36,"width":347.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"192, 540, 347, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1471,"blockId":18,"value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":198.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 198, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1472,"blockId":18,"value":"Micula Opp’n at 38.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.92,"y":567.96,"width":99.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"277, 567, 99, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1473,"blockId":18,"value":"Even if Romania did establish a","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.24,"y":567.96,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 567, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1474,"blockId":18,"value":"different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1475,"blockId":18,"value":"circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1476,"blockId":18,"value":"in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":295.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 295, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1477,"blockId":18,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":373.56,"y":650.76,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"373, 650, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1478,"blockId":18,"value":"at 39.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.52,"y":650.76,"width":26.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 650, 26, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":416.15999999999997,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39."}],"Rectangle":"108, 512, 432, 150","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Micula responds that “Romania is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because it has\r\n not established a bas[is] for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is separate from its basis for seeking\r\n relief under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5).” Micula Opp’n at 38. Even if Romania did establish a\r\n different basis for relief, Micula continues, Romania has failed to identify any extraordinary\r\n circumstances that warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), “given that all that it can point to is a change\r\n in non-binding case law that has no effect on the Judgments.” Id. at 39.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":73,"Value":{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1484,"columnEnd":1516,"text":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864 (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive, as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.4","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.4","paragraphLabel":"4.C.4","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 232","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir. 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864 (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive, as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":9,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1484,"blockId":19,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":71.16,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 71, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1485,"blockId":19,"value":"court agrees with Micula.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":129.96,"y":71.16,"width":123.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"129, 71, 123, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1486,"blockId":19,"value":"“[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.76,"y":71.16,"width":279.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"260, 71, 279, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1487,"blockId":19,"value":"other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":229.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 229, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1488,"blockId":19,"value":"Goland v. CIA","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":307.92,"y":98.76,"width":69.73,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"307, 98, 69, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1489,"blockId":19,"value":", 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.64,"y":98.76,"width":162.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 98, 162, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1490,"blockId":19,"value":"1978);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1491,"blockId":19,"value":"see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.32,"y":126.36,"width":221.81,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"106, 126, 221, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1492,"blockId":19,"value":", 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":328.08,"y":126.36,"width":211.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"328, 126, 211, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1493,"blockId":19,"value":"plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1494,"blockId":19,"value":"grounds","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1495,"blockId":19,"value":"for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":117.12,"y":181.56,"width":13.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"117, 181, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1496,"blockId":19,"value":"relief","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":137.52,"y":181.56,"width":25.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"137, 181, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1497,"blockId":19,"value":"enumerated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.32,"y":181.56,"width":55.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 181, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1498,"blockId":19,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":231.72,"y":181.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"231, 181, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1499,"blockId":19,"value":"clauses","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.56,"y":181.56,"width":34.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"247, 181, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1500,"blockId":19,"value":"(b)(1)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":288.72,"y":181.56,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"288, 181, 28, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1501,"blockId":19,"value":"through","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":323.28,"y":181.56,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"323, 181, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1502,"blockId":19,"value":"(b)(5)”);","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.08,"y":181.56,"width":40.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 181, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1503,"blockId":19,"value":"Wright","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.24,"y":181.56,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 181, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1504,"blockId":19,"value":"&","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":454.8,"y":181.56,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"454, 181, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1505,"blockId":19,"value":"Miller","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":470.64,"y":181.56,"width":30.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"470, 181, 30, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1506,"blockId":19,"value":"§ 2864","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":507.12,"y":181.56,"width":32.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"507, 181, 32, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1507,"blockId":19,"value":"(describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":289.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 289, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1508,"blockId":19,"value":"Merely asserting in the conjunctive,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":367.32,"y":209.16,"width":172.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"367, 209, 172, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"(describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1509,"blockId":19,"value":"as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":332.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 332, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1510,"blockId":19,"value":"and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":407.76,"y":236.76,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"407, 236, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1511,"blockId":19,"value":"circumstances does not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":428.88,"y":236.76,"width":111.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"428, 236, 111, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1512,"blockId":19,"value":"open","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1513,"blockId":19,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":98.52,"y":264.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"98, 264, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1514,"blockId":19,"value":"door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.4,"y":264.36,"width":423.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 264, 423, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1515,"blockId":19,"value":"60(b)(5).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":42.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1516,"blockId":19,"value":"Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":120.84,"y":291.96,"width":278.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"120, 291, 278, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":399.6,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone."}],"Rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 232","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court agrees with Micula. “[R]elief under [Rule 60(b)(6)] is not available unless the\r\n other clauses, (1) through (5), are inapplicable.” Goland v. CIA , 607 F.2d 339, 372–73 (D.C. Cir.\r\n 1978); see also Oladokun v. Corr. Treatment Facility , 309 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2015) (barring\r\n plaintiff “from asserting relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument is premised on one of the\r\n grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)”); Wright & Miller § 2864\r\n (describing the Rule 60(b) clauses as “mutually exclusive”). Merely asserting in the conjunctive,\r\n as Romania does here, that there has been a change in controlling law and circumstances does not\r\n open the door to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) that is otherwise foreclosed under Rules 60(b)(4) and\r\n 60(b)(5). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is denied for that reason alone.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":74,"Value":{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1517,"columnEnd":1535,"text":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration, Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before it acceded to the EU is void.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.5","paragraphLabel":"4.C.5","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 315","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration, Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before it acceded to the EU is void.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":12,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1517,"blockId":20,"value":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":371.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 371, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1518,"blockId":20,"value":"All that has","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":484.92,"y":319.56,"width":55.