The Hungarian courts then quashed the sale in a number of litigations and the ICAC upheld their judgments on
According to the plaintiff’s opinion, the ICAC decision was not valid due to several procedural violations in the case. The plaintiff stressed that the court went beyond the relevant parameters of the issue in question. In addition, he claimed that one of the arbitrators was involved in both judicial and legal practice, which entailed a conflict of interest. The plaintiff also claimed that during the hearing, ICAC did not pay adequate attention to Gozzi’s position.
Mabofi Holdings Ltd argued that RosGas failed to point out exactly which legal provisions had been violated by the ICAC judgment, while the claims of procedural violations did not stand up as there are no regulations which prohibit combining legal practice and judicial work. The defendant said that RosGas had itself nominated the judges for the hearing. Mabofi Holdings Ltd. had wanted Gozzi to speak as a witness, but he did not appear before the court. The defendant’s lawyer, however, said that the ICAC decision did not affect Gozzi’s rights and he was not obliged to take part in the proceedings.
All materials are protected by copyright of TV&P and the provider of the content RAPSI. If you need further information on the subject, contact Kristoffer Svendsen.