From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...
Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. (“Tecmed”) v. Mexico
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award, 43 I.L.M. 133 (2004)
On July 28, 2000, Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. (Tecmed) (plaintiff) filed with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), under the ICSID Rules (Rules) and provisions of a reciprocal investment protection agreement between Spain and the United Mexican States (Agreement), a request for arbitration against Mexico (defendant). Tecmed is located in Spain and is a parent company and majority shareholder to Cytrar. “Cytrar” was first the name of a controlled landfill of hazardous industrial waste located in Mexico. An auction was organized to promote the sale of real property, buildings, facilities, and other assets relating to the landfill. Tecmed was the highest bidder and gained title to the assets. Tecmed organized a company, “Cytrar,” to operate to landfill and incorporated it under Mexican law. In 1996, Tecmed sent two letters to the Mexican government’s hazardous waste agency, INE, requesting that an operating license be issued in the name of Cytrar. INE issued a renewable license that was set to expire on November 19, 1998. However, on November 25, 1998, INE rejected Tecmed’s application for a renewed license to operate the landfill, and required Tecmed to institute a program to close the landfill. Tecmed brought suit against Mexico requesting that it be permitted to operate the landfill until the end of its useful life, in addition to compensation for damages. Tecmed alleged that the reason its application for a renewed license was denied related to a change in the political regime in the municipality where Cytrar is located, rather than deficiencies in Tecmed’s investment in Cytrar itself. In its complaint, Tecmed alleged that when INE did not renew its application to operate the landfill, INE expropriated Tecmed’s investment and caused damage to Tecmed through such expropriation.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 239,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.