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"484, 319, 55, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1519,"blockId":20,"value":"changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1520,"blockId":20,"value":"(1) that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":34.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1521,"blockId":20,"value":"the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":110.52,"y":374.76,"width":429.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"110, 374, 429, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"(1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1522,"blockId":20,"value":"aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1523,"blockId":20,"value":"Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1524,"blockId":20,"value":"developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1525,"blockId":20,"value":"EU law that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":57.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1526,"blockId":20,"value":"do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":133.32,"y":485.16,"width":406.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"133, 485, 406, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1527,"blockId":20,"value":"Romania had agreed to arbitrate under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":194.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 194, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1528,"blockId":20,"value":"the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.32,"y":512.76,"width":132.31,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 512, 132, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1529,"blockId":20,"value":"The fact that EU law, as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":413.76,"y":512.76,"width":126.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"413, 512, 126, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1530,"blockId":20,"value":"interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1531,"blockId":20,"value":"by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1532,"blockId":20,"value":"court of jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":96.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 96, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1533,"blockId":20,"value":"Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":173.4,"y":595.56,"width":333.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"173, 595, 333, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1534,"blockId":20,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.16,"y":595.56,"width":30.77,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"509, 595, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.9300000000001,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1535,"blockId":20,"value":"it acceded to the EU is void.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":135.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 135, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":207.72,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"it acceded to the EU is void."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 316","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Furthermore, Romania’s assertion of “extraordinary circumstances” falls flat. All that has\r\n changed since the D.C. Circuit affirmed this court’s first two judgments is that the CJEU has ruled\r\n (1) that the European Commission had the authority to evaluate the Award under the EU’s state\r\n aid rules, and (2) because the European Commission has held that Romania’s satisfaction of the\r\n Award would violate state aid rules, the courts of Member States cannot enforce the Award. Those\r\n developments are not “extraordinary”: they are the rulings of Europe’s high court about matters of\r\n EU law that do not change the jurisdictional fact that, at the time Petitioners filed for arbitration,\r\n Romania had agreed to arbitrate under the Sweden-Romania BIT. The fact that EU law, as\r\n interpreted by the CJEU, bars EU Member State courts from enforcing the Award because payment\r\n by Romania would violate the EU’s state aid rules is not a ruling that strips a United States federal\r\n court of jurisdiction. Importantly, the CJEU has not held that Romania’s consent to arbitrate before\r\n it acceded to the EU is void.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":75,"Value":{"pageNum":19,"columnStart":1536,"columnEnd":1540,"text":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it, undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.6","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.6","paragraphLabel":"4.C.6","rectangle":"72, 650, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it, undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1536,"blockId":21,"value":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":650.76,"width":224.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 650, 224, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1537,"blockId":21,"value":"both before this litigation and during it,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":337.8,"y":650.76,"width":202.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"337, 650, 202, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1538,"blockId":21,"value":"undermine its assertion that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":678.36,"width":139.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 678, 139, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1539,"blockId":21,"value":"the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":216.36,"y":678.36,"width":223.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"216, 678, 223, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1540,"blockId":21,"value":"Before the ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":450.84,"y":678.36,"width":89.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"450, 678, 89, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":690.36,"MarginTop":678.36,"Value":"undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID"}],"Rectangle":"108, 650, 431, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The court also finds that Romania’s actions, both before this litigation and during it,\r\n undermine its assertion that the court’s exercise of jurisdiction is unjust. Before the ICSID\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":76,"Value":{"pageNum":20,"columnStart":1546,"columnEnd":1591,"text":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction, filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58 (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania. See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b) cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be improvident”).","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 591","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction, filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58 (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania. See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b) cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be improvident”).","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":22,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1546,"blockId":1,"value":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1547,"blockId":1,"value":"did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1548,"blockId":1,"value":"filing its","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":40.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 40, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1549,"blockId":1,"value":"objections","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":116.16,"y":126.36,"width":49.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"116, 126, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1550,"blockId":1,"value":"on September 10, 2007,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":126.36,"width":115.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"168, 126, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1551,"blockId":1,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":287.4,"y":126.36,"width":22.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"287, 126, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1552,"blockId":1,"value":"it had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":313.56,"y":126.36,"width":27.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"313, 126, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1553,"blockId":1,"value":"acceded to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":344.28,"y":126.36,"width":91.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"344, 126, 91, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1554,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.8,"y":126.36,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"442, 126, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1555,"blockId":1,"value":"Pet’rs’ Mem. of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.72,"y":126.36,"width":77.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"462, 126, 77, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1556,"blockId":1,"value":"Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1557,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 62-2, ¶ 15.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":75.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 75, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1558,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":157.92,"y":181.56,"width":382.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"157, 181, 382, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1559,"blockId":1,"value":"because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":407.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 407, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1560,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.16,"y":209.16,"width":31.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"485, 209, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1561,"blockId":1,"value":"¶ 58","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.6,"y":209.16,"width":20.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 209, 20, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1562,"blockId":1,"value":"(“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"(“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1563,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1564,"blockId":1,"value":"ICSID Convention.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":105.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 105, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1565,"blockId":1,"value":"It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":184.32,"y":291.96,"width":302.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"184, 291, 302, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1566,"blockId":1,"value":"years later","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.2,"y":291.96,"width":49.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 291, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1567,"blockId":1,"value":"on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":288.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 288, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1568,"blockId":1,"value":"arose based on Romania’s accession","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":364.08,"y":319.56,"width":175.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"364, 319, 175, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1569,"blockId":1,"value":"to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1570,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":16.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 374, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1571,"blockId":1,"value":"Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.56,"y":374.76,"width":448.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 374, 448, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1572,"blockId":1,"value":"No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1573,"blockId":1,"value":"submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":272.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 272, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1574,"blockId":1,"value":"(stating that the European Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":348.6,"y":429.96,"width":191.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"348, 429, 191, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1575,"blockId":1,"value":"argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1576,"blockId":1,"value":"agreement).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":56.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1577,"blockId":1,"value":"Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.64,"y":485.16,"width":275.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 485, 275, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1578,"blockId":1,"value":"The ICSID tribunal stated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":416.28,"y":485.16,"width":123.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"416, 485, 123, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1579,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1580,"blockId":1,"value":"did not comment on this ground for annulment.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":236.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 236, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1581,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.2,"y":540.36,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"316, 540, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1582,"blockId":1,"value":"¶ 336.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":332.76,"y":540.36,"width":29.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"332, 540, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1583,"blockId":1,"value":"It cannot be unjust for this court to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":369.48,"y":540.36,"width":170.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"369, 540, 170, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1584,"blockId":1,"value":"find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":345.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 345, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1585,"blockId":1,"value":"did not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":422.16,"y":567.96,"width":35.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"422, 567, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1586,"blockId":1,"value":"argue otherwise","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":462.24,"y":567.96,"width":77.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"462, 567, 77, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1587,"blockId":1,"value":"before the ICSID tribunal.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":125.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 125, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1588,"blockId":1,"value":"Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":202.8,"y":595.56,"width":142.85,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"202, 595, 142, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1589,"blockId":1,"value":", 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":345.6,"y":595.56,"width":194.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"345, 595, 194, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1590,"blockId":1,"value":"cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1591,"blockId":1,"value":"improvident”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.76,"width":70.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 70, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":142.92000000000002,"MarginBottom":662.76,"MarginTop":650.76,"Value":"improvident”)."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 591","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" tribunal, Romania had the opportunity to press the jurisdictional arguments it has made here but it\r\n did not so do. At the outset of the arbitration, Romania contested the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction,\r\n filing its objections on September 10, 2007, after it had acceded to the EU. See Pet’rs’ Mem. of\r\n Law in Response to the Br. of Amicus Curiae the European Commission, ECF No. 62, Ex. 1, ECF\r\n No. 62-2, ¶ 15. Romania never argued, however, that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction\r\n because its entry to the EU had rendered void its pre-accession agreement to arbitrate. See id. ¶ 58\r\n (“There is no dispute between the Parties as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the\r\n jurisdictional and admissibility challenges brought by [Romania] pursuant to Article 41 of the\r\n ICSID Convention.”). It was not until the annulment proceedings, which commenced years later\r\n on April 9, 2014, that the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction arose based on Romania’s accession\r\n to the EU, and even then it was raised by the European Commission as amicus, not Romania.\r\n See Petition to Confirm ICSID Arbitration Award and Enter Judgment, ECF No. 1, Ex. B, ECF\r\n No. 1-5, ¶¶ 1 (noting date Romania filed for annulment of the Award), 64 (noting that the EU\r\n submitted its amicus brief on January 9, 2015), 330–35 (stating that the European Commission\r\n argued that Romania’s accession to the EU terminated the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration\r\n agreement). Still, Romania did not adopt the Commission’s argument. The ICSID tribunal stated\r\n Romania’s position on the Commission’s jurisdictional argument in one sentence: “The Applicant\r\n did not comment on this ground for annulment.” Id. ¶ 336. It cannot be unjust for this court to\r\n find that Romania agreed to arbitrate with Petitioners when Romania did not argue otherwise\r\n before the ICSID tribunal. Cf. Good Luck Nursing Home , 636 F.2d at 577 (stating that Rule 60(b)\r\n cannot “be employed simply to rescue a litigant from strategic choices that later turn out to be\r\n improvident”).\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":77,"Value":{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1597,"columnEnd":1649,"text":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings. Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And, as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception, Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments, when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.7","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.7","paragraphLabel":"4.C.7","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 370","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings. Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And, as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception, Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments, when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":14,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1597,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":71.16,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1598,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1599,"blockId":1,"value":"court’s subject matter jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":167.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 167, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1600,"blockId":1,"value":"See Micula I","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":247.32,"y":126.36,"width":62.39,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"247, 126, 62, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1601,"blockId":1,"value":",","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":309.72,"y":126.36,"width":3.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"309, 126, 3, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1602,"blockId":1,"value":"404 F. Supp. 3d at 273.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.68,"y":126.36,"width":116.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"316, 126, 116, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1603,"blockId":1,"value":"Next, in response to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":441.24,"y":126.36,"width":98.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"441, 126, 98, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1604,"blockId":1,"value":"Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1605,"blockId":1,"value":"mention of the court’s jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":166.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 166, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1606,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":244.08,"y":181.56,"width":31.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"244, 181, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1607,"blockId":1,"value":"273–74.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":278.64,"y":181.56,"width":38.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"278, 181, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1608,"blockId":1,"value":"Only after the European Commission entered","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":323.28,"y":181.56,"width":216.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"323, 181, 216, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1609,"blockId":1,"value":"an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1610,"blockId":1,"value":"surface","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":34.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1611,"blockId":1,"value":"that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":111.96,"y":236.76,"width":428.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"111, 236, 428, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1612,"blockId":1,"value":"deprived","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":41.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1613,"blockId":1,"value":"this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":120.0,"y":264.36,"width":17.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"120, 264, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1614,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":143.52,"y":264.36,"width":24.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"143, 264, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1615,"blockId":1,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":174.36,"y":264.36,"width":10.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"174, 264, 10, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1616,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.56,"y":264.36,"width":57.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 264, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1617,"blockId":1,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":260.52,"y":264.36,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"260, 264, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1618,"blockId":1,"value":"id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":283.32,"y":264.36,"width":12.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"283, 264, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1619,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":301.8,"y":264.36,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"301, 264, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1620,"blockId":1,"value":"274.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":316.68,"y":264.36,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"316, 264, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1621,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.92,"y":264.36,"width":43.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 264, 43, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1622,"blockId":1,"value":"then","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":399.36,"y":264.36,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"399, 264, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1623,"blockId":1,"value":"piggy-backed","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":426.24,"y":264.36,"width":65.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"426, 264, 65, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1624,"blockId":1,"value":"onto","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":497.64,"y":264.36,"width":21.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"497, 264, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1625,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.12,"y":264.36,"width":14.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 264, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1626,"blockId":1,"value":"Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":400.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 400, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1627,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":478.44,"y":291.96,"width":31.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"478, 291, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1628,"blockId":1,"value":"And,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":516.36,"y":291.96,"width":23.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"516, 291, 23, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1629,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1630,"blockId":1,"value":"discussed,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":87.6,"y":319.56,"width":48.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"87, 319, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1631,"blockId":1,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":142.2,"y":319.56,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"142, 319, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1632,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":169.8,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"169, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1633,"blockId":1,"value":"court","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.2,"y":319.56,"width":24.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 319, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1634,"blockId":1,"value":"found","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.44,"y":319.56,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 319, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1635,"blockId":1,"value":"it","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":254.04,"y":319.56,"width":6.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"254, 319, 6, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1636,"blockId":1,"value":"had","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":266.4,"y":319.56,"width":17.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"266, 319, 17, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1637,"blockId":1,"value":"jurisdiction","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":289.32,"y":319.56,"width":54.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"289, 319, 54, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1638,"blockId":1,"value":"under","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":349.8,"y":319.56,"width":27.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"349, 319, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1639,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":382.68,"y":319.56,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 319, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1640,"blockId":1,"value":"FSIA","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":403.08,"y":319.56,"width":26.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"403, 319, 26, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1641,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":434.76,"y":319.56,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"434, 319, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1642,"blockId":1,"value":"exception,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.32,"y":319.56,"width":49.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 319, 49, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1643,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1644,"blockId":1,"value":"conceded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":45.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"72, 374, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1645,"blockId":1,"value":"that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.76,"y":374.76,"width":231.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 374, 231, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1646,"blockId":1,"value":"Micula","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":355.8,"y":374.76,"width":34.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"355, 374, 34, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1647,"blockId":1,"value":", 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.88,"y":374.76,"width":150.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 374, 150, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1648,"blockId":1,"value":"be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1649,"blockId":1,"value":"when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts."}],"Rectangle":"108, 71, 432, 370","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" Romania was only slightly more diligent in contesting jurisdiction in these proceedings.\r\n Romania’s first filing was an “Opposition” to the petition, in which Romania did not dispute the\r\n court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Micula I , 404 F. Supp. 3d at 273. Next, in response to\r\n Petitioners’ motion for entry of judgment, Romania sought to stay the proceedings, but made no\r\n mention of the court’s jurisdiction. See id. 273–74. Only after the European Commission entered\r\n an appearance as amicus—over two years after these proceedings commenced—did the argument\r\n surface that Romania’s accession to the EU nullified the agreement to arbitrate and thereby\r\n deprived this court of jurisdiction. See id. at 274. Romania then piggy-backed onto the\r\n Commission’s jurisdictional argument, asserting it for the first time in a reply brief. See id. And,\r\n as discussed, after the court found it had jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception,\r\n Romania did not merely fail to challenge that determination before the D.C. Circuit, it actually\r\n conceded that this court’s jurisdictional ruling was correct. Micula , 805 Fed. App’x at 1. It cannot\r\n be said that the CJEU’s decisions constitute “extraordinary circumstances” to undo the Judgments,\r\n when Romania has been less than fully diligent in contesting the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":80,"Value":{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1650,"columnEnd":1669,"text":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.8","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.8","paragraphLabel":"4.C.8","rectangle":"72, 457, 468, 122","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,","averageFontSize":11.981693363844393,"rowsOfText":5,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1650,"blockId":5,"value":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":457.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1651,"blockId":5,"value":"to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1652,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":85.92,"y":485.16,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"85, 485, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1653,"blockId":5,"value":"EU did not abrogate the Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":105.12,"y":485.16,"width":161.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"105, 485, 161, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1654,"blockId":5,"value":"On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":275.4,"y":485.16,"width":264.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"275, 485, 264, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1655,"blockId":5,"value":"terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":331.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 331, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1656,"blockId":5,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":409.32,"y":512.76,"width":130.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"409, 512, 130, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.76,"Value":"terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1657,"blockId":5,"value":"No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":540.36,"width":142.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 540, 142, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1658,"blockId":5,"value":"2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":215.52,"y":539.76,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"215, 539, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1659,"blockId":5,"value":"], at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":219.6,"y":540.36,"width":19.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"219, 540, 19, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1660,"blockId":5,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":242.16,"y":540.36,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"242, 540, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1661,"blockId":5,"value":"On February 7, 2022,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.24,"y":540.36,"width":104.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 540, 104, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1662,"blockId":5,"value":"after","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":366.24,"y":540.36,"width":22.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"366, 540, 22, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1663,"blockId":5,"value":"the CJEU","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":392.4,"y":540.36,"width":46.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"392, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1664,"blockId":5,"value":"Decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":442.8,"y":540.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"442, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1665,"blockId":5,"value":"issued,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":488.88,"y":540.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"488, 540, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1666,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":525.36,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"525, 540, 14, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":539.76,"Value":"No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1667,"blockId":5,"value":"Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":304.61,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 304, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1668,"blockId":5,"value":"3","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":377.16,"y":567.36,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 567, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1669,"blockId":5,"value":"to the Government of Romania,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":384.24,"y":567.96,"width":155.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"384, 567, 155, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.36,"Value":"Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 457, 432, 122","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" It also appears that Romania has conceded, through diplomatic channels, that its accession\r\n to the EU did not abrogate the Award. On March 11, 2020, Romania and Sweden agreed to\r\n terminate the Sweden-Romania BIT (the “Termination Agreement”). Romania Mot., Ex. B, ECF\r\n No. 181-3, [hereinafter Ex. B 2 ], at 1. On February 7, 2022, after the CJEU Decision issued, the\r\n Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a Note Verbale 3 to the Government of Romania,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":78,"Value":{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1670,"columnEnd":1671,"text":" The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn2","paragraphId":"fn2","paragraphLabel":"2","rectangle":"72, 627, 192, 9","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","averageFontSize":9.916666666666666,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1670,"blockId":2,"value":"2","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":627.36,"width":3.24,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 627, 3, 6"},{"type":3,"id":1671,"blockId":2,"value":"The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.73,"y":627.36,"width":187.23,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 627, 187, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":264.96,"MarginBottom":637.32,"MarginTop":627.36,"Value":"2 The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits."}],"Rectangle":"72, 627, 192, 9","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 2 The court uses PDF pagination for all exhibits.\r\n","MarginRight":264.96}}},{"Key":79,"Value":{"pageNum":21,"columnStart":1672,"columnEnd":1687,"text":" A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21, 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022 represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”). 21","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn3","paragraphId":"fn3","paragraphLabel":"3","rectangle":"71, 638, 468, 101","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21, 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022 represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”). 21","averageFontSize":10.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1672,"blockId":3,"value":"3","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":6.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":638.88,"width":3.24,"height":6.48,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 638, 3, 6"},{"type":6,"id":1673,"blockId":3,"value":"A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":77.73,"y":638.88,"width":443.33,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"77, 638, 443, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1674,"blockId":3,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":526.32,"y":638.88,"width":13.68,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"526, 638, 13, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":648.84,"MarginTop":638.88,"Value":"3 A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1675,"blockId":3,"value":"Merriam Webster, Note Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":650.4,"width":128.54,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 650, 128, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1676,"blockId":3,"value":"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":"#0562C1","x":205.1,"y":650.4,"width":334.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"205, 650, 334, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":660.36,"MarginTop":650.4,"Value":"Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1677,"blockId":3,"value":"2022).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":661.92,"width":25.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 661, 25, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1678,"blockId":3,"value":"While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":102.96,"y":661.92,"width":437.03,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"102, 661, 437, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":671.88,"MarginTop":661.92,"Value":"2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1679,"blockId":3,"value":"Note Verbales exchanged","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":673.44,"width":106.08,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 673, 106, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1680,"blockId":3,"value":"between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":182.28,"y":673.44,"width":245.77,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"182, 673, 245, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1681,"blockId":3,"value":"Sweden in February 2022","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":432.11,"y":673.44,"width":107.89,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"432, 673, 107, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":683.4000000000001,"MarginTop":673.44,"Value":"Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1682,"blockId":3,"value":"represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.85,"width":318.87,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 318, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1683,"blockId":3,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":396.24,"y":684.85,"width":13.92,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"396, 684, 13, 9"},{"type":6,"id":1684,"blockId":3,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":412.92,"y":684.85,"width":127.07,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"412, 684, 127, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.99,"MarginBottom":694.8100000000001,"MarginTop":684.85,"Value":"represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No."},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1685,"blockId":3,"value":"181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":696.37,"width":467.97,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 696, 467, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.97,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply"},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1686,"blockId":3,"value":"constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”).","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":71.99,"y":707.9,"width":337.2,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"71, 707, 337, 9"}],"MarginLeft":71.99,"MarginRight":409.19,"MarginBottom":717.86,"MarginTop":707.9,"Value":"constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”)."},{"columns":[{"type":6,"id":1687,"blockId":3,"value":"21","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":300.0,"y":727.92,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"300, 727, 12, 12"}],"MarginLeft":300.0,"MarginRight":312.0,"MarginBottom":739.92,"MarginTop":727.92,"Value":"21"}],"Rectangle":"72, 638, 467, 101","MarginLeft":71.99,"Value":" 3 A “Note Verbale” is an un-signed diplomatic message prepared in the third person, similar to a memorandum. See\r\n Merriam Webster, Note Verbale https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note%20verbale (last visited Dec. 21,\r\n 2022). While it’s not clear to the court whether Note Verbales have any binding power per se, it is clear that the two\r\n Note Verbales exchanged between the Government of Romania and the Kingdom of Sweden in February 2022\r\n represent Sweden and Romania’s interpretation of the Termination Agreement. See Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No.\r\n 181-4 at 1 (“the Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this Note Verbale in reply\r\n constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”).\r\n 21\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":81,"Value":{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1692,"columnEnd":1766,"text":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that, notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings, which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1. Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 453","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that, notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings, which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1. Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4","averageFontSize":11.99737532808399,"rowsOfText":17,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1692,"blockId":1,"value":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":397.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 397, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1693,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":474.72,"y":71.16,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"474, 71, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1694,"blockId":1,"value":"at 1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":490.68,"y":71.16,"width":32.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"490, 71, 32, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1695,"blockId":1,"value":"At","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":528.24,"y":71.16,"width":11.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"528, 71, 11, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1696,"blockId":1,"value":"the start, the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":60.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1697,"blockId":1,"value":"Joint","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":135.72,"y":98.76,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"135, 98, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1698,"blockId":1,"value":"Interpretive Declaration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.72,"y":98.76,"width":115.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 98, 115, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1699,"blockId":1,"value":"acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.64,"y":98.76,"width":258.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 98, 258, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1700,"blockId":1,"value":"between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":397.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 397, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1701,"blockId":1,"value":"as well as the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.16,"y":126.36,"width":66.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 126, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1702,"blockId":1,"value":"CJEU’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":37.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 37, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1703,"blockId":1,"value":"decision","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":114.96,"y":153.96,"width":39.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"114, 153, 39, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1704,"blockId":1,"value":"in","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.56,"y":153.96,"width":9.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"160, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1705,"blockId":1,"value":"Achmea.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":175.56,"y":153.96,"width":41.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"175, 153, 41, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1706,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":228.24,"y":153.96,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"228, 153, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1707,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.84,"y":153.96,"width":8.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 153, 8, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1708,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":261.12,"y":153.96,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"261, 153, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1709,"blockId":1,"value":"It","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":281.28,"y":153.96,"width":7.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"281, 153, 7, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1710,"blockId":1,"value":"also","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":294.12,"y":153.96,"width":19.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"294, 153, 19, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1711,"blockId":1,"value":"recognized","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.08,"y":153.96,"width":52.44,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 153, 52, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1712,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":377.16,"y":153.96,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"377, 153, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1713,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":400.8,"y":153.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"400, 153, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1714,"blockId":1,"value":"Sweden-Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":421.08,"y":153.96,"width":85.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"421, 153, 85, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1715,"blockId":1,"value":"BIT’s","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":511.92,"y":153.96,"width":28.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"511, 153, 28, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1716,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1717,"blockId":1,"value":"serve","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":25.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 25, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1718,"blockId":1,"value":"as","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":103.44,"y":209.16,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"103, 209, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1719,"blockId":1,"value":"legal","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":119.52,"y":209.16,"width":23.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"119, 209, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1720,"blockId":1,"value":"basis","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.04,"y":209.16,"width":24.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 209, 24, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1721,"blockId":1,"value":"for","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":179.28,"y":209.16,"width":14.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"179, 209, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1722,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":199.44,"y":209.16,"width":49.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"199, 209, 49, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1723,"blockId":1,"value":"proceedings.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":255.48,"y":209.16,"width":66.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"255, 209, 66, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1724,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.2,"y":209.16,"width":13.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"334, 209, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1725,"blockId":1,"value":"The Note","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":359.52,"y":209.16,"width":48.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"359, 209, 48, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1726,"blockId":1,"value":"Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":413.88,"y":209.16,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"413, 209, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1727,"blockId":1,"value":"then","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":458.04,"y":209.16,"width":20.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"458, 209, 20, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1728,"blockId":1,"value":"stated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":484.92,"y":209.16,"width":27.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"484, 209, 27, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1729,"blockId":1,"value":"that,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":519.0,"y":209.16,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"519, 209, 21, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1730,"blockId":1,"value":"notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1731,"blockId":1,"value":"Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1732,"blockId":1,"value":"which","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":29.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 291, 29, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1733,"blockId":1,"value":"will","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":106.8,"y":291.96,"width":18.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"106, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1734,"blockId":1,"value":"not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":131.04,"y":291.96,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"131, 291, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1735,"blockId":1,"value":"be","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":151.92,"y":291.96,"width":11.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"151, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1736,"blockId":1,"value":"reopened” and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":168.84,"y":291.96,"width":72.24,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"168, 291, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1737,"blockId":1,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":246.6,"y":291.96,"width":18.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"246, 291, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1738,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":270.24,"y":291.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"270, 291, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1739,"blockId":1,"value":"“Interpretive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":290.52,"y":291.96,"width":61.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"290, 291, 61, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1740,"blockId":1,"value":"Declaration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.36,"y":291.96,"width":56.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 291, 56, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1741,"blockId":1,"value":"covers","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":418.92,"y":291.96,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"418, 291, 31, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1742,"blockId":1,"value":"all","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":455.76,"y":291.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"455, 291, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1743,"blockId":1,"value":"investor-State","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":473.28,"y":291.96,"width":66.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"473, 291, 66, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1744,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":319.56,"width":305.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 319, 305, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1745,"blockId":1,"value":"Id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":385.56,"y":319.56,"width":12.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"385, 319, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1746,"blockId":1,"value":"at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":401.52,"y":319.56,"width":9.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"401, 319, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1747,"blockId":1,"value":"1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":414.96,"y":319.56,"width":21.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"414, 319, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1748,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania responded","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":443.64,"y":319.56,"width":96.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"443, 319, 96, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1749,"blockId":1,"value":"positively to the Note Verbale.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":148.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 148, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1750,"blockId":1,"value":"On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":227.04,"y":347.16,"width":312.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"227, 347, 312, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1751,"blockId":1,"value":"of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":374.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 374, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":386.76,"MarginTop":374.76,"Value":"of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1752,"blockId":1,"value":"confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":402.36,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 402, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":414.36,"MarginTop":402.36,"Value":"confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1753,"blockId":1,"value":"together with this","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":429.96,"width":88.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 429, 88, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1754,"blockId":1,"value":"[February 11, 2022]","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":165.84,"y":429.96,"width":100.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"165, 429, 100, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1755,"blockId":1,"value":"Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":271.8,"y":429.96,"width":268.2,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"271, 429, 268, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":441.96,"MarginTop":429.96,"Value":"together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1756,"blockId":1,"value":"Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":457.56,"width":251.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 457, 251, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1757,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":330.36,"y":457.56,"width":197.16,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"330, 457, 197, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1758,"blockId":1,"value":"1.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":531.0,"y":457.56,"width":9.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"531, 457, 9, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":469.56,"MarginTop":457.56,"Value":"Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1."},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1759,"blockId":1,"value":"Thus, Romania","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":485.16,"width":73.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 485, 73, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1760,"blockId":1,"value":"seems to have","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":149.04,"y":485.16,"width":67.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"149, 485, 67, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1761,"blockId":1,"value":"agreed that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":220.32,"y":485.16,"width":53.4,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"220, 485, 53, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1762,"blockId":1,"value":"Achmea","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":277.08,"y":485.16,"width":38.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"277, 485, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1763,"blockId":1,"value":"does not nullify its consent to arbitrate","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":319.08,"y":485.16,"width":186.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"319, 485, 186, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1764,"blockId":1,"value":"before","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":509.16,"y":485.16,"width":30.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"509, 485, 30, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":497.16,"MarginTop":485.16,"Value":"Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1765,"blockId":1,"value":"January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":512.76,"width":463.39,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 512, 463, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1766,"blockId":1,"value":"4","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":535.92,"y":512.16,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"535, 512, 4, 8"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":539.9399999999999,"MarginBottom":524.76,"MarginTop":512.16,"Value":"January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4"}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 453","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" proposing a “Joint Interpretive Declaration” regarding the Termination Agreement. Id. at 1–2. At\r\n the start, the Joint Interpretive Declaration acknowledged both that “bilateral investment treaties\r\n between Member States of the European Union are contrary to the EU Treaties,” as well as the\r\n CJEU’s decision in Achmea. Id. at 1. It also recognized that the Sweden-Romania BIT’s\r\n arbitration agreement “as of 1 January 2007, the date of accession of Romania to the EU . . . cannot\r\n serve as legal basis for arbitration proceedings.” Id. The Note Verbale then stated that,\r\n notwithstanding these acknowledgments, “the Government of Romania and the Government of\r\n Sweden confirm that the Termination Agreement will not affect concluded arbitration proceedings,\r\n which will not be reopened” and that the “Interpretive Declaration covers all investor-State\r\n arbitration proceedings based on the [Sweden-Romania BIT].” Id. at 1–2. Romania responded\r\n positively to the Note Verbale. On February 11, 2022, the Embassy of Romania to the Kingdom\r\n of Sweden accepted the proposed Joint Interpretive Declaration of the Termination Agreement and\r\n confirmed that “the [February 7, 2022] Note Verbale of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden\r\n together with this [February 11, 2022] Note Verbale in reply constitutes a Joint Interpretive\r\n Declaration regarding the Termination Agreement.” Romania Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 181-4 at 1.\r\n Thus, Romania seems to have agreed that Achmea does not nullify its consent to arbitrate before\r\n January 1, 2007; nor does it vitiate arbitrations concluded pursuant to the Sweden-Romania BIT. 4\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":83,"Value":{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1767,"columnEnd":1798,"text":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa4.C.9","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa4.C.9","paragraphLabel":"4.C.9","rectangle":"72, 540, 468, 94","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":true,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1767,"blockId":5,"value":"The","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":540.36,"width":18.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1768,"blockId":5,"value":"European","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":134.76,"y":540.36,"width":46.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"134, 540, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1769,"blockId":5,"value":"Commission","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":189.0,"y":540.36,"width":60.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 540, 60, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1770,"blockId":5,"value":"contends","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":257.88,"y":540.36,"width":42.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"257, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1771,"blockId":5,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.64,"y":540.36,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 540, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1772,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":334.8,"y":540.36,"width":14.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"334, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1773,"blockId":5,"value":"Note","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":357.84,"y":540.36,"width":23.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"357, 540, 23, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1774,"blockId":5,"value":"Verbale","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":389.28,"y":540.36,"width":38.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"389, 540, 38, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1775,"blockId":5,"value":"excludes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":435.6,"y":540.36,"width":42.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"435, 540, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1776,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":485.76,"y":540.36,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"485, 540, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1777,"blockId":5,"value":"ICSID","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":508.68,"y":540.36,"width":31.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"508, 540, 31, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":552.36,"MarginTop":540.36,"Value":"The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1778,"blockId":5,"value":"proceedings","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":567.96,"width":57.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 567, 57, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1779,"blockId":5,"value":"that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":136.08,"y":567.96,"width":18.12,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"136, 567, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1780,"blockId":5,"value":"produced","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":160.44,"y":567.96,"width":44.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"160, 567, 44, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1781,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":211.32,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"211, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1782,"blockId":5,"value":"Award.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":232.2,"y":567.96,"width":35.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"232, 567, 35, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1783,"blockId":5,"value":"That","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":280.44,"y":567.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"280, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1784,"blockId":5,"value":"argument","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":308.76,"y":567.96,"width":45.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"308, 567, 45, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1785,"blockId":5,"value":"rests","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":360.36,"y":567.96,"width":21.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"360, 567, 21, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1786,"blockId":5,"value":"on","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":388.56,"y":567.96,"width":12.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"388, 567, 12, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1787,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":406.8,"y":567.96,"width":14.76,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"406, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1788,"blockId":5,"value":"definition","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":427.8,"y":567.96,"width":46.8,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"427, 567, 46, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1789,"blockId":5,"value":"of","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":480.84,"y":567.96,"width":9.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"480, 567, 9, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1790,"blockId":5,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":497.04,"y":567.96,"width":14.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"497, 567, 14, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1791,"blockId":5,"value":"term","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":517.92,"y":567.96,"width":22.08,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"517, 567, 22, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":579.96,"MarginTop":567.96,"Value":"proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1792,"blockId":5,"value":"“Concluded Arbitration","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":595.56,"width":114.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 595, 114, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1793,"blockId":5,"value":"Proceedings”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":190.92,"y":595.56,"width":63.96,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"190, 595, 63, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1794,"blockId":5,"value":"contained in a multilateral treaty","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":258.96,"y":595.56,"width":160.32,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"258, 595, 160, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1795,"blockId":5,"value":"to which Sweden is not","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":423.36,"y":595.56,"width":116.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"423, 595, 116, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":607.56,"MarginTop":595.56,"Value":"“Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1796,"blockId":5,"value":"even a signatory.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":623.16,"width":83.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 623, 83, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1797,"blockId":5,"value":"Br. Of Amicus","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":162.96,"y":623.16,"width":72.72,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"162, 623, 72, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1798,"blockId":5,"value":"Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":239.52,"y":623.16,"width":300.48,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"239, 623, 300, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":635.16,"MarginTop":623.16,"Value":"even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,"}],"Rectangle":"108, 540, 431, 95","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" The European Commission contends that the Note Verbale excludes the ICSID\r\n proceedings that produced the Award. That argument rests on the definition of the term\r\n “Concluded Arbitration Proceedings” contained in a multilateral treaty to which Sweden is not\r\n even a signatory. Br. Of Amicus Curiae the European Commission in Supp. of Romania Mot.,\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":82,"Value":{"pageNum":22,"columnStart":1799,"columnEnd":1810,"text":" The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15, 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5 [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id. ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"fn4","paragraphId":"fn4","paragraphLabel":"4","rectangle":"72, 670, 468, 47","alignment":0,"blockType":6,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":" The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15, 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5 [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id. ","averageFontSize":9.995061728395061,"rowsOfText":4,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1799,"blockId":1,"value":"4","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":8.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":670.32,"width":4.02,"height":8.04,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 670, 4, 8"},{"type":3,"id":1800,"blockId":1,"value":"The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":78.84,"y":672.96,"width":461.17,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"78, 672, 461, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":682.9200000000001,"MarginTop":670.32,"Value":"4 The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1801,"blockId":1,"value":"2022.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":684.84,"width":22.68,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 684, 22, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1802,"blockId":1,"value":"This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":101.15,"y":684.84,"width":275.26,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"101, 684, 275, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1803,"blockId":1,"value":"Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":382.88,"y":684.84,"width":157.12,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"382, 684, 157, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":694.8000000000001,"MarginTop":684.84,"Value":"2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1804,"blockId":1,"value":"[hereinafter Ex. D], at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":696.37,"width":90.36,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 696, 90, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1805,"blockId":1,"value":"1–2.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":165.6,"y":696.37,"width":17.65,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"165, 696, 17, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1806,"blockId":1,"value":"And it again affirmed that","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":189.71,"y":696.37,"width":107.02,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"189, 696, 107, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1807,"blockId":1,"value":"the","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":299.98,"y":696.37,"width":12.12,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"299, 696, 12, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1808,"blockId":1,"value":"arbitration agreement between the countries terminated","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":315.36,"y":696.37,"width":224.65,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 696, 224, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.01,"MarginBottom":706.33,"MarginTop":696.37,"Value":"[hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1809,"blockId":1,"value":"only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":707.89,"width":282.83,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 707, 282, 9"},{"type":3,"id":1810,"blockId":1,"value":"See id.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":10.0,"color":null,"x":359.75,"y":707.89,"width":26.75,"height":9.96,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"359, 707, 26, 9"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":386.5,"MarginBottom":717.85,"MarginTop":707.89,"Value":"only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id."}],"Rectangle":"72, 670, 467, 46","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" 4 The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden issued a second Note Verbale to the Embassy of Romania on March 15,\r\n 2022. This Note specifically referenced the proceedings before this court. Romania Mot., Ex. D, ECF No. 181-5\r\n [hereinafter Ex. D], at 1–2. And it again affirmed that the arbitration agreement between the countries terminated\r\n only as of January 1, 2007, the date of Romania’s accession to the EU. See id.\r\n","MarginRight":540.01}}},{"Key":84,"Value":{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1816,"columnEnd":1834,"text":"ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however, because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding” under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":null,"paragraphLabel":"","rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":8,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1816,"blockId":6,"value":"ECF No.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":71.16,"width":42.84,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 71, 42, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1817,"blockId":6,"value":"191","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":118.08,"y":71.16,"width":18.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"118, 71, 18, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1818,"blockId":6,"value":"[hereinafter","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":139.32,"y":71.16,"width":55.92,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"139, 71, 55, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1819,"blockId":6,"value":"EC","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":198.48,"y":71.16,"width":15.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"198, 71, 15, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1820,"blockId":6,"value":"Amicus Br.], at 14.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":217.08,"y":71.16,"width":92.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"217, 71, 92, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1821,"blockId":6,"value":"As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":315.96,"y":71.16,"width":224.04,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"315, 71, 224, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":83.16,"MarginTop":71.16,"Value":"ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1822,"blockId":6,"value":"to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":98.76,"width":273.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 98, 273, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1823,"blockId":6,"value":"See","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":352.32,"y":98.76,"width":16.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Italic","rectangle":"352, 98, 16, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1824,"blockId":6,"value":"Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":372.48,"y":98.76,"width":167.52,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"372, 98, 167, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":110.76,"MarginTop":98.76,"Value":"to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1825,"blockId":6,"value":"to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":126.36,"width":177.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 126, 177, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1826,"blockId":6,"value":"17–18.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":252.96,"y":126.36,"width":33.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"252, 126, 33, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1827,"blockId":6,"value":"The court need not resolve the question,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":293.88,"y":126.36,"width":197.88,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"293, 126, 197, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1828,"blockId":6,"value":"however,","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":495.72,"y":126.36,"width":44.28,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"495, 126, 44, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":138.36,"MarginTop":126.36,"Value":"to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however,"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1829,"blockId":6,"value":"because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":153.96,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 153, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":165.96,"MarginTop":153.96,"Value":"because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1830,"blockId":6,"value":"of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":181.56,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 181, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":193.56,"MarginTop":181.56,"Value":"of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1831,"blockId":6,"value":"that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":209.16,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 209, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":221.16,"MarginTop":209.16,"Value":"that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1832,"blockId":6,"value":"under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":236.76,"width":468.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 236, 468, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":248.76,"MarginTop":236.76,"Value":"under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said"},{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1833,"blockId":6,"value":"so.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":264.36,"width":13.68,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 264, 13, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1834,"blockId":6,"value":"The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":91.68,"y":264.36,"width":430.56,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"91, 264, 430, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":522.24,"MarginBottom":276.36,"MarginTop":264.36,"Value":"so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust."}],"Rectangle":"72, 71, 468, 205","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" ECF No. 191 [hereinafter EC Amicus Br.], at 14. As Micula explains, there are multiple reasons\r\n to doubt the Commission’s reading of the Note Verbale. See Pet’rs.’ Mem. of Law in Response\r\n to EC Amicus Br., ECF No. 195, at 17–18. The court need not resolve the question, however,\r\n because what is pertinent for present purposes is that Romania has not disputed Petitioners’ reading\r\n of the Joint Interpretative Declaration—its reply brief makes no mention of it. If Romania believes\r\n that the ICSID proceedings with Petitioners do not qualify as a “concluded arbitration proceeding”\r\n under the Joint Interpretative Declaration, as the Commission contends, Romania could have said\r\n so. The court’s refusal to vacate the Judgments in the face of Romania’s silence is not unjust.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":85,"Value":{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1835,"columnEnd":1836,"text":" CONCLUSION AND ORDER ","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":null,"paragraphIdAuto":"hV","paragraphId":"hV","paragraphLabel":"V.","rectangle":"72, 291, 192, 12","alignment":0,"blockType":2,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":null,"averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":1,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":true,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":3,"id":1835,"blockId":7,"value":"V.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":291.96,"width":11.64,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"72, 291, 11, 12"},{"type":3,"id":1836,"blockId":7,"value":"CONCLUSION AND ORDER","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":291.96,"width":156.6,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":"Bold","rectangle":"108, 291, 156, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":264.6,"MarginBottom":303.96,"MarginTop":291.96,"Value":"V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER"}],"Rectangle":"72, 291, 192, 12","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER\r\n","MarginRight":264.6}}},{"Key":86,"Value":{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1837,"columnEnd":1838,"text":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","indentLevel":1,"paragraphIdUser":"pa5","paragraphIdAuto":null,"paragraphId":"pa5","paragraphLabel":"5.","rectangle":"72, 319, 468, 39","alignment":0,"blockType":3,"joinedToNextBlock":false,"concatenateText":true,"spacesBeforePx":0,"spacesAfterPx":0,"imageBase64":null,"paragraphIdOverride":false,"htmlEditorText":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","averageFontSize":12.0,"rowsOfText":2,"IsCentered":false,"IsBold":false,"PdfBlock":{"rows":[{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1837,"blockId":8,"value":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":108.0,"y":319.56,"width":432.0,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 12"}],"MarginLeft":108.0,"MarginRight":540.0,"MarginBottom":331.56,"MarginTop":319.56,"Value":"For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from"},{"columns":[{"type":2,"id":1838,"blockId":8,"value":"Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.","fontName":"Times New Roman","fontSize":12.0,"color":null,"x":72.0,"y":347.16,"width":168.36,"height":12.0,"fontStyle":null,"rectangle":"72, 347, 168, 12"}],"MarginLeft":72.0,"MarginRight":240.36,"MarginBottom":359.16,"MarginTop":347.16,"Value":"Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied."}],"Rectangle":"108, 319, 432, 40","MarginLeft":72.0,"Value":" For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Government of Romania’s Motion for Relief from\r\n Judgment, ECF No. 181, is denied.\r\n","MarginRight":540.0}}},{"Key":87,"Value":{"pageNum":23,"columnStart":1839,"columnEnd":1840,"text":"Dated: December 22, 2022
Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge