[Page 1]
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF
INVESTMENT DISPUTES
ICSID Case No ARB/16/8
between
ZBIGNIEW PIOTR GROT AND OTHERS
Claimants
- v -
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Respondent
The Arbitral Tribunal
The Hon L Yves Fortier CC, OQ, QC - Arbitrator
Professor Dr Rolf Knieper - Arbitrator
Professor Philippe Sands - President
HEARING
VIENNA, AUSTRIA
Monday, 11 December 2017
[Page 2]
The Tribunal:
The President:
PROFESSOR PHILIPPE SANDS
Matrix Chambers
Gray's Inn
London WC1R 5LN
United Kingdom
[email protected]
[email protected]
Co-Arbitrators:
THE HON L YVES FORTIER CC, OQ, QC
Cabinet Yves Fortier
1 Place Ville Marie, Suite 2822
Montréal, Quebec H3B 4R4
Canada
[email protected]
PROFESSOR DR ROLF KNIEPER
c/o Atelier Correia
7, place de la République
21210 Saulieu
France
[email protected]
ICSID Scretariat:
MS FRAUKE NITSCHKE, Secretary of the Tribunal
Assistant to the President of the Tribunal:
MS LEA MAIN-KLINGST
Court Reporters:
MS ANN LLOYD
MS DIANA BURDEN
Interpreters:
MS DANIELA CORINA IONESCU
MS SILVIA STATESCU
MS LELIA GALIS
[Page 3]
On behalf of Claimants:
TODD ALLEN WELLS
THEODORE GLEASON
COREN HINKLE
ANDREW ASTUNO
LUCIA CRACIUNEANU
GIEDRE STASIUNAITE
GLEASON WELLS
The Colorado Building
1615 California Street, Suite 616
Denver, CO 80202
United States of America
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Also present from the parties:
ZBIGNIEW PIOTR GROT, Claimant
WITNESSES:
ZBIGNIEW PIOTR GROT
VALERIU BERIL
EXPERTS:
ROGER GLADEI, Gladei & Assoc
DAN NICOARA, Gladei & Assoc
MIHAIL RURAC, Agricultural expert
ANDREI GUMOVSCHI, Agricultural expert
LARS WIECHEN, Deloitte
[Page 4]
On behalf of Respondent:
LEON KOPECKY
CHRISTOPH LINDINGER
VICTORIA PERNT
ANISSA ACHAIBOU
FELIX SCHNEIDER
SCHÖNHERR RECHTSANWÄLTE GMBH
Schottenring 19
1010 Vienna
Republic of Austria
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
ANNA CUSNIR (remotely)
ANDRIAN GUZUN
SCHÖNHERR MOLDOVA
Alexandru cel Bun 51
Chisinau 2012
Republic of Moldova
[email protected]
[email protected]
EXPERTS:
PROFESSOR VIOREL RUSU, Legal expert
MICHAEL PEER, KPMG
MARTIN KOZAK, KPMG
[Page 5]
INDEX
Opening Submission by Claimant. ... 37
Opening Submission by Respondent. ... 153
ZBIGNIEW PIOTR GROT
Examination by Claimants ... 186
Cross-examination by Respondent ... 202
Re-examination by Claimants ... 236
Further cross-examination by Respondent 241
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal ... 245
Re-examination by Claimants ... 261
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal ... 264
VALERIU BERIL
Examination by Claimants ... 268
Cross-examination by Respondent ... 272
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal ... 272
[Page 6]
1 (9.31 am Monday, December 11, 2017)
2 THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Welcome to
3 Vienna. It is lovely to be in this fine city. It
4 is 9.30. We have a tight schedule ahead of us over
5 the next three days, so we propose to proceed with
6 an iron fist but, fairly, fully respecting the
7 quality of arms between the parties at all times.
8 Welcome all of you. Thank you for being
9 on time. My name is Philippe Sands. I have
10 the privilege and honour to chair these proceedings.
11 I am sitting with, to my right, the Honourable Yves
12 Fortier, and to my left, Professor Rolf Knieper, and
13 to my far left, our secretary, Frauke Nitschke, who has
14 prepared these proceedings magnificently.
15 We are deeply grateful for having this
16 very nice space. Thank you for making this space
17 available.
18 We are at your service for the next three
19 days to proceed fairly and expeditiously, and in
20 accordance with the timetable that we worked out,
21 very graciously, with the input of both sides. We
22 would like to begin by expressing our thanks to both
23 parties and to their counsel for the very
24 sympathetic and collegial way in which we have
25 proceeded and expressed the hope that that may
[Page 7]
1 continue throughout. 09:32
2 I just wonder whether by way of beginning
3 both parties could introduce themselves so we know
4 who each person is. We have then got a number of
5 administrative issues in the case ICSID Case 16/8
6 of Zbigniew Piotr Grot and Others v the Republic of
7 Moldova, and I will just go very briefly through
8 those issues and see if we can sort out housekeeping
9 matters. I know on both sides you have issues you
10 want to raise. We want to move fast with those.
11 We are eager to hear your openings, both
12 of you, and very eager, just to give you a sense of
13 our thinking, to try to make sure that we can, in
14 the course of today, complete both parties' openings
15 and the examination of Mr Grot and Mr Beril, so that
16 we are on time for tomorrow. We will therefore want
17 to be as tight as we can on the timetabling so that
18 we can do that, so that we are in good shape for
19 tomorrow to move on to the legal experts and then
20 our agricultural experts. With your support we feel
21 it is do-able.
22 It could begin by inviting the Claimant
23 to introduce your team?
24 MR WELLS: Good morning President Sands,
25 Professor Knieper, Mr Fortier, we are very honoured
[Page 8]
1 to be here today before this prestigious Tribunal, 09:34
2 and I would also like to give the Claimants' thanks
3 to ICSID, in particular, and Ms Nitschke. It has
4 been an impressive feat, really, all the work they
5 have put in it is amazing. Also before I introduce
6 our team I would like to send a very sincere thank
7 you to Schoenherr, in particular, for opening their
8 doors and having us here in Vienna.
9 Let me just introduce very briefly the
10 Claimants' legal team. My name is Todd Wells. I am
11 the lead counsel on the team. Next to me is my law
12 partner, the better half of Gleason Wells, Mr Ted
13 Gleason. Next to him is Mr Coren Hinkle, one
14 of our law partners, and then going down the line we
15 have Mr Andrew Astuno, then Ms Giedre Stasiunaite,
16 and then last we have Ms Lucia Craciuneanu. Last
17 but not least, is our client, Mr Grot. Just
18 THE PRESIDENT: Excellent. Just so that
19 we know who is in the room, could you introduce --
20 MR WELLS: The two other gentlemen are the
21 Moldovan legal experts. First is Mr Roger Gladei,
22 and then his colleague Mr Dan Nicoara.
23 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Respondent?
24 MR KOPECKY: Good morning. I second
25
[Page 9]
1 Claimants' appreciation of the ICSID service, and we 09:36
2 are equally happy to all have you here in our
3 office.
4 To introduce our team, my name is
5 Leon Kopecky. To my right is Victoria Pernt. Then
6 Anissa Achabou, Felix Schneider, our Moldovan
7 colleague, Andrian Guzun, then our legal expert
8 Professor Viorel Rusu and our quantum expert
9 Mr Michael Peer with his assistant Martin Kozak.
10 THE PRESIDENT: Could you go a little more
11 slowly, because you had yours in order so we could
12 go down our list. This order is slightly different
13 so our brains are adjusting. Maybe go down the
14 table that you have.
15 MR KOPECKY: We made the mistake of
16 putting them in alphabetical order. First,
17 Leon Kopecky, Victoria Pernt, Anissa Achaibou,
18 Felix Schneider, Andrian Guzun, Professor Viorel
19 Rusu, Michael Peer, Martin Kozak.
20 THE PRESIDENT: Ms Anna Cusnir, one of the
21 issues on my list, is not with us for the best of
22 reasons but is joining us telephonically? Is that
23 still the case or not?
24 MR KOPECKY: Indeed. Ms Anna Cusnir is
25 on. I do not know if she can say anything but,
[Page 10]
1 Anna, could you confirm that you are on? 09:38
2 THE PRESIDENT: We hear something.
3 MR KOPECKY: Yes. Ms Cusnir is on.
4 THE PRESIDENT: You are very welcome with
5 us.
6 I have a number of issues which we have
7 discussed in advance. We just want to go through
8 those. Can I just confirm that Claimant and
9 Respondent are obviously happy with having Ms Cusnir
10 on by telephone? We have discussed that before.
11 MR WELLS: Claimants are satisfied with
12 that, yes.
13 THE PRESIDENT: The second issue is the
14 presence of Mr Grot. We understand very much the
15 positions taken by both sides, and of course we have
16 taken account of the views, and we thought we would
17 best communicate a decision in advance of what we
18 were inclined to do, or what we had decided to allow
19 both sides a chance to prepare over the weekend and
20 not be hit by a sudden inversion of the order. We
21 understand very much the position taken but equally
22 we are in the presence of rule 32, so there is a
23 slight problematic, and we have therefore decided to
24 invert the order to at least partly dispense with an
25 issue. Are both parties understanding of what we
[Page 11]
1 have done, reserving your position no doubt, but you 09:39
2 understand that that is the decision we have taken.
3 So we will start after the openings with Mr Grot and
4 then we will move to Mr Beril? Is that understood,
5 Claimant?
6 MR WELLS: Yes, understood.
7 MR KOPECKY: Respondent understood and
8 agreed.
9 THE PRESIDENT: I would also like to
10 introduce at the far left hand corner, my assistant,
11 Ms Lea Main-Klingst, who is attending as an observer
12 in the absence of Mr Kraven, who is slightly in
13 advance of Ms Cusnir in having had a baby last week
14 and I have dispensed him from the need to attend and
15 I hope you will understand that. Also welcoming, of
16 course, our interpreters and our court reporters, to
17 whom we extend our appreciation.
18 If I could move on to a number of issues
19 surrounding supporting documentation and legal
20 authorities, which is an outstanding issue, we have
21 received Claimants' documents, as Respondent will
22 know, on December 6, including ten authorities, and
23 those ten authorities have been admitted into the
24 record pursuant to paragraph 7 of Procedural Order
25 No 6.
[Page 12]
1 There are two documents, CL-91, and 09:41
2 CL-100, which the Claimants themselves have agreed
3 not to reference, so these are struck from the
4 record. We are left with CL-81, which has made an
5 appearance, we have noted, in the hyperlinked index
6 for the first time.
7 In light of paragraph 7 of
8 Procedural Order No 6, which provides that, "any
9 authorities submitted after the December 7 deadline
10 shall not be admitted", we would like to invite
11 Respondent to state whether it agrees to the late
12 introduction of CL-81, and what your position is,
13 Mr Kopecky, on the presence of CL-81 in the
14 hyperlinked index.
15 MR KOPECKY: If you just give me 30
16 seconds to look at the exhibit.
17 THE PRESIDENT: I think it is
18 Professor Dolzer. To help you, we are not sure at
19 the end of the day how much will turn on it, but it
20 is for you to express your view.
21 MR KOPECKY: We do not mind
22 Professor Dolzer being on.
23 THE PRESIDENT: Professor Dolzer will no
24 doubt learn in due course that he has not been
25 objected to. Thank you. That document CL-81, is
[Page 13]
1 in. 09:42
2 The next issue, missing originals, which
3 as you know we had decided to reserve what to do
4 about these. Pursuant to our letter of November 21
5 and the Respondent's request at paragraph 3 of your
6 Rejoinder that the Tribunal declare inadmissible the
7 English translations which are currently on the
8 record, as I have it, as C-071, C-076, C-083 and
9 C-89, the Tribunal had reserved its view on the
10 admissibility of these documents.
11 With regard to C-89a, we note that the
12 Claimants have filed this on December 6, so late
13 last week. Could we invite the Respondent to
14 express a view on C-89a, but in the absence of any
15 objection we would admit that document into the
16 record? If I could just hear from the Respondent on
17 C-89?
18 MR KOPECKY: No objection.
19 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. That
20 leaves C-71, C-76 and C-83. We have an English
21 translation on file, but the originals appear to be
22 missing. Our view -- we discussed this yesterday --
23 is to remain seized of the matter, that there will
24 be no reference to those documents, but Claimants
25 may seek leave to file the originals if they have
[Page 14]
1 them, and that we will remain seized of the matter 09:44
2 during the course of the hearing, so that if they
3 come up we can then deal with it at that moment, but
4 our inclination is that, absent the originals, we
5 would not be inclined to admit them. Claimant, any
6 response?
7 MR WELLS: Yes. In regards to 71 and 76,
8 no comment on those two. However, for 83a, one of
9 the things we would like to do is perhaps the
10 Tribunal could reserve its judgment on that until
11 Mr Grot testifies later today. We would like to try
12 to authenticate the document through his testimony.
13 THE PRESIDENT: Respondent, you have heard
14 what has been said. They would like to reserve a
15 position on 83a. It may be that Mr Grot will
16 address it in some way. We would like to hear from
17 you on that.
18 MR KOPECKY: I think that is what the
19 Tribunal did, to keep this issue open, and we agree
20 with that.
21 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, both sides.
22 The sixth point, a point of clarification
23 in relation to additional time to address REX-3.
24 Paragraph 10 of Procedural Order No 6 granted to the
25 Claimants an additional 20 minutes to address any
[Page 15]
1 issues which may arise out of REX-3. I think we 09:46
2 want to be very strict about how that 20 minutes is
3 used. It is your entitlement to use it, but if you
4 could identify when you turn to this matter during
5 the openings so that Ms Nitschke can make sure that
6 those 20 minutes are allocated to that issue and not
7 to any other. We trust you on it, but we want to be
8 correct and fair in all the circumstances. When
9 that issue comes up in the opening you might want to
10 use the words, or some variation, "we are now
11 turning to REX-3" and Ms Nitschke will then know to
12 allocate time for that separately.
13 MR WELLS: When you refer to the opening,
14 are you referring to when Mr Grot testifies?
15 THE PRESIDENT: No, the opening this
16 morning. We have given you 20 extra minutes to deal
17 with that, and you are free to use that. Query
18 whether you instead want to use it during
19 examination of Mr Grot. It is not how we understood
20 it, but it may be that that is how --
21 MR WELLS: I misunderstood. I was
22 thinking of his testimony. I was thinking of his
23 testimony. I thought it was an additional five
24 minutes that was provided.
25 THE PRESIDENT: That is in addition to the
[Page 16]
1 20 minutes you have for your opening 09:47
2 MR WELLS: I was just checking on that,
3 yes.
4 THE PRESIDENT: So you will tell us?
5 MR WELLS: Yes.
6 THE PRESIDENT: I turn now to the issue of
7 outstanding requests. There is a request from the
8 Respondent in relation to the disclosure of third
9 party funding arrangements. We have taken very
10 careful note of the request of December 8, 2017
11 which limited Respondent's November 29 request to
12 only relate to third party funding. We note that
13 there has been a response from that and the
14 identification of one third party funder but, having
15 carefully read it, we have noted there is
16 a reference to possibly other, one or more other
17 third party funders, because there is a reference to
18 "funders" in the plural.
19 I am going to invite both parties to
20 address this matter very briefly, but I thought it
21 may be helpful. We have discussed it. We have to
22 say that, having regard to the totality of this
23 case, the issues raised, the amounts in issue, the
24 way the arguments have gone that far, it is not
25 immediately apparent to the Tribunal that there is a
[Page 17]
1 great deal to be gained by a long and lengthy 09:48
2 discussion about third party funding, so our
3 inclination is not to make a whole lot of this
4 beyond what we have, but we would like to hear from
5 the parties on it and perhaps the Respondent could
6 go first on this issue.
7 MR KOPECKY: Thank you, Mr President
8 Regarding that request, Respondent stands
9 by its observations on record. Third party funding
10 is a serious issue and Respondent's concerns are
11 with the transparency and integrity of these
12 proceedings. The Respondent believes that this can
13 be guaranteed only if the Tribunal is given evidence
14 of the so far unclear nature and form of third party
15 funding. However, as we have just heard, if the
16 Tribunal is satisfied with what is on record and
17 sees no issue, then Respondent is ready to withdraw
18 its request.
19 THE PRESIDENT: Just to be clear, I was
20 very careful, I did not say we don't see an issue,
21 but we are expressing a query as to whether, given
22 the amounts in issue in this case and the totality
23 of this case, there is much to be gained by
24 expending a lot of time on the issue. We are not
25 expressing a view on the merits of your application:
[Page 18]
1 We are wanting to hold it in abeyance unless it 09:50
2 becomes a material issue at some point. That is
3 really what I am inelegantly trying to communicate.
4 MR KOPECKY: In that case we propose to
5 hear from the Claimants on this issue and, based on
6 our explanations which did away with two-thirds of
7 our previous request, we may be able to withdraw
8 without further reference.
9 THE PRESIDENT: Very good. Claimant?
10 MR WELLS: As noted in the response from
11 the Claimants on the third party funding issue,
12 third party funding was not contemplated when this
13 case began. It was purely in response to the
14 nonpayment issue with the Respondent. In fact,
15 currently there is an outstanding payment duę which
16 Claimants are expecting to pay, hopefully within the
17 week actually, so I do want to provide additional
18 clarification on that as well. We have disclosed
19 the existing third party funder; there are no others
20 at this time, and to the extent that it is necessary
21 to continue paying the cost of the Respondent, it
22 may be necessary to obtain other funding.
23 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for that
24 clarification. That, I think, takes us a little
25 about it further. Indeed, when I made reference to
[Page 19]
1 the totality of the circumstances of this case 09:51
2 I included the fact that in our thinking, since
3 Moldova has not contributed to the costs, it is
4 perhaps not unreasonable for the Claimant to have
5 looked elsewhere to top up funds. I wonder whether
6 we can close this with your submissions on this
7 issue?
8 MR KOPECKY: We can, Mr President. We
9 consider this explanation, just the previous one,
10 given in good faith and therefore we withdraw the
11 request.
12 THE PRESIDENT: Heard with much
13 appreciation.
14 We have on our issue of outstanding
15 matters the Respondent, the possibility for the
16 Respondent to get additional time to address the
17 Claimants' amended request for relief. We note that
18 on 8 December the Respondent reserved its rights to
19 address various issues, including Respondent's
20 request that Claimants' claims including its now
21 modified be dismissed in their entirety with costs,
22 issues relating to allocation of damages on which
23 you have reserved right during the course of this
24 hearing Claimants' modified requests for costs on
25 which you have also reserved rights, and the fact
[Page 20]
1 that there are now two Claimants who failed to 09:52
2 submit a request for relief on which you have also
3 reserved rights.
4 Our inclination is to allow you a little
5 extra time to address those matters during the
6 opening statements, if you wish to use it. We
7 wonder whether you want additional time to address
8 those matters, also with experts as and when they
9 come up over the next two or three days.
10 MR KOPECKY: Indeed, Mr President. We do
11 not intend to address this in the opening because we
12 do not yet know what is forthcoming, but we would
13 like some additional time for our expert and maybe
14 five or ten minutes in closing for this.
15 THE PRESIDENT: Claimant?
16 MR WELLS: That is an acceptable proposal
17 for the Claimant.
18 THE PRESIDENT: Very fine. Let us then
19 decide, subject to the views of my colleagues, that
20 you will have an extra five to ten minutes in the
21 course of the closing to address those matters
22 Excellent. We are bang on time. We are
23 five minutes early. Let us press on. We are very
24 excited to hear your openings. Let us proceed
25 unless the parties have any other housekeeping
[Page 21]
1 issues which they want to address before we proceed? 09:53
2 MR KOPECKY: We do, Mr President.
3 Mr President, before the hearing, counsel
4 for Claimant approached us with the request to
5 provide additional support for the KPMG report, and
6 we have produced this. In the course of the
7 production we noticed there were two mistakes in the
8 KPMG report with regard to the exchange rate and
9 depreciation. KPMG therefore prepared an errata
10 sheet which we would like to circulate and introduce
11 to the record. It is ten pages, but it is only ten
12 pages because that one number concerned figures in
13 most of the tables. We highlighted in red wherever
14 that figure influenced other numbers and in fact it
15 is all about two numbers. We would like to seek
16 Claimants' view on that and whether we can introduce
17 this.
18 THE PRESIDENT: Has Claimant had a copy of
19 this?
20 MR KOPECKY: We just got it so we would
21 like to give it to Claimant first before we give it
22 to the Tribunal, if this is acceptable.
23 THE PRESIDENT: Is this going to be
24 addressed in the openings at all?
25 MR KOPECKY: No.
[Page 22]
1 THE PRESIDENT: Was it going to be 09:54
2 addressed in your opening, because you need a moment
3 obviously to have a look at it.
4 MR ASTUNO: Was depreciation an additional
5 change? What was the second modification?
6 MR KOPECKY: To be honest, I would like to
7 refer to Michael Peer to answer this, as he would be
8 better placed.
9 MR ASTUNO: I heard there was an exchange
10 rate change and depreciation
11 MR KOPECKY: Depreciation Capex to use in
12 the calculation, correct.
13 MR ASTUNO: Just those two issues?
14 MR KOPECKY: Those two issues and we are
15 happy to give the report to you right now for your
16 review.
17 MR ASTUNO: I think it is perhaps a bit
18 untimely to review an expert report before opening
19 statements begin. I will say that those two issues
20 are part of the substance of my opening remarks. In
21 good faith, if we accept those are indeed the only
22 modifications in this report, I am willing to
23 overlook that portion of my opening remarks.
24 However, we would like to reserve the right that if
25 that indeed is not the case and there are additional
[Page 23]
1 modifications, we would have perhaps additional time 09:55
2 to address them.
3 MR KOPECKY: That is absolutely agreed.
4 THE PRESIDENT: What we would be therefore
5 inclined to do is to say to the extent that you do
6 not address that in your opening you will have
7 additional time. No doubt you will be able to flag
8 the issue in your opening, you will have additional
9 time to address it once you have hadan opportunity.
10 We are not going to deal with this in terms of any
11 of the experts today, we will get into that tomorrow
12 and the day after, so we will make sure you have
13 additional time, if necessary, to address any change
14 which is made, including in your questioning of the
15 relevant expert and, if necessary, in your closings.
16 Is that satisfactory?
17 MR ASTUNO: That is amenable. We were
18 just thinking that perhaps we would have additional
19 time for closing, if indeed that is the case.
20 THE PRESIDENT: I did say that.
21 MR ASTUNO: Thank you.
22 THE PRESIDENT: Are you comfortable with
23 that, Respondent?
24 MR KOPECKY: Yes.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Any other issues fro
[Page 24]
1 Respondent? 09:57
2 MR KOPECKY: That is fine.
3 THE PRESIDENT: And from Claimant?
4 MR ASTUNO: Mr President, it is related
5 somewhat. Our local agricultural experts are
6 prepared to produce revised tables that were part of
7 their original reports. Rather, they are
8 supplemental tables, and we think that based on this
9 current request we would ask Respondent to allow
10 Claimants to produce these updated tables in the
11 form of exhibits as part of these expert testimonies
12 tomorrow.
13 THE PRESIDENT: Does the supplemental area
14 go beyond the change that we have just been alerted
15 to, or is it simply related to these two numerical
16 changes?
17 MR ASTUNO: It is in response to the issue
18 that were addressed in Procedural Order No 6. The
19 untimeliness of Respondent's expert quantum report
20 has created an issue for Claimants to then go out
21 and respond properly. These two tables are in
22 direct response to the essence of Mr Peer's report.
23 The timeliness that we had to deal with in that
24 sense, we think this request is proper.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Respondent?
[Page 25]
1 MR KOPECKY: I think this issue has been 09:58
2 dispensed with and we do not object to the
3 additional time already given to address the alleged
4 new issues in Michael Peer's report. However,
5 anything that goes beyond a mathematical error would
6 be a new additional submission and we would object
7 to that, because what we just circulated is an
8 erratum on a calculation. It is a typo in
9 mathematical terms, whereas those sound like new
10 issues and that is not the same thing in
11 Respondent's view.
12 THE PRESIDENT: We have heard both
13 parties. Can I suggest that the way we proceed,
14 unless you have anything more you want to address,
15 my inclination, subject to my colleagues, would be
16 to say we will discuss this in the first coffee
17 break as to the best way to deal with this, and we
18 will assume we are not going to deal with this
19 before the first break, so it gives us a chance to,
20 without delaying. Have we got all the information
21 we need from you?
22 MR ASTUNO: One final point of
23 clarification. It is, of course, in light of the
24 timeliness of the submission of the expert report,
25 it is not necessarily a new issue -- in fact, it is
[Page 26]
1 not a new issue at all -- it is in direct response 09:59
2 to the issues that Claimants now had to respond to
3 as of three weeks ago.
4 THE PRESIDENT: I do recall that in
5 Procedural Order No 6 we reserved the possibility
6 that you would have an opportunity to make further
7 submissions or introduce possibly further materials
8 in relation to that timeliness issue, but we did not
9 actually take a decision on it.
10 MR KOPECKY: If I recall, it related to
11 quantum and not to agriculture.
12 MR ASTUNO: It is all interrelated. The
13 agricultural expert's report is the basis for the
14 quantum valuation because the Claimant is a farmer.
15 This is precisely a valuation issue.
16 THE PRESIDENT: Your submission is this
17 could be characterised both as a matter on
18 agricultural issues which goes to quantum and
19 therefore is a quantum issue.
20 MR ASTUNO: Mr President, it is by all
21 means a quantum issue.
22 MR KOPECKY: Respondent is confused at
23 this stage. Maybe we defer to the Tribunal's wisdom
24 on this.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Let us during the break
[Page 27]
1 have a conversation amongst ourselves and we will 10:00
2 come back to try to find and share wisdom and you
3 will bear with us. Thank you very much.
4 If I could ask one question. Mr Fortier
5 has alerted us to one possibility. Just to be clear
6 for us as we reflect in the coffee break, do the two
7 proposed possible potential supplemental reports
8 address an errata that was addressed in the errata
9 document that has now been submitted, or is it
10 something beyond that?
11 MR ASTUNO: Mr President, would you mind
12 if we took a minute to confer? I am noticing, in
13 looking at this report, that it appears at first
14 glance that there is new information that is not
15 just the depreciation issue and the change in
16 exchange rate that was earlier discussed. I am
17 seeing reference to updated yield figures, revenue
18 assessments, substantive changes that go beyond what
19 my understanding of the originally described
20 changes.
21 MR KOPECKY: Yes, I had said this was on
22 request of Claimants who asked for further
23 clarifications, so we provided those.
24 THE PRESIDENT: Again, I have not had a
25 chance to look at this document. I wonder rather
[Page 28]
1 than conferring on it now, let's put a big reserve 10:02
2 around this and we will have a look at it in the
3 break, rather than spend time on it now, and you
4 will have a chance also in the break to confer on
5 it, and we will hear from you when we give our
6 response.
7 Just to be clear on my question, are the
8 two supplemental proposed reports short?
9 MR ASTUNO: To be clear, they are tables,
10 so one paragraph each. They are merely supplemental
11 tables to tables that already existed in the
12 agricultural expert's report
13 THE PRESIDENT: And they are intended to
14 deal with the views of Mr Peer?
15 MR ASTUNO: That is right, in direct
16 response to the views that he expressed in his
17 report, which we are preparing to respond to in our
18 opening today, and not to a new revised report that
19 was just handed to us potentially minutes before we
20 deliver those remarks.
21 THE PRESIDENT: Let's proceed to the
22 openings. We have taken note of everything. You
23 will not get to this issue, if I have understood
24 correctly, before the coffee break. We will have a
25 look at what we have during the coffee break and
[Page 29]
1 briefly return to this in due course. Is that a 10:03
2 satisfactory way to proceed? Claimant?
3 MR ASTUNO: Yes. I think at this point we
4 will proceed with our opening remarks as planned in
5 direct response to the original report, and then
6 during the break we can assess the contents of this
7 supplemental report, if that is okay?
8 THE PRESIDENT: That is fine with the
9 Tribunal. Respondent?
10 MR KOPECKY: No problem with that. We,
11 however, would ask that if this is submitted in the
12 record we get a copy today so that our experts can
13 prepare for their Wednesday testimony.
14 THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. One thing
15 I hope both sides realise is that each party is
16 strongly committed to equality of arms and both
17 parties having a full and fair opportunity to
18 address the issues they want to address in the
19 course of these hearings. That will be the guidance
20 for both parties as to how we proceed. If you feel
21 you need to have the opportunity to address
22 something we want to hear from you on that. You
23 should at no point feel you have not been given an
24 adequate opportunity to address existing material
25 or, if it is admitted, new material. That is
[Page 30]
1 something we are strongly attached to. 10:05
2 Very good.
3 MR WELLS: One last item in housekeeping.
4 Claimants do have one objection to a legal authority
5 that was submitted with the Rejoinder, RL-21, and it
6 is Cervin v Costa Rica, and the objection is that it
7 was submitted in Spanish only.
8 THE PRESIDENT: Duly noted. Which case is
9 that?
10 MR WELLS: RL-21, Cervin v Costa Rica.
11 THE PRESIDENT: Is that because it only
12 exists in Spanish, if I could ask the Respondent?
13 MR KOPECKY: It does only exist in
14 Spanish. We translated in the footnote the relevant
15 part, so it is on record, but we did not provide the
16 entire award which is 186 pages in English, because
17 that would be prohibitive.
18 THE PRESIDENT: Could you remind me,
19 Claimants or Respondent, under which arbitral
20 proceedings that award came down?
21 MR KOPECKY: ICSID.
22 THE PRESIDENT: As an ICSID Tribunal, it
23 is a little difficult for one ICSID Tribunal to say
24 we are not going to have regard to another one.
25 Could we proceed like this: Do you have
[Page 31]
1 anyone on your side who speaks Spanish and who can 10:06
2 have a quick look at the totality, and perhaps in
3 conference with the other side over the lunch break
4 to see if there are any problems with translation of
5 the relevant passage? My experience with these
6 case, both formally as counsel and now sitting as
7 Arbitrator, is invariably you end up focusing on a
8 single line of an arbitral award on which it would
9 be extraordinary if a huge amount turned. In those
10 circumstances could you, over the lunch break
11 perhaps, see whether you can reach agreement on the
12 translation, whether it is accurate to your
13 satisfaction and proceed on that basis?
14 MR GLEASON: Yes. I speak some Spanish.
15 The only problem is I not call myself fluent in
16 legal Spanish, which is the problem. I will confer
17 with the other side over the coffee or lunch break
18 and see if we can resolve the issue. We just did
19 want the Tribunal to hold the Respondent to the same
20 standard that they have been holding us to
21 throughout these proceedings concerning the entirety
22 of our evidentiary and legal submission. There have
23 been various complaints raised throughout concerning
24 translations and other issues and we do want to
25 raise this issue as it does seem, especially
[Page 32]
1 considering the timing, to be somewhat relevant to 10:07
2 us from our perspective.
3 THE PRESIDENT: Heard and understood.
4 Ms Nitschke reminds me that, under PO1,
5 for translation purposes it is sufficient to
6 translate relevant parts or extracts rather than the
7 whole. We are not going to put it to you to
8 translate the whole thing obviously, but equally the
9 Claimant is entitled, given language differences and
10 assuring the need for equality on these kinds of
11 issues, to have an opportunity to review that.
12 MR GLEASON: My response to that would be
13 that this is a case and cases need to be interpreted
14 in context. A simple translation of one line or a
15 few sentences from a case does not give us a full
16 understanding of what the case stands for,
17 especially when the case is trying to be compared to
18 the case in front of the Tribunal today. That is
19 why we find it to be problematic.
20 THE PRESIDENT: That is a fair point, but
21 if we can proceed on this good faith approachand
22 you have a look at it. If the entirety of this case
23 turns on a single line or paragraph of an earlier
24 award, then we have a bigger issue to address. Ido
25 not want to pre-empt that issue, but I would be
[Page 33]
1 somewhat surprised if that is the case. Let's 10:08
2 proceed on that basis.
3 MR WELLS: As we are about to begin the
4 opening statement, we have a number of printouts
5 here. We just need to distribute them prior to the
6 opening.
7 THE PRESIDENT: We are eager for your
8 distribution.
9 While those are being distributed, you
10 will be aware, and I think that should now be clear,
11 that we have read everything. As I said during the
12 pre-hearing telephone conference what we would find
13 especially helpful from both sides is really homing
14 in on the areas you believe us to be troubled by or
15 wanting elaboration on.
16 I come from a legal tradition in which it
17 is the role of the Tribunal to indicate to a party
18 when it has heard sufficient on a particular point.
19 We recognise the need for you to make your case as
20 you want your case, but certainly in days when
21 I used to be counsel in ICSID proceedings -- I am no
22 more but also in domestic proceedings I as
23 counsel found it very helpful to get an indication
24 from the Tribunal that we understood the point and
25 it was time to move on to your next point. We are
[Page 34]
1 very conscious that we want to stick to your 10:10
2 timetabling and we will, if necessary, indicate to
3 you that we have understood a particular point.
4 Please move on to the next one. It does not mean
5 that we are against you on that particular point, it
6 does not mean we are with you on that particular
7 point, but we have understood the issue and you
8 should feel able to move on, but we have read
9 everything.
10 We have read everything. We have read the
11 pleadings, we have read the exhibits, we have read
12 the reports, we have read the witness statements.
13 We are generally familiar with the authorities, and
14 you can proceed on that basis. Homing in on the
15 points of difference between the parties we will
16 find extremely helpful.
17 Now what are you giving out to us?
18 MR GLEASON: What we are giving you here
19 is a succinct summary of the Claimants' views on the
20 issues, a two-page document.
21 THE PRESIDENT: That is CH-1, Succinct
22 summary.
23 MR GLEASON: We have also given you the
24 requested timeline.
25 THE PRESIDENT: CH-2. That is the
[Page 35]
1 Claimants' timeline? And Respondent will no doubt 10:11
2 in due course tell us why that timeline is
3 terrifically correct or hopelessly wrong.
4 CH-3, statement of Rosietici village
5 cadastral.
6 MR GLEASON: That would be our entire
7 opening presentation for your benefit. Yes.
8 THE PRESIDENT: That is your slides.
9 CH-3, Claimants' opening and slides. Excellent.
10 CH-4?
11 MR GLEASON: Then we have given you two
12 demonstratives which we have marked as 1 and 2
13 THE PRESIDENT: CH-4 and 5?
14 MR GLEASON: One of those is a chart which
15 corroborates the statements of witnesses who have
16 not been designated to give testimony in this
17 proceeding.
18 THE PRESIDENT: We have called that CH-4.
19 MR GLEASON: The last exhibit would be
20 "Statistical calculations concerning leases which
21 are allegedly unsigned" and there will be some
22 explanation about this one during the opening
23 statement.
24 THE PRESIDENT: We are going to invert
25 your order. CH-4, Claimants' signed leases
[Page 36]
1 demonstrative. CH-5 corroboration of witnesses, not 10:13
2 designated. You should have five documents.
3 With that, can we move to opening?
4 MR GLEASON: Yes.
5 THE PRESIDENT: The PowerPoint is CH-3.
6 MR KOPECKY: If I may address a request to
7 Claimants. We have Anna Cusnir joining remotely.
8 She obviously cannot be given this in paper.
9 I understand that we agreed it will be uploaded on
10 the Box today afternoon. However, can you send it
11 to her by email so that she can also follow this
12 presentation on her screen?
13 MR GLEASON: Of course we have it in
14 electronic form. We are happy to give it to her
15 THE PRESIDENT: Can one of your colleagues
16 email it to her now? Then Ms Cusnir will be able to
17 see what we are seeing on her computer.
18 MR GLEASON: Okay. One moment please.
19 THE PRESIDENT: While we are you waiting
20 to start, we appreciate that PO6, and possibly also
21 PO1, indicates the questions from the Tribunal in
22 general will come only at the end, but I hope you
23 will bear with us, it won't be taken out of your
24 time, but if either of my colleagues feel at
25 particular moments, just to be helpful to the
[Page 37]
1 Tribunal, they want to come in on a particular 10:16
2 question rather than delay it for two or three days
3 or at the end of the hearing, I hope you will be
4 comfortable with us doing that. It may be that my
5 colleagues may want to come in at a particular
6 moment, that will not be deducted from your times in
7 opening. You are comfortable with that?
8 MR WELLS: Yes, Mr President.
9 MR KOPECKY: Yes, of course.
10 MR GLEASON: Could we make one last
11 request concerning timing? We are going to be
12 passing the chord back and forth between different
13 parts of the opening. Can we ask, because technical
14 issues can be a little funny, that that time not be
15 deducted from our presentation time?
16 THE PRESIDENT: I think you can assume
17 that the Tribunal will have a degree of flexibility.
18 Subject to that, we will stick to timing, and just
19 in the terms of the totality of your opening that is
20 about to begin, you have been allocated a particular
21 amount of time. I am pretty brutal, as you have
22 heard, about timings. I do not allow slippage, but
23 I hear you on that particular point.
24 Opening Submission by Claimant.
25 MR WELLS: Thank you. This is a story of
[Page 38]
1 a man born on a farm, who built a successful farm in 10:17
2 Poland. Our client, Mr Zbigniew Piotr Grot, a
3 farmer, a man we affectionately call Ziggy, but of
4 course Mr Grot in those proceedings. A Colorado
5 resident, Mr Grot took his love of farming to
6 Moldova, where his company Laguardia first invested
7 in a challenging environment in the southern part of
8 Moldova, Stefan Voda.
9 After obtaining profitable yields in some
10 fields that had been unused for as many as ten
11 years, he took that initial investment and moved on
12 to the northern part of Moldova, the Floresti
13 district, deepening the farming investment by
14 obtaining over 1,500 leases across three villages.
15 We will hear a lot about those villages in these
16 proceedings.
17 Despite initially welcoming Laguardia to
18 Floresti and helping Laguardia set up its farming
19 investment, the actions and omissions of some of
20 those same Moldovan public officials alone, but also
21 in conjunction with and at the behest of a violent
22 local competitor, Bio-Alianta, destroyed that
23 farming investment.
24 This case can be summed up by the
25 statement you see in front of you. This is a
[Page 39]
1 Rosietici cadastral, a statement made by him on 10:19
2 4 September 2013 in a criminal investigation that
3 was suddenly closed for no reason whatsoever.
4 "As a specialist cadastral engineer with
5 13 years' of experience, it is my professional
6 opinion that this criminal and fraudulent scheme has
7 been conceived with a sole purpose for taking
8 possession of landowners' plots of lands by
9 Bio-Alianta SRL and bankrupting the previous lessee,
10 Laguardia. The final aim was to take over the plots
11 of land". That is one of the Respondent's own
12 public officials.
13 This hearing is the conclusion of seven
14 years of battles by Laguardia and Mr Grot to recoup
15 farming investment. Claimants' opening is split
16 into three parts:
17 First, Mr Gleason will focus the
18 Tribunal's attention on many of the key facts in
19 this case, what really happened here. Second,
20 Mr Hinkle will focus the Tribunal's attention on
21 relevant Moldovan law, and third, Mr Astuno will
22 focus the Tribunal's attention on the damages. With
23 that, I will hand the baton to Mr Gleason.
24 MR GLEASON: Thank you, Mr Wells.
25 I am going to discuss the key disputed
[Page 40]
1 points in this matter. Unfortunately there are 10:20
2 many, so I will take significant time to go through
3 24. I will walk you through the outline and then we
4 will jump into how Mr Grot and the Claimants set up
5 the investment. We will first talk about how the
6 investment was set up, the legitimate expectations
7 which were created in Floresti and Moldova more
8 generally, how the investment was properly
9 established in Floresti, we will spend some
10 significant time discussing the attributable acts
11 and omissions in this case of the Respondent State,
12 we will talk about how these attributable acts and
13 omissions do breach international obligations found
14 under the BIT, we will also have to spend some time
15 addressing Respondent's argument concerning
16 Claimants' efforts to seek correction, and finally,
17 time permitting, we will discuss the situation in
18 Rosietici.
19 If I may begin, I will begin by discussing
20 the Claimants' efforts to set up the investment.
21 Mr Grot is a farmer with years of
22 experience and successful high-yield modern forge
23 projects. As the record clearly demonstrates, and
24 you will see throughout these slides, there are
25 continuous and consistent references to the record.
[Page 41]
1 I am not going to stop and go to each one, however 10:22
2 if the Tribunal has a question on any of those,
3 please do not hesitate, but in this particular case
4 we see that Mr Grot had successfully farmed in
5 Poland. We see that through the letters of
6 recommendation from local officials in Poland, the
7 statements of accountants in Poland showing that he
8 made at the time over 500,000 USD per year in Poland
9 if we do the conversion. We also see that in the
10 witness statements.
11 Mr Grot decided to attack a new
12 opportunity, in this case in Moldova. In going into
13 Moldova, he did engage in proper and adequate due
14 diligence in setting up the investment. Despite
15 Respondent's allegations, Mr Grot did consult with
16 relevant professionals, including an attorney who
17 had over 20 years' experience in advising commercial
18 parties and foreign investors. Mr Grot also
19 purchased an already established company, ICS
20 Laguardia SRL, to be the operating company and the
21 investment vehicle in this case.
22 In expanding the investment to Floresti
23 after the first successful year in Stefan Voda on
24 250 ha with good results, Mr Grot engaged in
25 additional due diligence. Now, on this particular
[Page 42]
1 point I would like to stop for a moment and address 10:23
2 Respondent's request for an adverse inference
3 concerning Claimants' alleged inability -- the
4 Claimant did not unfortunately produce the
5 Stefan Voda contract which was requested in this
6 case, that is clear from the record -- but the
7 argument that there should be an adverse inference
8 concerning Claimants' Stefan Voda operations and in
9 essence there is no proof on the record concerning
10 his operations or the success of his operations
11 should be rejected. First and foremost Claimants
12 did diligently search for these records.
13 Unfortunately they could not be located as a lot of
14 time has passed.
15 But perhaps more importantly Respondent on
16 this point does ignore the factual record. There
17 are significant accounting and financial records
18 submitted in this case, exhibits 1 and 2 attached to
19 the Deloitte report, CEX-1, which demonstrate the
20 level of activity in Stefan Voda in 2009 and 2010.
21 This point was in fact verified by Respondent's
22 quantum expert, Michael Peer at REX-3. Table 2 in
23 that report actually calculates a profit for Mr Grot
24 and Claimants' Stefan Voda operations in 2009 and
25 2010.
[Page 43]
1 Additionally, in expanding the investment 10:24
2 to Floresti, Mr Grot properly engaged with the
3 relevant parties, the landowners and local officials
4 concerning expanding the investment to Floresti, and
5 this was expanding to a larger farming operation, a
6 2830 ha farm. He consulted with landowners. He
7 consulted with the Floresti district president,
8 Ruslan Zelenenco, the Vice-President, Sergiu Rusu,
9 the local mayors, the local cadastral agents. He
10 followed the advice of local agricultural experts,
11 some of whom like Mr Ion Tugui, were recommended to
12 him by local officials like Mr Rusu, and Mr Grot
13 used the government-approved lease template to enter
14 into these contracts with the landowners. Through
15 this process legitimate expectations were created,
16 which leads me to my second point.
17 MR FORTIER: How long was this setting up
18 of the investment? Can you give us some references
19 to dates? Just the setting up of the investment
20 before you come to the legitimate expectations?
21 MR GLEASON: Absolutely. Are you
22 referring to the general setting up of the
23 investment or the expansion to Floresti?
24 MR FORTIER: I suppose it includes the
25 expansion, but I would like to have bookends here,
[Page 44]
1 because you say this is item 1 of 3, setting up the 10:25
2 investment, right?
3 MR GLEASON: 1 of 3? I do not understand.
4 MR FORTIER: At the outset you said there
5 were three principal issues that you were going to
6 address.
7 MR GLEASON: I said more than three, I am
8 sorry.
9 MR FORTIER: Then I misunderstood you.
10 I thought you said that there were three principal
11 issues and you were dealing, first, with setting up
12 the investment, you would come late to the
13 legitimate expectations, and then to the investments
14 properly established in Floresti.
15 MR GLEASON: That was the first line of my
16 outline. But yes, I understand your question,
17 absolutely.
18 MR FORTIER: I want some dates.
19 MR GLEASON: Sure. It was in the mid
20 2000s when Mr Grot was first introduced to the
21 opportunities in Moldova, and I would have to look
22 at the witness statement of Mr Grot to figure out
23 which year that was exactly, but it was in the mid
24 2000s. In 2008 he did actually visit Moldova, and
25 it was at this time that he purchased the operating
[Page 45]
1 company, ICS Laguardia SRL. 10:26
2 After that point it went into 2009 and he
3 slowly entered into the Moldovan market by engaging
4 in the first year of operations on a smaller farm in
5 the Stefan Voda district, which is in southern
6 Moldova. After having a successful year in
7 Stefan Voda, opportunities were a bit limited in
8 that district and he was looking to expand the
9 investment to the Floresti district which began in
10 about spring/summer of 2010 when he began looking at
11 those opportunities.
12 It was in the summer of 2010 that he was
13 invited by the Vice-President of Floresti district,
14 Sergiu Rusu, who he had met through a business
15 contact. Sergiu Rusu is a person who is
16 Vice-President. His role in part was to attract
17 foreign investment to Floresti. Mr Rusu invites
18 Mr Grot to Floresti in the summer of 2010, many
19 meetings are held in the various village halls of
20 the three villages at issue in this case, and the
21 parties all agree that they want to move forward on
22 this project. The lease registration process takes
23 a few months, over the late summer and early fall,
24 expanding into the late fall of 2010.
25 Does that help?
[Page 46]
1 MR FORTIER: Yes. It does. Carry on. 10:28
2 MR GLEASON: Thank you very much.
3 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: A little bit more
4 precise. The meetings were in September. Is that
5 correct?
6 MR GLEASON: The meetings, I believe, were
7 at the very earliest late August, but yes, the
8 majority were in September, if my memory serves me
9 correctly on the record.
10 MR FORTIER: Of 2010?
11 MR GLEASON: Of 2010, yes.
12 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you.
13 MR GLEASON: I am going to review the
14 record at some point and if I have made a mistake
15 I will correct myself later. There are a lot of
16 facts.
17 I would like to get back into my second
18 overall point which is concerning legitimate
19 expectations and what legitimate expectations were
20 created in this case. There are two categories:
21 The first would be the reliance on the specific host
22 state conduct, and the second would be concerning
23 the predictable and stable and legal administrative
24 framework in Moldova.
25 The specific host state conduct at issue
[Page 47]
1 in this case concerns oral representations and 10:29
2 actions of local officials concerning and relating
3 to the investment in this case. I would like to
4 walk the Tribunal through some of those oral
5 representations and actions, if I may be permitted.
6 Vice-President Rusu, who we have already
7 discussed in this case-- again, he was responsible
8 for attracting foreign investment to Floresti -- he
9 assured Mr Grot that he would assist in organising
10 meetings and in fact did organise meetings relating
11 to the lease execution and registration procedure.
12 Vice-President Rusu and the local mayors
13 generally guided the Claimants through the local
14 framework and generally approved Laguardia's
15 operations. The cadastral agents in each village--
16 these are landownership specialists in each
17 village -- assisted the landowners and Laguardia in
18 this case by assisting with the process, confirming
19 the identity of the landowners, assisting the
20 landowners to fill in the details of the lease
21 documents.
22 MR FORTIER: We are strictly in the
23 Floresti district?
24 MR GLEASON: Yes. We are now in 2010.
25 MR FORTIER: Vice-President Rusu is the
[Page 48]
1 district Vice-President 10:30
2 MR GLEASON: That is right.
3 MR FORTIER: So we are very much at the
4 local level.
5 MR GLEASON: The regional level, I would
6 say, because the local level I would argue would be
7 the villages. Mr Rusu is a level above the local
8 mayors and cadastral agents.
9 Additionally these cadastral agents signed
10 and stamped the leases and, very importantly, they
11 entered each lease into the lease registry in each
12 village.
13 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: You said that the
14 cadastral agents signed the leases. That cannot be?
15 MR GLEASON: They put their stamp on it
16 with an official signature. We can look at the
17 lease documents, if you wish.
18 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: But the leases are
19 signed in the sense of signing a contract by the
20 landowners and by Mr Grot or Laguardia.
21 MR GLEASON: Sure.
22 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: When you said that the
23 cadastral agents helped to have these signatures
24 coming through, it is a different thing from saying
25 they signed the lease contract themselves.
[Page 49]
1 MR GLEASON: I think we are talking about 10:31
2 two different procedures. You are absolutely
3 correct, that the signature for executing the
4 contract should be between the landowners and the
5 investor, in this case Mr Grot and his company.
6 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That is not the role
7 of the cadastral agent.
8 MR GLEASON: I agree.
9 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: How would you qualify
10 the role of the cadastral agent when he helps
11 Mr Grot to have the landowner sign a contract and he
12 gets a little payment for that? Is that not so?
13 MR GLEASON: There was a small payment in
14 this case for the assistance.
15 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: In which role does the
16 cadastral agent work under these circumstances? The
17 cadastral agent helping Mr Grot to have leases
18 signed, is that still a role of public authority or
19 is it an agent for Mr Grot?
20 MR GLEASON: I would like to confer on
21 that question with my colleague for one second.
22 Before I do, I would like to clarify the signature
23 that I am talking about. What I am talking about is
24 a stamp on the actual lease document itself, the
25 official stamp of city hall, and a signature of the
[Page 50]
1 cadastral agent, and this represents registration 10:32
2 after the cadastral agent has performed his duty to
3 check the leases and register the leases. That is
4 the signature that I am referring to. I am not
5 making any sort of allegation that the cadastral
6 agent had an obligation to execute the lease
7 contract for either private party.
8 Now if I may have a moment to confer on
9 the role of the cadastral agent, my colleague, Coren
10 Hinkle, is a little more well versed on the Moldovan
11 issues here.
12 THE PRESIDENT: Why don't we park that and
13 after the break you can come back on that?
14 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Just a little about it
15 on this question, because to be clear from the
16 beginning, or to find your understanding or to see
17 whether I have the same understanding as you have,
18 I have the understanding of the whole proceedings.
19 There are three levels: there is the level of two
20 contracting parties, the Claimants and the
21 landowners, and they sign private contracts
22 MR GLEASON: Yes.
23 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Then there is another
24 level which also concerned a private party that
25 signs also, that is Bio-Alianta.
[Page 51]
1 MR GLEASON: I have not got to them yet. 10:34
2 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Then there is the
3 public law level, and this is the process of
4 cadastral agents putting the seal and executing the
5 registration. When you consult during the coffee
6 break I want to have these two spheres clearer in my
7 mind. We have a sphere of private contracts, and we
8 have a sphere of public authority, a registration
9 official who registers a contract.
10 My initial question was when the cadastral
11 agent helps Mr Grot, that these leases are signed by
12 the landowners, in what capacity do they work? Do
13 they work in a public law capacity in expressing
14 sovereign authority of the State, or are they just
15 private agents of Mr Grot helping to execute private
16 contracts? Do you understand?
17 MR GLEASON: I understand very clearly
18 your question. On the second part of your question
19 we will come back to you. I want to very much
20 clarify that the signature I was referring to, which
21 seemed to incite this question, was not a signature
22 in any private capacity of a cadastral agent. It
23 was a signature in a public capacity in the process
24 of registering the leases. I am sorry if I created
25 the confusion for you.
[Page 52]
1 THE PRESIDENT: You can continue. We have 10:35
2 understood.
3 MR GLEASON: I would like to lead into the
4 next point on this signature because it was at this
5 point, as this process was going on, as the leases
6 were executed but also registered via public law
7 procedures, it was a process that took time. There
8 were over 1500 leases to be executed and registered
9 here. We are in a farming context and
10 President Zelenenco, Vice-President Rusu, the
11 mayors, they assured the Claimants that the process
12 was moving along without issue, both on the public
13 and private side, and it was okay to begin farming.
14 I would like to highlight that point that there were
15 statements made by these public officials that it
16 was okay to begin farming as the registration
17 process was moving forward.
18 That leads me into my second point on
19 legitimate expectations which is concerning a
20 predictable legal and administrative framework which
21 meets certain minimum standards, including
22 consistency, transparency and decision-making. This
23 stable and predictable legal and administrative
24 framework was central to the decision-making process
25 to invest, first in Moldova, and later in the
[Page 53]
1 Floresti district. 10:37
2 I would like to briefly go through the
3 legitimate and reasonable expectations that
4 Claimants had concerning this.
5 THE PRESIDENT: Speaking for myself, I am
6 really familiar with this argument. You can save
7 yourself time and go to the issues that you need.
8 This argument we are very fully appraised of.
9 MR GLEASON: Fantastic. I would like to
10 connect one point, if I may, on this. I would like
11 to connect that last point concerning this slide,
12 No 12, the last point I made about specific host
13 state conduct. President Zelenenco, President Rusu
14 and the mayors, assuring Claimants that it was okay
15 to move along and begin farming.
16 I would like to connect that with some
17 points on slide 15. It was very reasonable for
18 Claimants in this case to expect that if there was
19 any alleged problems or perceived problems with the
20 lease process or the lease execution and
21 registration process found by the mayors in the
22 cadastrals, that they would be notified and
23 permitted to fix any errors, and that both local and
24 international due process norms would be followed.
25 I highlight that because we will discuss that.
[Page 54]
1 MR FORTIER: When you say slide 15, you 10:38
2 are referring to page 15?
3 MR GLEASON: We are looking at the
4 printout I apologise. There are slide numbers and
5 page numbers.
6 THE PRESIDENT: The numbers are at the
7 bottom right-hand corner of each slide.
8 MR GLEASON: They are. On the printout
9 there is a number of each page
10 MR FORTIER: It is slightly confusing.
11 THE PRESIDENT: What you might just say is
12 slide 15 on page 8.
13 MR GLEASON: I will have to look at the
14 hard copy, then.
15 I would like to talk about how the
16 investment was properly established in Floresti.
17 That is a point of some dispute between the parties.
18 There is a few points I would like to make. The
19 first is how the grand majority of leases were in
20 fact in a private law context validly executed.
21 This is clear from the record.
22 I would secondly like to discuss how the
23 leases were in fact checked for compliance by local
24 mayors and cadastrals and registered in a public
25 context in all three villages, and from a practical
[Page 55]
1 business perspective the work had begun. The 10:39
2 necessary equipment had been imported, the employees
3 had been hired in the local Floresti district, the
4 consultants had been engaged, the farming operations
5 had begun in earnest.
6 I would like to go into a little more
7 detail concerning the first two points on this
8 slide, the execution of the leases and the
9 registration of the leases.
10 Everything was moving along just fine
11 until strange events began occurring in Floresti, as
12 this Tribunal is very well aware. In the winter of
13 2011, a local third party competitor, Bio-Alianta,
14 shows up and starts giving sugar to local
15 landowners. I want to be clear that any alleged
16 complaints concerning these leases from local
17 landowners followed these events and were baseless.
18 It was around this time that local officials began
19 to work in concert with this local third party
20 competitor to take the leased lands from Laguardia
21 and give them to Bio-Alianta.
22 I would like to move on and discuss the
23 signature of the leases between Laguardia SRL and
24 the landowners in this case. I am on slide 19,
25 page 10.
[Page 56]
1 I would like to turn the Tribunal's 10:40
2 attention to demonstrative exhibit CH-4. The
3 Respondent in this case argues that many leases were
4 not signed by the landowners. They argued this on a
5 few occasions. On the slide you can see some
6 citations to the Rejoinder in this particular case.
7 That is what is represented on the slide.
8 The Claimants would like to point out to
9 the Tribunal (slide 20) that the majority of the
10 Laguardia leases were in fact signed by the
11 landowners. If we look at the statistics on
12 Claimants' demonstrative exhibit 2, we can see that
13 in all three villages over 90 per cent of the leases
14 actually contained the signature of both Laguardia
15 and the landowners.
16 Claimants took a conservative approach to
17 calculating this number. There are various
18 documents that from Claimants' perspective were
19 signed by the parties, which Respondent would surely
20 disagree with, and we understand that our numbers
21 probably do not add up to your number, but in
22 Claimants' actual analysis of these lease documents
23 many of them contain handwritten names which could
24 be considered signatures in the signature block, but
25 another block for holder of the lease was not
[Page 57]
1 actually signed by that same party, so we did not 10:42
2 count those leases which did not contain the double
3 signature, just to be conservative on our estimate
4 of 90 per cent. So we can see that over
5 90 per cent of the leases had been signed taking all
6 three villages into consideration.
7 I would also like to further point out
8 that whether the leases are signed is only an issue
9 concerning the Cosernita leases. It was only
10 Disposition 1-A which stated that a great majority
11 were not signed by the landowners. The Respondent
12 tried to subtly change the argument at that point,
13 now saying that many lease agreements were not
14 signed, and they are trying to use this as a general
15 argument attacking all of the Laguardia leases.
16 Throughout this process of attacking the
17 Laguardia leases, it never once has been
18 demonstrated by the Respondent why certain unsigned
19 leases would provide grounds for retroactive refusal
20 and simultaneous deletion of other leases which were
21 properly executed. There has never been any
22 explanation of why some leases that allegedly
23 contain problems would affect other leases which do
24 not contain the same problems. No attempt to
25 explain that has been provided.
[Page 58]
1 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I want to get this 10:43
2 straight in my head. I come back to the leases and
3 the signatures and to the registration because
4 you go too quickly for my brain.
5 These are distinct matters. Do we agree
6 that a non-signed lease is a non-valid lease?
7 MR GLEASON: Yes, we do.
8 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: But leases in
9 agricultural land have to be executed in written
10 form and, according to Moldovan law, written form is
11 respected when the document is signed by both
12 parties. That is your legal expert, and that is the
13 Civil Code of Moldova.
14 There is a certain disagreement between
15 the two of us whether the signature has to be done
16 at the same moment, but there is no doubt under
17 written form that they have to be
18 signed. Any non-signed contract which needs a
19 written form is a non-valid contract under Moldovan
20 law.
21 MR GLEASON: I believe there is a dispute
22 about that point, if I may explain myself.
23 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I thought we were in
24 agreement on that?
25 MR GLEASON: No, we agree that there needs
[Page 59]
1 to be assent. 10:44
2 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: We have a disagreement
3 on that point.
4 There I want to come back to the signature
5 problem. I want to take you to Claimants' memorial,
6 paragraph 281. There you see "Respondent's own
7 cadastrals were responsible for filling out the
8 lease and then registering them", and this is my
9 big question that I have.
10 You put two things together which are
11 strictly separated. There is a private registration
12 and execution of a contract on the one part, and
13 then you have a registration. One part of this
14 action is private law and the other part is public
15 law. The law of registration. My evaluation of the files of
16 the law and Mr Gladei's and Mr Rusu's expert
17 opinions, I see not heavy point why a cadastral
18 agent would be responsible for having a private
19 contract signed? Is not, he is engaged by one of
20 the parties to do that as an agent and being paid
21 for it. If not, I remain confused as to the nature
22 of the signing of the lease. I do not really see the
23 between these two spheres: a private contract signed
24 by private people, helped by perhaps cadastral
25 agents, who when they help act as private
[Page 60]
1 representatives of one party, and the public part of 10:46
2 this whole process, which is stamping and
3 registration.
4 MR GLEASON: I do not think there is any
5 reason that you cannot make that distinction under
6 these facts.
7 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Well, you don't do it
8 and then I am confused.
9 MR GLEASON: I apologise for not doing
10 that. Perhaps it is a difference in legal approach.
11 There are two separate acts here: one is execution
12 of a lease which you are correct in stating is a
13 private law act. The other is registration of the
14 act.
15 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Why do you say
16 cadastrals were responsible to fill out the
17 forms?
18 MR GLEASON: Because there was agreement
19 between Claimants and the local officials in this
20 case that that was the expectation that they would
21 assist in these circumstances.
22 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: In a private capacity?
23 If you say that, that is absolutely okay. If you say,
24 Mr Grot had a private contract with the cadastral
25 agents to help him with the lease agreements and
[Page 61]
1 they were paid for that, that is the private sphere. 10:47
2 They were paid for that, that is the private sphere
3 of this whole business and not the public sphere.
4 Are we in agreement? Then I would be satisfied and
5 back on track.
6 MR GLEASON: I would agree to the extent
7 that there was an element of private contracting in
8 this case, but I would not agree that that does not
9 continue to create legitimate expectations. Going
10 back to that argument.
11 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That is a different
12 sphere. I am strictly talking about these two
13 spheres of a private contract and a demonstration of
14 public authority when stamping and registering.
15 I think we have to distinguish these two spheres
16 completely, and at least in your paragraphs where
17 you do the same thing. This is misleading to me.
18 THE PRESIDENT: The point has been made.
19 we will no doubt come back to this and we will have
20 legal experts when we will have an opportunity to
21 address this issue. Let's move on. I am conscious
22 of time.
23 MR GLEASON: Thank you. It still remains
24 confusing from the Claimants' perspective, at least
25 despite the Tribunal's questions on this issue, why
[Page 62]
1 certain leases which were perhaps allegedly 10:49
2 containing problems, whether they were unsigned or
3 whether they contained some of the other problems
4 alleged by Respondent, why those leases which
5 contained these problems themselves, for example, a
6 lease which was assigned to a lease which was signed
7 by somebody other than the entitled landowner, or
8 leases with the ratios additions and pencil use or
9 lacking in official stamp of Laguardia, why those
10 leases with those problems would affect other leases
11 which did not have or share the same problems.
12 From our very important point of
13 perspective, I would like to highlight that. What
14 Respondent tries to do, moving for my next slide --
15 slide 23, page 12 of the printed copy -- is that
16 this argument is misguided and should be rejected if
17 certain leases, even if they did have certain
18 problems, unsigned, whatever the case was, that was
19 not a reason to retroactively refuse and
20 simultaneously delete all of the leases. That was
21 clearly not supported by Moldovan law.
22 I must apologise, I keep saying
23 "retroactively refused and "simultaneously delete
24 the lease registrations". I know that is a lot to
25 say, but there is no better way to say it. That is
[Page 63]
1 actually what happened. It was a retroactive 10:50
2 refusal and simultaneous deletion of these lease
3 registration records. If it sounds strange, it is
4 because it was strange. It was an extraordinary
5 procedure which was not supported by Moldovan law,
6 as will be addressed by the Moldovan legal expert,
7 Roger Gladei, in this case.
8 One last point on this issue. Any time to
9 make an argument concerning alleged problems with
10 singled-out leases was prior to registration, not
11 the retroactive refusal and simultaneous deletion of
12 the lease registrations by mayoral disposition.
13 That as well was not supported by Moldovan law.
14 I would also like to move into the public
15 law context for a moment, if I may be permitted,
16 moving to slide 25, page 13. Respondent argues that
17 there is nothing on record showing that the
18 Laguardia leases were checked for compliance, but
19 that directly ignores the Moldovan law cited by
20 Claimants' expert, Roger Gladei, in his First
21 Report, CEX-1. This perhaps will help answer some
22 of your questions, Mr Knieper, and that is
23 concerning the registration process and the role of
24 cadastral or registrar in this registration process.
25 The record demonstrates that the Laguardia
[Page 64]
1 leases were checked for compliance. I have 10:51
2 highlighted some passages from Mr Gladei's First
3 Report. You can see that it says, "the authorised
4 person who is the cadastral shall use the Registry
5 as evidence of documents that came in and went out
6 of the mayor's office, and is obliged to verify the
7 completeness of the documents, verify the
8 correctness of the contents of the documents".
9 Same regulations states that, "upon substantive
10 examination of the documents, the cadastral, the
11 authorised person, shall verify compliance with
12 legislation and, if finding authenticity of the
13 documents, completeness of the information contained
14 therein, and compliance of the form and content of
15 the documents, make the record into the Registry".
16 It may briefly summarise the role of the
17 registrar in registering, the registrar uses the
18 registry as evidence of the documents, shall verify
19 and check compliance, and if finding compliance of
20 the form and the contents of the documents make the
21 record into the Registry. Thus, despite
22 Respondent's arguments that there is nothing on
23 record demonstrating that the mayors or cadastrals
24 checked Laguardia's leases for compliance, that
25
[Page 65]
1 ignores the record itself. The registration of the 10:52
2 leases themselves are evidence that theregistrars
3 or cadastrals checked the documents for compliance
4 and that the mayoral offices in each village
5 actually found compliance.
6 Similarly, there are two court decisions
7 from the Floresti District Court in 2013 and 2014
8 taking the same position, that the leases were
9 properly reviewed, for example, using Respondent's
10 language "checked for compliance" and ultimately
11 registered.
12 MR FORTIER: Where are those references?
13 MR GLEASON: To the District Court
14 decisions? The 2013 decision is C-43, and the 2014
15 decision is R-6. Specifically the findings for C-43
16 are page 10, and for R-6 are on page 7, if that
17 helps the Tribunal.
18 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: In that context I have
19 another question concerning the timeline. You say
20 in your submissions, and you said that already
21 today, that from January --
22 Let's go back to the timeline. Meetings
23 in September, then an extended process of signatures
24 which lasted until December, and then finally
25 registration in February, and you ask yourself in
[Page 66]
1 your submissions why it took so long for the 10:54
2 cadastral agents to register. The answer that you
3 give is that the competitor started to distribute
4 sugar, and the other reason was that the mayors got
5 orders from above not to register.
6 The question which I have is why if the
7 mayors got orders from above, and when the
8 conspiracy already started in January, why should
9 they go through this mess of registering 1500 lease
10 agreements and then deregister themtwo or three
11 weeks later? Have they simply refused to register?
12 Do you have an explanationfor that?
13 MR GLEASON: Unfortunately we have not had
14 an opportunity to hear from any of the mayors or
15 cadastrals in this case, and it is impossible to
16 know what was going through their heads without
17 being able to speak to them.
18 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: But how do you know
19 there were orders from above to the mayors that they
20 should not register?
21 MR GLEASON: I was going to get to that
22 later. It is on the record. In was given in an
23 ex parte injunction proceeding concerning the
24 Varvareuca injunction requested by Bio-Alianta.
25 Mayor Nina Ivanes, stated that she had received
[Page 67]
1 orders from above to terminate-- 10:55
2 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That was later. I am
3 talking about your submission that in January these
4 mayors received orders not to register, and at the
5 same time you say the conspiracy between the
6 Respondent, the mayors and the competitor already
7 was on in January, and then, despite the conspiracy,
8 they signed and they register these agreements.
9 I do not find the logic behind your submission.
10 MR GLEASON: We do not have the detailed
11 thoughts of the mayors. We don't know exactly when
12 the orders were given, but we do know that the
13 orders were given. It was stated by the Mayor in a
14 statement under oath.
15 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That was after the
16 registration. She talks about orders to
17 de-register. I am talking about January, before the
18 initial registration took place. You say in your
19 submission that the mayors got orders already in
20 January before any registration had taken place not
21 to register.
22 MR GLEASON: I would like to find the
23 statement of the mayor, if I may, because I am not
24 sure we have the same understanding on that.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Can we do this in order?
[Page 68]
1 You are taking us through a timeline. 10:57
2 MR GLEASON: I would like to continue with
3 that, if I may. It is an important question
4 THE PRESIDENT: It is up to you, but do
5 not re-do it later.
6 MR GLEASON: I will get to it later. I am
7 going to come back to that point. That is a really
8 important point.
9 THE PRESIDENT: We can park that issue.
10 You are going to deal with it.
11 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: It is in your reply,
12 paragraph 513, if you want to look it up
13 MR GLEASON: I have it in my presentation
14 prepared already. I will get to that. I am glad
15 you recognise the mayor's statement in this context.
16 Perhaps we have a difference in understanding
17 concerning the context in which it was given, but we
18 will talk about it.
19 I am not sure I can give you an answer
20 concerning what was going through the minds of
21 people at this time in Moldova, why the leases were
22 registered and then retroactively refused and
23 simultaneously deleted for the record. That is a
24 mystery, it really is, but it was extraordinary in a
25 legal procedure, that much is clear.
[Page 69]
1 I would like to move on. Professor Sands, 10:58
2 may I have a timing update?
3 THE PRESIDENT: All of the questions which
4 are coming from the Tribunal will not be taken from
5 your time. Ms Nitschke, roughly how much time has
6 been used on their own time.
7 THE SECRETARY: About 25 minutes.
8 THE PRESIDENT: Just to highlight a
9 concern, I have calculated that your total
10 PowerPoint is 88 pages. You are now at about 16 and
11 you have used on 90 minutes almost a third. Again,
12 you can assume we have read the detail we really
13 have read the detail. We want to get to these kinds
14 of issues, which is why the questions are helpful.
15 So don't worry, but charge ahead.
16 MR GLEASON: I would just ask that the
17 entirety of the PowerPoint presentation be taken
18 into consideration by the Tribunal. I am sure you
19 will.
20 THE PRESIDENT: Can I check, because it
21 will apply equally to the Respondent, I do not know
22 if you have a PowerPoint, but for my part
23 absolutely. This is, I am assuming, not new legal
24 argument. It is in response to our invitation in
25 the course of the pre-hearing conference that you
[Page 70]
1 present to us and we have the totality and that will 10:59
2 go for both sides. Are you comfortable with that?
3 MR KOPECKY: On the premise, of course.
4 THE PRESIDENT: You can assume it is in,
5 we have it. We will go over it. You do not need to
6 take us through each line. You will never get
7 through the additional 72 pages of 140 plus slides
8 that you need to get through in the time. Do not
9 worry about it. We have it. We are on top of it.
10 MR GLEASON: Great. I would like to move
11 to slide 36, which is on page 18 of the printed copy
12 of the PowerPoint presentation. There is a real key
13 dispute about the attributable acts and omissions of
14 the Respondent in this case.
15 MR FORTIER: Very key.
16 MR GLEASON: It is very key, thank you.
17 The Respondent focuses almost exclusively on the
18 dispositions in this case as being the attributable
19 act that we need to analyse, but there are many more
20 acts and omissions of local officials which need to
21 be attributed to Respondent in this case. In fact,
22 there was a pattern of state conduct. In its
23 Rejoinder, the Respondent states that Claimants
24 merely allege, but neither explain nor prove, a
25 pattern of state conduct. But the record is clear
[Page 71]
1 on this point: there was a pattern of state conduct 11:00
2 and I would like to walk this Tribunal through the
3 pattern which occurred in this case.
4 The pattern begins with the already
5 discussed delay in registering the leases. It is an
6 unexplained delay in registration. The leases in
7 their grand majority were validly executed and
8 compliant with Moldovan law. Nonetheless,
9 Respondent will argue that there were no delays,
10 that the documentary evidence on record shows that
11 they were only filed on the day of actual
12 registration. The references that Respondent uses
13 to make this argument are taken from court
14 proceedings where the Claimant was actually not
15 present, so the statement of the mayor was actually
16 taken at face value in the documents which are cited
17 by Respondent on this particular point.
18 There are other points on the record which
19 show that there were unexplained delays concerning
20 registration of the leases. We cannot explain why.
21 We don't know why. It was strange. It was a long
22 and unexplained delay. It was, according to
23 Igor Bugai, a systematic and unreasonable delay
24 approval of lease. Alexei Bugai confirms that he
25 was concerned about delay. He inquired andhe could
[Page 72]
1 not get a response from Mayor Ivanes concerning the 11:01
2 lease registration process. There were strange
3 events occurring at this time.
4 That is just the beginning of this
5 pattern. The pattern becomes much more serious very
6 shortly afterwards. Prior to, and in addition to
7 the dispositions, which were the focus of majority
8 of Respondent's pleadings on attribution, the record
9 clearly shows that the mayors attempted to terminate
10 the private lease rights between Laguardia and the
11 landowners. Again, this is prior to the
12 disposition.
13 This brings me back to the quotation
14 concerning the orders from above. We see that
15 statement from Mayor Nina Ivanes, 15 April, talking
16 with president of the Floresti District, "he told me
17 that there is a company, Bio-Alianta, but the
18 contracts, the Laguardia leases, should be
19 terminated". That was a statement given under oath
20 granted in April 2011, but referring back to this
21 time period, the time period concerning the
22 registration of the leases.
23 If I may be permitted, what did the Mayor
24 Nina Ivanes do after receiving these orders from
25 above? She attempted to illegally and unilaterally
[Page 73]
1 terminate the private lease interests in this case. 11:03
2 We see that in exhibit C-95. C-95 is our illegal,
3 unilateral lease termination notifications signed by
4 some Varvareuca landowners, signed and stamped by
5 the Varvareuca mayor. These took place on,
6 I believe, 15 February 2011, so when did Mayor
7 Nina Ivanes receive the orders from above? We don't
8 know, but we can reasonably believe it was prior to
9 these lease termination notifications being signed
10 We know that the same happened in
11 Cosernita. We saw notations in the Cosernita land
12 registry indicating that the Laguardia leases had
13 been terminated between 1 and 3 February 2011,
14 despite the leases having been registered on
15 7 February 2011. Now perhaps in the written
16 pleadings this point was maybe not highlighted as
17 much as it should have been, but it is clearly on
18 the record that the mayors in both villages
19 attempted to illegally and unilaterally terminate
20 the leases.
21 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Can you go to
22 paragraph 313 in your Reply? There you give an
23 explanation and you don't say it is strange; there
24 you say they received before the registration, we
25 are talking about before the registration. You say
[Page 74]
1 the initial registration process was slow because 11:04
2 they got orders from above not to register.
3 MR GLEASON: We say it is likely.
4 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: You say that in your
5 later submission.
6 MR GLEASON: We say it is "likely". We
7 don't say that we know. We say this is "likely"
8 because the mayors had received orders from above.
9 We do know that they received orders from above.
10 Unfortunately it is going to be impossible for us to
11 know when those orders were received. I cannot
12 answer that question
13 MR FORTIER: But you have heard many times
14 that the orders from above. Have you come to them
15 or were you coming to them on slide 42? Shall we go
16 through it together? Talking with the President of
17 the Floresti District, he told me there is a
18 company, Bio-Alianta, but the other contracts,
19 Laguardia SRL, should be terminated. From the
20 perspective of the Claimants, this is evidence of
21 the order from above?
22 MR GLEASON: Yes. This is a statement
23 given under oath in a court proceeding.
24 MR FORTIER: So that is the statement from
25 above?
[Page 75]
1 MR GLEASON: That is the statement of the 11:05
2 mayor saying, "I received orders from above".
3 MR FORTIER: The person above is the
4 President of the Floresti District, Ruslan
5 Zelenenco. Does it go above Mr Zelenenco?
6 MR GLEASON: We believe it does. We will
7 be addressing that later today.
8 After the orders from above were issued,
9 the mayors in both villages endeavoured to illegally
10 and unilaterally terminate the private lease rights
11 of Laguardia with the landowners in each village.
12 This despite, very clearly under Moldovan law, such
13 mayors not having any authority to terminate
14 contracts between private parties, as very clearly
15 stated in the First Expert Report submitted by
16 Roger Gladei, paragraph 58.
17 Also this point was stated again in
18 Mr Gladei's Second Report, CEX-4, paragraph 31, and
19 was agreed upon by Professor Rusu at paragraphs 13
20 and 14, the issue of validity of agreements is one
21 to be resolved by the parties themselves, and in the
22 case of a dispute by a court, the city hall may not
23 assess the validity of a lease agreement. In other
24 words, the mayors had no business being involved in
25 the termination of private lease rights as stated by
[Page 76]
1 Article 1 of the Civil Code of Moldova that there is 11:07
2 a fundamental civil law principle of prohibition to
3 interfere with private affairs as cited by Claimants
4 expert report, No 4, the Second Report of
5 Roger Gladei, paragraph 31.5.
6 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Can we go for a second
7 to your exhibit 95, which you have just mentioned.
8 You see that the mayor terminated the lease
9 agreement, but here I read in the translation --
10 I don't know whether it is a court translation -- it
11 is a termination announcement of 11 February 2011,
12 and here in my text I read that that "the lessor",
13 which means landowner terminates the agreement, not
14 the mayor.
15 MR GLEASON: If you could scroll down in
16 that document and look at the actual documents
17 themselves.
18 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I do not have the
19 Romanian. I just took the translation. I see the
20 signature of the lessor and then I see the mayor's
21 signature also, but the declaration is definitely
22 from the landowner and not from themayor.
23 MR GLEASON: There was a signature of the
24 mayor under colour of authority in this case
25 supporting this declaration from --
[Page 77]
1 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: The termination was 11:08
2 expressed by the landowner and not by the mayor.
3 MR GLEASON: The terms of the lease for
4 termination --
5 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: It might be legally,
6 he might not be entitled to terminate, but the
7 declaration was done by the landowner and not by the
8 mayor.
9 MR GLEASON: And supported by the mayor.
10 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That is a different
11 matter, but we are still in private/public law. A
12 landowner tried to terminate the lease contract Is
13 that correct or not?
14 MR GLEASON: Not appropriately, but the
15 allegations show that there are these requests from
16 some landowners.
17 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: You want to say it is
18 not correct what I say, that the landowners tried to
19 terminate the lease agreements?
20 MR GLEASON: Some of them may have, yes.
21 The documents speak for themselves. They da
22 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: It seems not to,
23 because I understand it differently from you.
24 I understand this is an expression of will, to
25 terminate a private agreement by a private
[Page 78]
1 landowner, vis-à-vis a private contracting party. 11:09
2 That is what I read. Then we have a confirmation by
3 the mayor, but the declaration is definitely to my
4 understanding from the landowner and not from the
5 mayor.
6 MR GLEASON: If we can turn back to slide
7 46, page 23 of the written presentation, there is a
8 fundamental civil law principle of prohibition of
9 interfering with private affairs, so the mayor has
10 absolutely no business putting any name, signature
11 or any other act under the colour of authority,
12 under any termination notification filed by
13 landowners in this case. They had no business doing
14 this, absolutely none under the law, and it was an
15 act under the colour of authority. That is the
16 Claimants' position on that particular point.
17 If I may point out, I also point out that
18 the termination of a lease was not to be done
19 unilaterally by landowners. The terms for
20 termination of a lease are very clear in this case.
21 The lease contract terminates in very limited cases,
22 expiration of a contract, a declaration of
23 invalidity which comes from the court, not the
24 landowners, cancellation of the contract, and
25 cancellation would be by mutual agreement, not
[Page 79]
1 unilateral agreement, and by court decision, and 11:10
2 none of those circumstances exist here. Zero. So
3 it is unclear why the mayor was getting involved in
4 this private relationship.
5 THE PRESIDENT: On exhibit C-95, the first
6 page is the number C-95. You then have an English
7 translation and you have then got a huge number of
8 pages down of original language text. Is the
9 translation of page 2 of this document, signature of
10 the lessor, is that the fifth page down, just to be
11 clear?
12 MR GLEASON: I guess that would be the
13 first of those many, many documents.
14 THE PRESIDENT: If we look at that
15 original language text, just going down, the bit
16 where it says "the Varvareuca official, Ms Ivanes,
17 NF ..." on page 5, is that the bit immediately above
18 the date, 11/02/2011?
19 MR GLEASON: That is right, and
20 unfortunately on some of these copies the stamp is
21 faded.
22 THE PRESIDENT: Whose signature on the
23 right-hand side?
24 MR GLEASON: That is Mayor Nina Ivanes.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Your position is, if I
[Page 80]
1 have understood, that a request for termination has 11:12
2 come in by the private lessor, that it has then been
3 signed and, in effect, approved by the mayor, and
4 that is an act the mayor was not authorised to do?
5 MR GLEASON: That is absolutely correct.
6 THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
7 MR GLEASON: Again, there is no reason for
8 the lessees at that point to even have complaints
9 THE PRESIDENT: Signed by the lessor and
10 the mayor.
11 MR GLEASON: Signed by the lessor and the
12 mayor, that is right. There are some concerns that
13 Claimants have concerning the authenticity of some
14 of the signatures of lessors, but we are not going
15 to get into that right now.
16 I would like to highlight that Claimants
17 could not possibly have been in breach of the
18 contract as lessors claimed under these lease
19 termination notifications, as the preparatory works
20 had taken place and Claimants' payment obligations
21 were not due for another ten months. It was all
22 very mysterious. I very much understand your
23 confusion on the point because it was a mysterious
24 thing. If you are confused about what was going on
25 now, imagine how Mr Grot felt in 2011.
[Page 81]
11:13
THE PRESIDENT: How many pages have we got here? It is like hundreds of pages. How do you explain that on the same day hundreds of private lessors all make an application unilaterally to the mayor's office?
MR GLEASON: This is why we have some concerns about the authenticity of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: It may not be only or at all a matter of authenticity. The question is what propels hundreds of individual lessors on the same day to make an application for termination? One interpretation -- I am not saying it is my view -- is that one could infer from that that someone was organising something somewhere?
MR GLEASON: That is a very reasonable inference.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not saying it is my view, but it is striking that you have one page of translation, they are all in identical terms, and there are then hundreds of pages of signed lessor and mayorally signed documents. They are all signed by the mayor. On a single day -- they are all dated 11 February -- the mayor receives hundreds of pieces of paper and she signs all of them.
MR GLEASON: And stamps all of them. We
[Page 82]
11:14
have the originals if you would like to see them.
I would also like to point out, staying on these termination notifications for a moment, there is no timely notice of these unlawful attempts to terminate Laguardia's leases provided to Claimants at any time. They were never communicated in a timely fashion to the Claimants. Nothing on record shows that the termination notifications from Cosernita were ever even communicated to Claimants prior to the lease registry dated 12 October 2012 being communicated to the Claimants a year and a half later.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to be clear, what notice was the Claimant given before 11 February 2011 as to the transmission to the mayor's office of all these documents?
MR GLEASON: Nothing.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your submission on the opportunity that was given to the Claimant to have an opportunity to respond to the mayor's imminent signature of all of these documents?
MR GLEASON: There was absolutely no communication, no opportunity. This was happening behind closed doors.
THE PRESIDENT: When do you say the
[Page 83]
11:16
Claimant first found out that these hundreds of documents had been signed?
MR GLEASON: Some time later.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean?
MR GLEASON: We don't know for Cosernita, it is not clear. We know that it was not at any time in the month, or even months following these documents being signed. If we look at C-95, we can see that these terminations, signed on 11 February 2011, were not sent until 15 March 2011, so over a month later, and this is for Varvareuca, this is after the date of the disposition in Varvareuca, which we will turn to shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the page 3. It is called "Petit Paquet Recommande". So it is a registered letter that has gone to ICS Laguardia in Chisinau.
MR GLEASON: And that is on 15 March 2011, and if you look down, I am sorry it is in Romanian, we didn't translate this part, but page 4 is a "return to sender" notice dated I believe 24 March
THE PRESIDENT: That is page 4 on the documents. Obviously Respondent will have a chance to address this. You say this never arrived
MR GLEASON: They were never delivered
[Page 84]
11:17
THE PRESIDENT: How did you get hold of this? Could you remind us?
MR GLEASON: We would have to ask Mr Grot and perhaps his employees who were working for him at that time, but he does have them now, that is clear. The point is that there is no timely notice whatsoever concerning these illegal lease notifications. The focus was on the written pleadings by Respondent, all on the dispositions
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Did the Claimants have any contact with his contractual parties at all?
MR GLEASON: Yes, there were a variety of meetings held.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Because in principle it would have been the obligation of the two contracting parties to talk about culmination of a contract.
MR GLEASON: Yes.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Did they ever have contact? The question is did the Claimant ever contact any of the landowners?
MR GLEASON: Concerning these terminations?
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Anything?
MR GLEASON: Yes, absolutely.
[Page 85]
11:18
on the mayors and the cadastral agents?
MR GLEASON: No, absolutely not. There were multiple meetings held throughout the fall of 2010?
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: And then no more contact?
MR GLEASON: Farming started, so they were on the landowners' land and presumably there was day-to-day contact concerning the farming operations.
To focus this back on the actual termination process, no, the Claimants did not discover termination of the leases with the landowners because they were never informed of the alleged terminations of the landowners. But, yes, there was contact. This was an ongoing farming operation in small villages. People see each other, people live next to each other, people talk to each other.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: And they talk about many things but not about the termination and the intention to terminate these contracts?
MR GLEASON: That never came up. It was very strange and mysterious. The private lease
[Page 86]
11:19
termination notifications were not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Please continue.
MR GLEASON: I would like to also communicate to the Tribunal that while this was not being communicated to Laguardia, it was being communicated to the local third party competitor, Bio-Alianta. There is a concerning link between the terminations and the famous dispositions, which we will get to next.
How do we know this is concerning communication? Slide 51, page 26 of the printed copy. During this process of Laguardia having their leases illegally and unlawfully terminated, while this was not being communicated to Laguardia, there were ongoing communications with the third party competitor.
We need to look at the dispositions. We will now turn to the famous dispositions, which have been a subject of much of the conversation in this dispute. We look at Disposition 1-A, we know that that was, like the terminations, not immediately provided to Laguardia SRL and immediately used in the District Court by the local competitor before Laguardia had even received proper notification of this document created by the mayor
[Page 87]
11:21
of Cosernita.
The exact same thing happened in Varvareuca. Again, there was no notification of Disposition 1-A in Cosernita, no notification of Disposition 2 in Varvareuca, and the Claimants had not even been notified of these dispositions, they were used by the local third party competitor, Bio-Alianta, in court proceedings to obtain ex parte injunctions.
The Respondent argues that the injunctions obtained by Bio-Alianta had nothing to do with the dispositions. They say that at multiple points in their Rejoinder, but that simply ignores the record. Slide 54. We see that Disposition 2, we see the complaint filed by Bio-Alianta in this ex parte injunction, which says "the copy of Disposition 2 is attached". It was attached to the complaint. The ex parte injunction was clearly based on the disposition which had not even been communicated to Laguardia.
The same goes for Cosernita. Now Respondent argues that C-97 and C-33, Bio-Alianta's Statement of Claim for the ex parte injunction along with the ex parte injunction itself, do not mention Disposition 1-A. This ignores C-105, which is the
[Page 88]
11:22
order from the court cancelling the injunction which shows that the representative of Bio-Alianta, Oleg Lupu, used the mayor's disposition to argue that registration of Laguardia's leases was forbidden. Thus, Disposition 1-A was very clearly used if we look at the record to obtain the ex parte injunction in Cosernita.
So, again, to summarise on this point, Disposition 1-A is issued in Cosernita. No notification of Disposition 2 is issued in Varvareuca. No notification of Disposition 1-A or Disposition 2 is given to Laguardia. At the same time, Bio-Alianta has copies of these dispositions in their hands and they go to the local court to obtain ex parte injunctions against Laguardia blocking them from accessing their validly-leased lands.
I would like to point the Tribunal's attention to slide 60. Slide 60 is on page 30 of the printed copy. Slide 60 demonstrates that even before the injunctions were in place, the mayors in these villages were blocking Laguardia from accessing the leased lands.
If we look at C-101, which is a statement of Ion Tugui, attached to minutes of a court
[Page 89]
11:24
hearing, a statement given in the context of a court hearing, where he says, "For more than a month, the mayor does not allow us; he refuses to grant us the contracts so we can't do the land work". In other words, we don't have access to our leased lands we can't perform our farming practices or operations.
This statement was given on 8 April 2011. The Cosernita injunction was not granted until 24 March 2011. The Varvareuca injunction was 12 March 2011. Again, 8 April 2011, lon Tugui is saying we haven't been working the lands for more than a month, so in other words, stretching back to the very latest, early March, more likely late February. So there was absolutely no access to the land. This is just another part of the pattern of state conduct which exists in this case.
By this point there was an unexplained delay in the registration of the leases. There was an unlawful attempt to terminate the lease rights between Laguardia and the landowners under the colour of authority of the mayor. There were dispositions issued, illegally, retroactively refusing and simultaneously deleting Laguardia's leases from the lease registries. Laguardia had been blocked from accessing the lands despite no
[Page 90]
11:25
injunctions being in place, despite not having been notified about any attempts to terminate their leases, despite not having any notice of these dispositions which affect their rights, and the dispositions do affect rights. That is addressed in the slide, as well as Claimants' pleadings, although I may have to leave that point behind in the interests of time today.
The investment by this point has been compromised and that extends to the remaining village of Rosietici, and I will address that at the end of my presentation. Yet the pattern of state conduct continued. It did not end there.
There was a meeting in late March 2011 --
THE PRESIDENT: I think we are quite behind on time.
MR GLEASON: I am quite comfortable with where I am on timing. If I may just highlight a few more points on the pattern of state conduct, Claimants really feel this is an important point which affects many of the other arguments at issue in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to make sure you can get through this.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I want to take you in
[Page 91]
11:26
your Reply to paragraph 405, where you say, "the Claimants allege (you allege) that the Mayor went to the fields alongside local villagers and Bio-Alianta to prevent ICS Laguardia SRL from accessing its leased lands". But there you say it is not the mayor alone; it is also the landowners who block access to the land. Is that what you say?
MR GLEASON: The reference that you are referring to actually happens later, and that is after the ex parte injunctions had been cancelled and before separate injunctions had been put in place. It is not clear exactly who was present on those occasions, but what is clear is that the mayor was present and representatives of the third party company were present and that threats were made by the mayor towards Laguardia SRL's employees.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: In my understanding it is different when somebody saysa mayor accompanies landowners who want to block access to their land from saying the mayor goes and blocks access to the land. Would you see there is a difference in saying that?
MR GLEASON: There is a difference between saying the mayor goes with landowners and that the mayor goes alone? Was that your question?
[Page 92]
11:28
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: The initial question is if the landowners go to block access to their land which they have leased out and/or accompanied by the mayor, is a different statement from saying the mayor blocks access to the land. You would not see a difference?
MR GLEASON: I would see a difference here clearly. There are different people involved?
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I had the impression when I read this that you wanted to say that the mayor was present when the villagers went to block access to this land. This is what I read.
MR GLEASON: If I could clarify that point, the mayor was perhaps alongside some landowners, but also alongside Bio-Alianta and not just there as support, but actively preventing Laguardia from exercising valid private rights. That is the statement.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you.
MR GLEASON: I would like to highlight the meeting between Mr Grot and Mr Ruslan Zelenenco in late March where the officials who had invited him to the district, helped him set up the investment, told them that the decision has been made to support Bio-Alianta, there is nothing they
[Page 93]
11:29
can do. The statement from Mayor Nina Ivanes that the orders had come from above, which we have already discussed, that statement was also made to Mr Alexei Bugai in a different context. We know that there was a failure to return leases and copies of the registries, undermining transparency concerning Laguardia's ability to evaluate their rights and adjudicate their rights, and also violation of the regulations on keeping agricultural lease agreements. We know that the local mayors generally supported Bio-Alianta, we see that inthe statement that we have already addressed of Ms Nina Ivanes, we see that in Mayor lanco Jucares(?) we have been discussing, blocking Laguardia and standing alongside Bio-Alianta, threatening Laguardia employees, despite injunctions having been removed.
The pattern continues. Mr Fortier asked earlier was the pattern limited to local officials and the answer to that question is no. The pattern continues up to a national level. There is a summer 2011 meeting where the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food Industry says I am going to need a bribe in order to give you any assistance on this particular matter. There is a general failure
[Page 94]
11:30
of the central Government to respond in any meaningful fashion on the various attempts of Laguardia to request assistance and involvement.
The pattern continued throughout 2012. I am not going to go through all of these points in the interests of time. As you can see, there are quite a few points that constitute the pattern of state conduct. It is extensive and it continues into 2013 and it perhaps gets worse in 2013.
These are the dying days of Laguardia's mitigation efforts after the events of 2011. Mr Grot has already left, fled, for security reasons from Moldova, but nonetheless the coordination between the local government and Bio-Alianta continues, the local prosecutor Lilia Mitu, who co-ordinates with Bio-Alianta to attack the remaining Laguardia leases in Rosietici, and it was under pressure from Lilia Mitu, and a State Chancellery representative that the mayor's office illegally terminated Laguardia's registrations and attempted to legally register Bio-Alianta's leases one more time in a different village now.
Evidence on this point is particularly strong because these are C-58 and C-59b are
[Page 95]
11:32
statements of the local mayor and the local cadastral which are given in 2013, so contemporaneous statements in the context of a criminal investigation in that district at that time, and they are striking statements and I invite the Tribunal, who I am sure has read these statements, to read them once more.
There were additional events in 2013 -- I am not going into those events -- and the pattern continued in 2014 with the unexplained closure of Artur Sircu's investigation into the intervention and activity in Rosietici without any reasoning or notification. If I may also point to exhibit C-88 which is another striking exhibit showing the level of government support for this local third party competitor. It is an interesting and perhaps disturbing read and I invite the Tribunal to read that exhibit once more.
I would like to move on to my next point, unless the Tribunal has other questions concerning the pattern of state conduct which exists in this case?
THE PRESIDENT: We will just take a ten-minute break to allow the court reporters a break. We are now at 11.30. We will start at 11.40
[Page 96]
11:33
even if people are not in the room.
(Short break from 11.33 to 11.42 am)
THE PRESIDENT: Please continue.
MR GLEASON: Thank you for that well-appreciated short break.
I would like to just before we continue come back to the point concerning signatures on the leases or, more accurately, the lack of signature on certain leases. If I have misspoken on Moldovan law, I do apologise. We would like to reserve the chance for our legal expert, Mr Roger Gladei, to address that issue in more detail tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: We have had a chance to talk about the issues that came up about new documents. The Tribunal's decision is that subject without having seen them to the point that the two additional supplementals are indeed responsive to the report of Mr Peer, they are admitted and you may address them, subject to the opportunity for Respondent to have an opportunity to respond to them. Thank you.
MR GLEASON: On that signature issue I would like to make one final point. This discussion about unsigned leases really only affects a very small minority of the leases. Claimants
[Page 97]
11:44
could take a hardline position that 99 per cent of these documents do contain writing in the signature block. Our calculation on the demonstrative exhibit, CH-4, takes an approach which is perhaps a bit more agreeable perhaps than the preferred approach of the Respondent, and is a little more conservative in discussing what a signature is. Our legal expert may address that in a little more detail tomorrow. But this question about signature of leases is really only affecting a small minority of the over 1500 leases at issue in this case. I would like to make that point clear.
I would like to move on to my next point. Just before the break we discussed the acts and omissions attributable to the Respondent in this case and discussed how it did constitute a pattern of state conduct. The attributable acts and omissions breach international obligations found under the US-Moldova BIT in this case. This is because the attributable acts and omissions implicate the overall process of decision-making of the Respondent towards Claimants' investments in this case. The Respondent is clearly responsible for the acts and omissions of local and national authorities acting pursuant to their authority, but
[Page 98]
11:46
also very importantly in this case acting under the colour of authority, which includes all of the above allegations. As the Tribunal is well aware, the obligations in this case are determined by the BIT and Claimants do stand behind the BIT breaches alleged in the written pleadings and will not restate those here today.
I would like to discuss the Respondent's approach to focusing only on the dispositions in this case. Despite their attempts to focus only on the dispositions, we are very concerned about the overall process of Respondents' decision-making, and it does rise to the level of violating international obligations or international delict in this case.
This is not, despite Respondent's best attempts to describe it as so, this is not a case concerning a single aberrant decision of a low level local official, but rather there is a pattern of state conduct in this case. Respondents, as the record shows, public officials repeatedly worked with, and on behalf of Bio-Alianta, the local third party competitor, to illegally interfere with the Claimants' investment to destroy their private contract rights in violation of the BIT. This is not a case of simple errors or mistakes or trivial
[Page 99]
11:47
administrative faults made by local mayors in interpreting the local Moldovan law, Respondent's characterisation of the facts as such should very much be rejected.
I would like to spend a few moments discussing the role of the mayors in this case, because that has become an issuethat is disputed between the parties. Respondent attempts to downplay the role of mayors throughout the Rejoinder. They actually claim that Claimants attempt to inflate the role of the mayors by citing a vague proposition in a brochure financed by two regional organisations not representing the official opinion of either, and that the Claimants cites no Moldovan law on this issue.
Well, to the contrary, Moldovan law requires the mayors to carry out the constitution and Moldovan legislation and its preventions protecting foreign investment as stated very clearly in the first expert report of Claimants, Roger Gladei's First Report. Also, very importantly, Moldovan law requires mayors to carry out international law. Respondent's arguments that Claimants do not cite to Moldovan law for this proposition and this proposition is not supported by
[Page 100]
11:48
Moldovan law is a bald-faced misstatement of Claimants' submissions.
I turn the Tribunal's attention to section 6 of Mr Gladei's Second Report, CEX-4, at paragraph 28, which says that the mayor is the head of local public administration. In 28.2.1, "the Mayor has the obligation to comply with international treaties to which the Republic of Moldova is a party". This was cited by the Claimants on multiple occasions in theReply. Those citations are on the slide.
Additionally, the Respondent goes to great lengths to discredit the 131-page reports of the EU and the Council of Europe to highly respected international organisations, by describing it as "a brochure financed by two regional organisations". This is a report, whether the official opinion of these organisations or not, which is very much in accordance with the Moldovan legal principles and cites the same legal principles that Claimants' legal experts also cites concerning the role of mayors in the Republic of Moldova.
Claimants do not try to inflate the role of the mayors, they cite the actual law concerning the role of the mayors, and we would like to point
[Page 101]
11:49
out one last point that the citation, Professor Rusu's report, does not directly address this issue in any way, so Tribunal should disregard Respondent's attempts to distance itself from the acts of local mayors in this case
MR FORTIER: What is, in your own words, very briefly, the position of the mayors in this case? What is it?
MR GLEASON: They were important players concerning the acts and omissions which breach international treaty obligations in this case. They have significant authority in Moldova and they have the obligation to uphold international treaties, they breached that obligation in the context of the US-Moldova BIT in this case. I would also like to highlight that the Claimants' allegations do not focus solely on the mayors.
MR FORTIER: I know, but I am focusing on the mayors.
MR GLEASON: Even if we do focus solely on the mayors, acts of the mayors by themselves could rise to the level of breaching BIT obligations, as stated by Moldovan law.
Which leads me to my next argument-- can I get a time update?
[Page 102]
11:51
THE SECRETARY: 48.
MR GLEASON: -- which is concerning Respondent's arguments addressing Claimants' efforts to seek correction, a large part of Respondent's pleadings, a large part or element of its defence is based on the idea that Claimants should not prevail on its BIT claims since they failed to seek corrections of the dispositions, and this argument focuses only on the dispositions and relies on the allegation that the dispositions were single aberrant acts of low level officials or trivial administrative faults and there are a plethora of citations to the record concerning Respondent's argument on that point.
Respondent essentially advocates that the only path for Claimants to address was through the administrative courts no matter what. This argument is based on erroneous assumptions.
The first erroneous assumption is that the only acts and omissions of the Respondent implicated by Claimants' BIT claims are the dispositions. That is not the case.
The second is that, as such, the dispositions were single, aberrant acts of low level officials, or trivial administrative faults that do
[Page 103]
11:52
not, by themselves, rise to the level of a breach of international obligations.
Third, therefore the only way for Claimants to have BIT claims based on the dispositions is that they actually challenge the dispositions through local procedures and the challenge did not actually resolve but compounded or made the problem worse. The reasoning that Respondent bases its argument on is that these local acts by themselves do not represent the overall process of the state's decision-making towards the Claimants' investment. This argument must fail for both factual and legal reasons.
As we have already discussed, the case is not about the single aberrant act of a low level official. First and foremost, as Mr Fortier just asked, what is the role of mayors? Mayors are not equivalent to low level clerks, but rather had significant authority in the Republic of Moldova, and additionally it is not only about the mayors; there are other local, regional and even national officials implicated in this case.
The Respondent also ignores the other attributable acts and omissions committed by the local, regional and national authorities pursuant to
[Page 104]
11:53
or under the colour of authority. It is clear from the record that the rule of law, at least in the context of Claimants' investment in Floresti, faced serious difficulties in 2011 and the years thereafter and, as demonstrated through the Claimants' pleadings, a pattern of state conduct does exist. Thus, the overall process of Respondent's decision-making towards the Claimants' investment rises to the level of violating international obligations or international delict
The Claimants are not in any way seizing on low level act of maladministration as an excuse to abandon the investment and bring BIT claims similar to some of the cases that Respondent cites in support of its argument, and those cases are distinguishable from the case in front of the Tribunal today. The investment in this case was very clearly not abandoned after the dispositions. There was in fact years of litigation following the dispositions alongside mitigation efforts under very difficult circumstances.
Even taken at face value, the Respondent's argument concerning seeking correction should fail. The Claimants have demonstrated that this case is not about single aberrant acts of low level
[Page 105]
11:54
officials or trivial administrative faults, but a pattern of state conduct. The factual premise upon which Respondent's arguments is based does not exist in this case. Additionally the Claimants did pursue local remedies as addressed in section 7K of the Reply, which I will not rehash for the Tribunal here today. That is outlined in some detail in the written pleadings, so we won't address that again.
I would like to, before moving on to my next point, just test the Respondent's argument on this issue. I would ask what would Laguardia's attempt at Administrative Court actually have looked like in this case? How was the Administrative Court equipped to handle a holistic attack on investment beyond just the dispositions? Would we have had multiple lawsuits for each act or omission attributable to the Respondent in this case? It is not clear. Would the mayoral lease terminations and statements from the mayors, would those not have been used to defend against Laguardia's claims attacking the dispositions? If we look closely at the record we see that is exactly what happened in some of the cases which did occur in this case, at the Balti Court of Appeals concerning the Varvareuca disposition, and at Chisinau Economic Court
[Page 106]
11:55
concerning the Cosernita disposition. Both of these courts found that the SRL Laguardia leases were not registered, citing the disposition, but also referencing the unilateral mayoral terminations of the contracts and also statements of the mayors in those cases.
Another important question for the Tribunal to address in engaging in this hypothetical: would local officials have even honoured Administrative Court decisions? In this case there is evidence demonstrating an unwillingness of local mayors to follow court decisions in the context of ignoring the cancellation of ex parte injunctions. Remember, Bio-Alianta obtained ex parte injunctions blocking Laguardia from its leased fields. Those injunctions were cancelled, but that did not matter to the Cosernita mayor, for example, as we see various citations to the record on that point.
My last point here is don't administrative judges actually have discretion and, as such, shouldn't we ask yourselves how that discretion would have been used? Respondent says a party may request suspension of a challenged administrative act which cannot arbitrarily be denied, and that is
[Page 107]
11:57
in response to Claimants' reply argument concerning Administrative Court judges' discretion.
This is an attempt of the Respondent to twist Claimants' words. Actually the Reply of Claimants clearly said that "judges have discretion to stay or suspend administrative acts", and Professor Rusu actually agrees with this. Thereis no real dispute on this point. He says that suspension by Administrative Court of the effects of the challenge administrative act is not automatic, it should be requested by the Claimant, and paragraph 70, judge's decision on granting suspension is discretionary, not arbitrary. The judge may not arbitrarily deny a request for suspension, but the grounds in paragraph 33.3 of Mr Gladei's Second Expert Report are met. Clearly we have agreement between the experts concerning Administrative Court authority discretion on challenges and suspending administrative acts.
But if we dig a little bit further we start to see that the Respondent's arguments concerning administrative suspension ofdispositions is incoherent with the totality of their arguments. On the one hand, in the Counter-Memorial theystate that all the Claimants had to do in this case was
[Page 108]
11:58
challenge the dispositions in Administrative Court. The dispositions could be challenged on the merits with suspensive effects. In other words, if the Claimants had merely gone to local Administrative Court, we would not be here today. The problem would have been solved. That is the thrust of the argument.
On the other hand, the Respondent's expert agrees that the Administrative Court judges have discretion concerning stay or suspension of an administrative act, and that for discretion to be exercised in favour of suspension, that the decision would need to be based in part on strong doubts on the presumption of legality of the contested administrative act. That is the standard stated in Mr Gladei's report and agreed upon by Mr Rusu.
At the same time, the Respondent argues that the dispositions were a reasonable interpretation of Moldovan law (paragraph 41 and paragraph 50 of Professor Rusu's First Report).
So which is it? All the Claimants had to do was challenge the dispositions in Administrative Court, and there are strong doubts on the presumption of legality of the contested administrative acts; in other words, the
[Page 109]
11:59
dispositions. Or, on the other hand, if the dispositions are a reasonable interpretation of Moldovan law, then any attempt to suspend the administrative acts would have likely failed. The arguments are not coherent and this demonstrates a lack of strength of these arguments in this case.
Fortunately this Tribunal is not required to engage in the speculation. It is an interesting exercise to test the strength of their arguments, but it is not required because there is neither a requirement to pursue a local remedy, nor a requirement to seek correction under the BIT. And to find so would be to do by the back door that which the BIT and ICSID convention expressly excluded by the front door, and that is not my language but the language of the Helnan ad hoc Annulment Committee from 2010 which is cited by the Respondents.
We see that nationals and companies of neither party have access to binding international arbitration without first resorting to domestic courts. The BIT cannot be clearer on this point. Local remedies are not needed and to impose such a requirement as a constitutive element -- Claimants are not confused about the jurisdictional versus
[Page 110]
12:00
substantive nature of Respondent's arguments-- but to impose a requirement to seek local remedy as a constitutive or substantive element of Claimants' claims without first resorting to domestic courts would render the language of the BIT and the Letter of Submittal meaningless in this particular case.
If I can cite just another quote from Helnan, which I think is very instructive in this particular instance, it says that "it would empty the development of investment arbitration of much of its force and effect if, despite a clear intention of state parties not to require the pursuit of local remedies as a precondition to arbitration, such requirement to be read back in as part of the substantive cause of action".
One more case cited by Respondent, it is the ECE case, which says, "Where recourse to the local courts has been held to be relevant to the question of breach, that does not make it into a mandatory precondition for the admissibility of the claim before an investment Tribunal, nor into a constitutive requirement for the claim".
So what Respondent really tries to do here is they try to create a general rule from a patchwork of disparate cases based on factually
[Page 111]
12:01
unique circumstances which are distinguishable from the case in front of the Tribunal today, and Claimants' request that this attempt be rejected.
To summarise my arguments on the requirement or lack of a requirement to seek correction, the idea that the dispositions were based on a reasonable interpretation of law is misguided. It ignores relevant factual context and it should be rejected. The argument that the illegal acts in this case are limited to simple aberrant acts of low level officials or trivial administrative faults, ignores the pattern of state conduct in this case. It also ignores the role of the mayors under Moldovan law and it should be rejected.
The notion that the illegal acts would have been corrected by the administrative courts in this case had different procedures been followed by the Claimants is highly speculative and should be rejected. The Respondent ultimately ignores the myriad attempts that Claimants did engage in to seek correction and remedies in this case. Thus, Respondents' arguments on this point should fail.
If I may, may I please have a time update?
THE SECRETARY: One hour.
[Page 112]
12:03
MR GLEASON: There is a brief argument made by the Respondent concerning the idea that Claimants could still enforce their lease rights against Bio-Alianta and thus the dispositions did not affect Claimants' rights in this case, so there is no causation. It is this argument concerning bad faith third parties. I would like to very briefly address that argument and point out another inconsistency in Respondent's pleadings.
The situation concerning Claimants' ability to enforce the lease rights against Bio-Alianta, and the argument here is that even if the dispositions -- if I can take a step back.
The Respondent's arguments on bad faith third parties is that even if the dispositions did take away enforceability of the lease rights against third parties, it did not matter in this case because Claimants could still have enforced those private lease rights against Bio-Alianta because Bio-Alianta was a bad faith third party.
We need to analyse the situation through the lens of what the Claimants knew in 2011, not what everybody knows today in 2017. What Claimants repeatedly say is that Bio-Alianta was working in concert with local authorities. The attempt to
[Page 113]
12:04
raise this argument that Claimants' rights were not affected and there was no causation in the case because Claimants could have enforced their rights still against Bio-Alianta is another speculative argument for which there is no reasonable situation for the Claimants. They say that Laguardia failed to plead that Bio-Alianta acted in bad faith. They could have made that argument and enforced the lease rights. We see that in various points of the Rejoinder, at the executive summary, paragraph 306.
If we again put ourselves in the position of Laguardia in 2011, we have to think that Bio-Alianta would have likely argued that they were unaware of any existing rights. They would have argued that at the time their leases were registered, the Laguardia leases were terminated by the mayor and not registered as a result of the dispositions, so there is no way they could be considered a bad faith third party, and again they would have cited various pieces of the evidentiary record on file in this case. For example, the mayoral lease terminations, the retroactive refusal and simultaneous deletion of Laguardia's leases via the dispositions, and also the lease registries
[Page 114]
12:05
themselves.
We also know that Bio-Alianta's argument that they were not acting in bad faith probably would have been supported by the local authorities. I cite once again to the now famous statement of Mayor Nina Ivanes, (exhibit C-84), where she says that she was instructed from above to create the favourable conditions for Bio-Alianta. They had to do was sue the lessors and sue the third parties. They also ignore the parties' agree that Claimants did attempt to enforce their lease against Bio-Alianta and the lessors, and the case was dismissed in 2012. The judge required the Claimants to attempt to engage in an amicable dispute resolution procedure with Bio-Alianta before proceeding to evaluate the claims.
Now this ignored the futility argument raised by Laguardia in this case. This ignored the other ongoing cases between these parties. This ignored the parallel State Chancellery proceedings, and it also ignores a very important fact that I would like to highlight. Claimants would like to remind this Tribunal that when Mr Grot previously
[Page 115]
12:07
attempted to talk to Bio-Alianta about the conflict they threatened his life and the security of his family in Colorado.
Respondents tried to hold this against the Claimants, saying that the case was dismissed without prejudice. He could have fulfilled the requirements, in other words, engaged in amicable dispute resolution with Bio-Alianta, a party that had threatened his life previously, and then refiled their claim. They did not.
This line of reasoning ignores very important facts. By this time it was December 2012, two farming seasons had been lost, the investment had been destroyed, Mr Grot had been forced to leave Moldova at this point and wind up his mitigation efforts while he was facing serious personal security threats.
Respondent says that they are not trying to impose exhaustion of remedies on the Claimants but they keep arguing that facts surround registration the investment. Mr Grot should have returned again and again to court to continue to enforce his rights even when being threatened with death, and this misguided logic should be rejected by the Tribunal.
[Page 116]
12:08
I have one last point I would like to make before handing the baton on to my colleague, Coren Hinkle, who will discuss issues relating to Moldovan law, who is more versed in these issues than I am, and that is the situation in Rosietici. There are a couple of points I would like to make on this.
First and foremost, the damage and the loss of the investment in Rosietici can be traced back to Disposition 2 in Varvareuca. How? Well, because after the oral disposition never took because of the investment had been destroyed by that point. All attempts after this point were survival or mitigation efforts, and instead of focusing on harvesting in Rosietici, Claimants had to drastically change plans, change the remaining operations as they were trying to pick up the pieces of the investment in the other villages. That is demonstrated by the record. By August 2011, just a few months after Claimants had entered into new arrangements with the third party, been growing different crops under servicing agreements, it was a totally different plan. And to be very, had the intervention in the two villages never taken place, there would have been absolutely no reason to enter into these
[Page 117]
12:09
negotiations with a new third party. The change of plans, negotiations, would not have taken application, but they were forced into this mitigation situation as a consequence of the government's intervention in the other villages.
The last point I will make is that the Rosietici leases were not properly terminated. The Respondent tried to say that the Claimants should not be able to claim a fourth year of damages for Rosietici because the leases were properly terminated in that village. That is not clear from the record. It ignores C-88, which again is a very interesting exhibit -- it is the information note of prosecutor Artur Sircu -- where he calls into question the validity of the lease termination notifications filed in bulk, much like the lease termination notifications we have addressed in Varvareuca. Filed in bulk, all at one time, 340 persons allegedly signed and submitted these lease notification terminations on one day.
On investigating this, the prosecutor found that 38 of these notifications had been signed by dead people and 44 had been signed by people who were abroad at that time, and thus the prosecutor concluded that the documents were suspected to be
[Page 118]
12:10
counterfeit. These lease terminations notifications were suspected to be counterfeited. Which brings us back to that interesting question: how could all of these documents been filed in one day by such a large group of people? I think we have some insight by looking at this exhibit here.
The attempt to exclude the fourth year of losses ignores Claimants' ex ante approach to damages, which will be addressed in more detail by Andrew Astuno.
With that I will pass the baton to Mr Hinkle, who will discuss the legal issues concerning Moldovan law in this particular case. If we may have a moment to change the chord.
THE PRESIDENT: 21 minutes left for the next two sections, so you will be tight.
MR FORTIER: Which one of the many papers should we look at now? The Moldovan legal matters?
MR HINKLE: Yes. Just one quick point of clarification. You said that there were 21 minutes left for the next two sections. That does not include the 20-minute additional time for --
THE PRESIDENT: Correct. 20 minutes for Mr Peer.
MR HINKLE: Thank you.
[Page 119]
12:13
Again, just by way of introduction, my name is Coren Hinkle, I will be discussing some of the relevant legal matters. While we certainly do defer to the expertise of the Moldovan legal experts, including Professor Rusu, but most assuredly Mr Rod Gladei, I will do my best to attempt to summarise some of the more pertinent Moldovan legal issues today.
Fortunately, Mr Gleason covered many of them, so I am going to attempt to address directly just a handful of the issues that are relevant that are in dispute here. I do have an outline. The Tribunal may review the outline -- I am sure they will -- but it is outlining some of the issues that I intend to discuss. There are a number of disputed issues specifically. I intend to hone in on issue no 1, which is the reasonableness of the Respondent's assertion that the city hall's action was reasonable, and that this must be taken in light of all of the state conduct that has been exhibited towards Laguardia, and also take in the context that in order to justify those dispositions, the city hall had to do two things: they had to redefine the term "refuse", and then ignore the term "only if".
It is also of note that the lack of
[Page 120]
12:15
reasonableness is evident by the undue pressure from the higher officials, as well as evidence of collusion with Bio-Alianta, and that really indicates the motive that was supplied by the mayors for a lack of reasonableness. So in order for it to be a reasonable action, the motive must be innocent, it must be a mistake, and in this case it clearly was not.
The next disputed issue that I am going to try to focus on is whether or not the dispositions did satisfy the Moldovan requirements for a valid disposition. On its face this may not necessarily be all that relevant to the outcome of these proceedings, the problem is that the invalidity of these dispositions again go to the motive of the mayors in trying to stop Laguardia's business operations in overlooking any known problems or obligations to issue a valid disposition, and that again goes to the mayor's motive.
There are some uncontested issues as well, but Mr Gleason has covered most of them so let me focus on one. This was addressed a little earlier by the Tribunal, and this is slide 5, page 3. This is the Moldovan law on one termination of a lease agreement is acceptable. There are only two
[Page 121]
12:16
circumstances where this is acceptable, and the first is where there is the mutual agreement of the parties. Clearly that was not the case here. The second time is if there is a court judgment. That as well was not at play here.
These issues are essential in understanding how Moldova not only violated its own laws, its own obligations to its domestic code, but also international obligations as well. Mr Gleason addressed that the disposition was one of a series of acts of state conduct that was taken by Respondent's officials at many different levels. You will hear testimony in the next couple of days that it was not only at the lower level, the village level, but it was also at the regional level and in addition it may have even been at the highest level of government within Moldova itself.
Claimants' leases were private party agreements and they became effective upon a conclusion of those agreements. Their validity has never been disputed according to Moldovan law.
Now, Respondent assumes, or asserts, that the genesis of the challenge to the disposition was made by Moldova itself, but this is certainly not the case, because in both Floresti court decisions,
[Page 122]
12:18
in 2013 --
THE PRESIDENT: We are missing in our bundle these slides. We don't need them now, but at the lunch break if we could have them, that would be great. Slide 7 and no doubt slide 8, because we jump from 6-9. (Pause) We have it.
MR HINKLE: Despite Respondent's assertion that Respondent itself, Moldova, initiated the challenge to the legality of the disposition, both Floresti court decisions, and you can review the citations themselves on the slide -- Respondent's exhibit 6, pages 5 and 6 and then also Claimants' exhibit 43 on page 7 -- both indicate that Laguardia itself and its request sent to the chancellery was the genesis of review of those dispositions and this is well within its right and evidence that Laguardia was in fact attempting to challenge the validity of these dispositions.
There were three times when the dispositions were reviewed and the conclusion was the same each time, that the dispositions were unfounded and that they lacked any legal basis. While Respondent maintains that Disposition 1-A was a result of a reasonable interpretation of the law, this cannot be true for four different reasons that
[Page 123]
12:20
collectively indicate what the mayor's motive truly was.
First, in issuing the dispositions, the mayor had to redefine a commonly used term "refuse", and then they had to ignore the term "only if" in section 20 of the regulations on keeping registers, and that limited the mayor's power exclusively. Respondent also provides no evidence of how the mayors arrived at their alleged interpretation. This is pure attorney speculation. Further, the chancellery, the Floresti court twice determined that the dispositions were ungrounded and again lacked any legal basis.
What does that mean? That means that in their view the dispositions could not be reasonable.
We also have to look at the totality of the mayor's action in this situation to determine whether or not the action was reasonable. So what do we have? We have an ungrounded disposition determined by the courts. We have improper or potentially illegal terminations. We have a failure to send the disposition from mandatory review to the chancellery. We have a failure to include the means of how to appeal the disposition itself, a crucial due process right, and then we have all of the other
[Page 124]
12:21
evidence of collusion and co-operation and instructions from higher above that Mr Gleason addressed in his part of the report. All of this indicates what the mayor's true motive actually was.
We can skip over slide 10-- the Tribunal is certainly welcome to address it -- but essentially many of the same arguments that Respondent has raised in this proceeding regarding the compulsory elements to a lease that were allegedly not included in the lease itself when they were registered, those arguments were all raised to both Floresti District Courts in 2013 and 2014, and the Floresti Courts both times refused to adopt those as a basis for refusal of registration.
While each argument was presented to the court, and again the court refused to adopt those arguments that Respondent asserted here today and that Moldova asserted at that time, which was that the compulsory elements were not in the lease, these allegations that the compulsory elements were not in the lease, the court still found that the dispositions were adopted without any legal basis. Principles of administrative certainty that are enshrined both in international law as well as in Moldovan law, which you will hear from Mr Gladei
[Page 125]
12:23
later, prohibit the mayor from unilaterally unwinding private lease agreements.
In his report, Mr Gladei confirms that Disposition 2 would have been subject to the same findings and conditions under Disposition 1-A. Thus, to ensure the principles of certainty and consistency in Moldovan law, the Floresti District Court decisions relating to Disposition 1-A would apply to Disposition 2 as well. In the same vein, because an international tribunals such as this, may not act as Courts of Appeal for the application of domestic Moldovan law, but the Floresti District Court decisions are conclusive on the legality of groundlessness of the dispositions as well as groundlessness of the alleged justifications for those dispositions.
Under Moldovan law a valid agreement is concluded upon the agreement of the essential terms under Article 6(3) of the Law on Lease Agricultures and that provides those terms for that agreement. Mr Gladei has reviewed the leases, and he has determined that in his mind they were all in fact valid. While there are a few deviations, those deviations were necessary due to the conditions on the ground in Moldova. The fact that there are no
[Page 126]
12:24
street names, there are no physical addresses, but there are plots of land and there are specific owners in the registry that are registered that own those plots of land, so reference to these elements of the leases themselves do satisfy the validity requirement and I would invite the Tribunal to review Mr Gladei's First Report which addresses the validity very thoroughly.
The experts agree that the issues of validity, including the dispute over the essential terms, are to be resolved by the parties in court, and that is the parties to the lease agreement, not the parties here today.
MR FORTIER: I think we are missing page 8 also.
THE SECRETARY: I think it is after 4.
MR FORTIER: Because of the numbering, which is somewhat inexact, at the appropriate moment, not while you are using your precious time, if the Claimant could give us another set of these slides.
MR HINKLE: Certainly. This morning we did request copies of these to be provided to Schönherr's administrative staff and they have provided these copies. We do apologise for any
[Page 127]
12:26
issue here.
MR FORTIER: Don't waste your time! Go on.
MR HINKLE: There is a specific procedure for registering a lease. Once the agreements are concluded, they are reviewed, stamped and provided a specific registration number. Once that happens, the mayor has one opportunity to refuse that lease. If the mayor chooses not to refuse that lease, his power ends there and the District Court decisions in 2013, as well as the decision in 2014, are conclusive on this fact.
The Moldovan courts confirmed that the registration procedure did occur, and that the leases were in fact registered, and they also confirmed that the power to refuse registration stops upon that registration itself. Respondent's legal experts suggested that the mayor adopted a contorted definition of the term "refuse" to attempt to justify those dispositions. That justification has no support in the legal record, does not exist in Moldovan law, and requires the Tribunal to suspend its own understanding of linguistic terms.
Claimants submit, and the Moldovan courts agree, that the plain language of section 20 of the
[Page 128]
12:28
regulation is unambiguous. Specifically the term "refuse" that Respondent relies upon can only have one meaning. A refusal of anything must happen before the completion of that act. By way of example: a marriage contract. One signs a marriage contract. Once it is signed they cannot refuse to re-sign it. Temporally that is impossible.
Moreover, Respondent cites no authority that the term "ex post refusal" exists anywhere in Moldovan law. Additionally, the term "only if" clearly expresses a mandatory exclusion for all other bases except those provided in section 20.
Redefining express terms in the law is not a justification for expanding mayoral power. Rather, it is evidence of the unreasonable extent that the mayors went to to contort themselves and their justification in order to commit their overreach in this matter.
In Respondent's expert's treatise, he expresses the view that public officials can only do what the law provides. An ex post refusal is not provided, yet in his report he suggest that the mayors had the power to retroactively refuse registration, despite clear language to the contrary.
[Page 129]
12:29
writing he acknowledges that any doubt in applying an administrative sanction should favour the individual instead of the State, so any doubt on these dispositions should be found to be exercised in favour of Laguardia rather than the State.
As Mr Gleason noticed, the dispositions not only revoke registration, but deleted the entire record from the registry. Respondents assert that the City Hall had the power to do that in order to effectuate changes in individual lines of data, and that is the important part. The power to correct under Moldovan law only applies to individual lines of data; it does not apply to the entirety of the object of the registration under this provision. Moreover, the law specifically requires that corrections must be initiated by the data supplier, and in this case that would be Laguardia
THE PRESIDENT: Just to say you have about seven minutes left for the totality between the two of you, so a lot of this material is in the pleadings and we are aware of all of these points you are making, so don't feel you need to take us through all of the material because we have read all of this material.
[Page 130]
12:30
MR HINKLE: Let me make one final point. There is a stark difference in how the city halls treated Laguardia versus Bio-Alianta, and this is evidenced in the record. With regard to Laguardia, the mayors exceeded their authority and took extraordinary measures to refuse Laguardia's leases after registration when no law permits them the power to do that.
Let me contrast that with how they treated Bio-Alianta. The mayors in that case did have a genuine basis to refuse all of Bio-Alianta's leases, because one basis of refusal under section 20 is if the land is already leased, or if the possessor does not have the right to lease that land. As Respondent has already conceded, refusal of Claimants' registration does not invalidate Laguardia's leases and they have not been challenged in any court since. So because the dispositions were not communicated to Laguardia after Bio-Alianta's leases were registered, the mayor had a basis to refuse Bio-Alianta's leases, but chose not to excise that power. So on the one hand we have the mayors with a valid reason to refuse registration choosing not to excise it, and then with Laguardia not having any basis for refusal,
[Page 131]
12:32
refusing it.
Moldovan court decisions provide clear evidence that the dispositions facilitated the taking of Claimants' investments. They were ungrounded and the Tribunal need only look to the effects of those dispositions. However, the mayor's illegal conduct went well beyond just the dispositions and was a pattern of state conduct. As I have said earlier, they redefined the terms, they registered the leases before the disposition took effect, they failed to send them for review, they discriminated against Laguardia in favour of Bio-Alianta, they improperly terminated the leases, the high-ranking officials pressured the mayors, and then the mayors physically joined Bio-Alianta and some of the landowners in the fields to physically block Claimant from accessing those lands.
In addition to the domestic obligations that the mayors were obligated to provide, which are that a disposition must contain the means of appeal, not just that there is some vague right to appeal in the law, but the means of exactly how to appeal, and that was omitted entirely from the dispositions themselves, and that is addressed fairly thoroughly in the pleadings.
[Page 132]
12:33
In sum, the leases were validly concluded, properly registered under Moldovan law, and the Respondent's consistent holistic attacks on Laguardia show a pattern of state conduct that also shows the mayors' true and actual motive, and that was not that it was reasonable. They had to redefine the term "refuse", they had to ignore the term "only if", and they had to issue dispositions that were well outside of their power, so it could not be innocently reasonable.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr Hinkle, thank you for your efficient submissions. We have your slides and we can take note of those as well and we have all the material in the pleadings. Ms Nitschke, how much time do we have to deal with damages in general before 20 minutes max on Mr Peer?
THE SECRETARY: Four minutes and 12 seconds.
THE PRESIDENT: Four minutes and 12 seconds on damages in generaland then 20 minutes on Mr Peer.
MR ASTUNO: I have done a comparative analysis in nature and I want the Tribunal to understand that if I went through the entirety of my
[Page 133]
12:34
presentation I can assure you that at least four minutes of it would be limited to analysis of the Claimants' expert report, but I want you to understand that it is interspersed with a comparative analysis of Respondent's expert report, so I would propose continuing, as I normally would, and exhausting my time, and also assuring you that I believe at least four of those minutes would be exclusively limited to material you would say for the Claimants' expert. If that is amenable, I would like to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's hear you. I am sure Mr Kopecky will jump in if you stray in some way. I have Mr Peer's report in front of me and I appreciate that there is commingling of all these issues. We will adopt a reasonably flexible attitude.
MR KOPECKY: I do jump in and state that the Tribunal should be the judge of the admissibility of further pleadings.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for your flexibility.
MR ASTUNO: May I also clarify that the entirety of my PowerPoint provided was 26 slides.
THE PRESIDENT: Over 13 pages. That is
[Page 134]
12:35
what I have.
MR ASTUNO: Yes, that would make sense. I would like to begin my comments this morning by highlighting the fact -- this all pertains to quantum analysis -- that both parties in this matter have conducted a forward-looking DCF analysis, discounted cash flow analysis.
This is very explainable and justified upon a review of the factual record in the matter. Laguardia, led by a career farming expert, Mr Grot, with nearly a decade of prior agricultural experience in Europe, in success wherever he basically went, as of 2010 was at the forefront of expanding its already profitable enterprises in sophisticated farming practices into the Floresti region of Moldova.
I remind the Tribunal again that its prior business activities in the Stefan Voda region in 2009 and the first part of 2010 were profitable in nature. I would also like to highlight the fact that agriculture in its nature is a de-risked commodities industry, and legal principles are on point that would suggest that in this type of context, in an agricultural or commodities case, a forward-looking damages evaluation methodology is
[Page 135]
12:38
appropriate.
That is precisely what both parties have submitted in this instance.
While Respondent made a brief argument in its Rejoinder that a claim for lost profits based on discounted cash flow is groundless, the facts in this case clearly suggest that Mr Grot had a proven track record of profitability and success, and Laguardia's overall technical sophistication and modern approach to farming practices and prior success indicate that a forward-looking lost profits analysis is entirely appropriate.
As the Tribunal analyses the various quantum issues in this matter, it is important to call in mind once more again that this is truly supported by the factual record, that being that Laguardia was a modern high-yield farming operator. Of course, to first value a company, you must truly understand that company. The specific details of that company inform in honest and an objective valuation analysis.
The details of this company and the factual record make it clear that it truly was modern in terms of its business practices. It was technologically sophisticated. If you look at the
[Page 136]
12:39
evidentiary record, Ion Tugui, for example, in his witness statements notes that soil was processed by Laguardia with both pesticides and fertilizers, which was by no means the average regional practice.
Moreover, Mr Beril, who we will hear from later today, was the President of the Stefan Voda District, he will testify and consistent with his witness statement that Mr Grot far exceeded the average farming yields of what he was used to seeing in Moldova, again evidencing Laguardia's successful modern high-yield approach to farming.
Laguardia's revenues, in particular yields, would have been much higher than average, and that is the fundamental issue in dispute between the two parties as it pertains to quantum. Respondent, through its expert report, has tried to incorrectly assert the exact opposite, that being that Laguardia's revenues, in particular yields, would have been just that, average figures.
I would now like to briefly mention who Claimants' damages experts are. Claimants' local agricultural experts, Dr Andrei Gumovschi and Dr Mihail Rurac, both PhD--
THE PRESIDENT: We know them.
MR ASTUNO: I mention them again to
[Page 137]
12:40
mention that their report indicates the modern high yield approach that Laguardia took to its business practices into farming was by no means an average business practice. The report also highlights the fact that Laguardia, as part of its business model, used fertilizers and soil protectants in an above-average manner. Ultimately, our valuation expert, Mr Lars Wiechen, prepared a report on the basis of the information provided to him in our local expert's report.
Turning to that report again, this combs through the most significant issue in dispute between the parties as it pertains to quantum, that being the calculation of Laguardia's gross margin. To understand that calculation, which this Tribunal has seen many times before, you would multiply crop prices times yields equaling revenue, minus direct costs.
I would now like to evaluate these three variables in some brief detail to reassure the Tribunal that the methodology the Claimants took to the calculation of these data inputs was entirely reliable and I would then contrast it to what the Respondent has done in this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: And I hope you will,
[Page 138]
12:42
I have the report in front of me, and I do not see it in your presentation, respond to what Mr Peer says, because that is really what your 20 minutes is about, and I don't see that anything here addresses that issue.
MR ASTUNO: I will get there within a minute. This slide indicates the direct costs as to what they relate to, was used by both the Respondent and the Claimants in this matter. I just want to highlight that the operating costs that Mr Peer applied were unchanged from those calculations provided by the local experts in this matter.
It was a conservative computation of costs moreover, meaning that in all reality these costs were probably going to be higher, and again I believe that is relevant when we address the assumptions that Respondent's quantum expert has made. Again, we believe that the accurate cost structure would have been higher in this matter, but our experts erred on the side of caution.
The main takeaways regarding direct costs in addition to the fact that its cost structure indicated that it was indeed a high-yield farming producer, which would have a cost structure that would being higher than that of an average-level
[Page 139]
12:43
producer in Moldova, I direct your attention to point No 4, again that Mr Peer has taken that quantification of cost without any adjustments whatsoever.
The computation of prices, while there was some discussion as to an issue over inflation, we believe that that has been correctly addressed in the supplemental report provided today, but if there is any remaining doubt, the issue of inflation should be resolved in favour of Claimants, that being that the local prices should indicate that a local inflation rate should apply.
Now coming to the crux of the matter, yields. Yields is the fundamental issue in dispute. It is the one variable that in Claimants' perspective most significantly contrasts the quantum evaluation approach that we have taken in comparison to Respondents.
Again, I would remind this Tribunal that because of Laguardia's higher cost structure to pay for its quality fertilizers and soil protectants used in above-average amounts, this would naturally imply that it should expect to have higher yields. Indeed, the usage of quality fertilizers, the usage of soil protectants, the usage of modern farming
[Page 140]
12:44
equipment, leads to more generous, more increased yield output, and our experts will confirm this and we think basic literature reports on agricultural science, which we will soon cite as well, confirm this proposition.
Our experts, and this pertains to the supplemental charts that will be prepared and produced tomorrow, indicate and they will testify that the local producer does not even apply fertilizers on several of the crops that are at issue here. Moreover, our local experts have prepared evaluations of the costs and the yields of average producers as it pertains to the effect of the usage of soil protectants, and again it is quite obvious that, because Laguardia's approach in using these inputs, if you will, sets it apart from the average practice, its yields therefore are above average.
The proposition, while I know it is a general one, we believe it needs to be cited. The proposition that the average Moldova producer does not use fertilizers, does not use soil protectants at recommended levels is well documented. We refer to several studies, including a country report offered by the World Bank that precisely indicates
[Page 141]
12:46
as such.
Again, turning to the importance of focusing on company-specific information when conducting evaluation, we think it is very important to highlight the fact that Claimants' quantum experts generated their yield output data from a reputable state-owned agriculture testing centre in Moldova known as the Visoca State Testing Centre, and this was an approach that was entirely different than Mr Peer took, so I believe it is worthwhile to provide some overview as to why this truly was a reliable comparison in terms of data.
This centre is located in general proximity to these farmlands in Floresti. There are similar soil characteristics between this centre and the soil that Laguardia was using for its farm activities. Moreover, similar technological approaches were used in the use of fertilizers namely, and modern equipment However, this centre does not use pesticides or soil protectants which Laguardia does use, and again we believe this is an indication that the yields ultimately were calculated by our expert were too conservative in keeping with the conservative calculation in the benchmarking of the cost structure.
[Page 142]
12:47
On the whole we believe that a thorough review of the local agriculture expert report that was used then by our quantum expert indicates that a reliable and objective study was done. However, as we turn to the Respondent's valuation methodology, we note that there was an unfounded assessment, that the entire essence of our expert's calculations were "based on the author's personal experience". There was no citation next to this comment, there was no justification for this comment, and it is important to point out to this Tribunal that it is indeed not the case, that our experts were not using personal impressions, the calculations that they conducted had nothing to do with their personal or biased opinions; rather, they have taken objective criteria from the Visoca State Centre as it pertains to yields and they have conducted an objective and fair analysis as to what the corresponding costs would be for a company operating in the same way that Laguardia was.
Mr Peer, however, has done something entirely different. While, again, let's remind the Tribunal of the fact that the cost structure that Respondent has imported into its valuation methodology is the exact same as the cost structure
[Page 143]
12:49
for a high yield producer that requires additional and above-average cost outlays to pay for fertilizers, soil protectants, modern equipment and machinery. Despite that, Respondent's methodology for calculating yields was based on average, regional and national data for four of the five crops at issue. You can see that in the original report at least for corn, sunflower, autumn wheat and canola, regional averages are applied as if Laguardia would have been achieving those same yields. We believe that this was an entirely inappropriate assessment given that Laguardia was not an average producer. It did not have the characteristics of an average producer that would be producing such yields.
I would also like to note that in the supplemental report which was handed to me just minutes before opening statements began, it does appear that for corn there was a revision in Mr Peer's insertion of yields, but it is still an average metric. It is not a localised study. The yield that he has updated does not in any way refer to a company of the characteristics and the cost structure and the overall reasonable expectations of a high yield producer. There really is no
[Page 144]
12:50
substantive change in what was handed to me, but we of course are going to evaluate that with our expert and we are very confident that those discrepancies will be fully fleshed out when the experts begin their testimony here.
It should be mentioned that averages are unreliable, and that is because average reported yields are not the real average in Moldova. This information was already provided to Mr Peer in the local expert's report which he relied upon but, more importantly, any independent investigation, any act upon one's curiosity, if this indeed is the case, quickly concludes that, yes, averages are unreliable. We refer to multiple studies, including a 2015 World Bank report that makes it quite clear that the agriculture sector in Moldova is guilty of the trend of underreporting, so to speak. One of the main incentives would be to save money on one's tax liability.
This underreporting of yields is further corroborated by a June 2011 interview with the then Moldovan Prime Minister, Vlad Filat, noting that sugarbeet tax revenue is believed to be much lower than what it truly should be, given this trend of underreporting data. Still, in light of this
[Page 145]
12:51
obvious evidence that Mr Peer had access to, and in light of the obvious fact that averages really are not reliable averages, he still inserts this as though Laguardia would be achieving suchyields.
Using this assumption that Laguardia had the cost structure of a high yield producer with an above-average cost structure, against the assumption that it would only achieve the averages that are publicly reported, means that the company would have been operating with negative earnings immediately as of 2011. I would note that in the supplemental report that was provided to me this morning, I had confirmed that even with the minor adjustment to the corn input, we still have the exact same situation, that being that revenues do not equal costs.
We should certainly take a step back and analyse what this means. This would mean that Mr Grot, for the first time in his long and successful career as a farming investor and innovator, would have been losing money, and, more importantly, it assumes that he would have refused to make any adjustments in his future cost structure, despite the fact that he would have been losing money for the first time in his career. We believe that is quite an astounding assumption to
[Page 146]
12:53
make, especially considering the prior profitable experience that Mr Grot had, namely in Moldova in 2010.
On the whole, we believe that the picking and choosing, so to speak, of high costs but average yields, indicates some very powerful revelations.
1. Respondent's quantum analysis fails to recognise that a producer with average yields has dramatically lower costs than what was assumed to be the case for Laguardia, and that Laguardia would have had dramatically higher yields under its cost structure.
There is also a blatant failure under these assumptions that average data really is not reliable. In other words, average means something less, at least as it pertains to what is reported in Moldova.
This is no more than a biased exercise in picking and choosing which does not accurately reflect the valuation potential of Laguardia on the date of the government's intervention.
There are other valuation issues that will be addressed by our experts, including the fact that Laguardia is entitled to both its initial investment costs in addition to forward-looking lost profits.
[Page 147]
12:55
There was a change that Claimants made in terms of the networking capital input, and that was addressed correctly by Mr Peer. This input now has been updated and we recognise that that is a necessary part of the DCF calculation, and updated figures will be provided and explained by our expert when he testifies.
The discount rate Claimants will argue in this case should equal the weighted-average cost of capital, and we believe we have sound and fundamental accounting and legal justification for that.
Other valuation issues that occur, and this is notwithstanding the review of what was sent over earlier this morning, but there seems to have been a misapplication of the depreciation variable in Respondent's quantum analysis. There also appears to be an illogical assessment of a tax liability on Laguardia, despite its negative earnings. Respondent's initial report inputs a tax liability charge against Laguardia, again despite its negative earnings, which seems to defy accounting and tax logic.
Claimants will make the case that the prejudgment interest rate that is appropriate in
[Page 148]
12:56
this matter should be the weighted-average cost of capital again equal to the discount rate and we believe that at a bare minimum Respondent's sovereign borrowing rate should be applied.
The investment after all was in Moldova, it was not in the US, and therefore a US risk-free treasury bond rate does not seem to make much sense
As I close my remarks here, and just quickly looking at how much time might be available, I would say that Respondent said at best, in Respondent's Rejoinder at paragraph 333 they note correctly, and this is part of their damages analysis, that a farming business heavily depends on the quality and features of the particular farmland. That is absolutely true. In other words, any objective business valuation should take into account the specific and unique circumstances that make that company different from any other average or industry competitor.
That is exactly what Claimants have endeavoured to do in this case. There is a footnote that they cite to this comment, that being that our agricultural experts conducted assessments of the localised and unique soil and climate conditions, and again we stand behind that approach.
[Page 149]
12:57
Taking a local company-specific methodology to this overall valuation question absolutely is much more reliable and much more sound in nature than relying upon average data, especially when that average data reflects producers and companies that are fundamentally different from what Laguardia and what Mr Grot had in place.
Our final remarks here regarding quantum will be a restatement of what was submitted in our request for allocation of costs and damages in this matter, that being that the initial investment costs as paid for by Mr Grot should be refunded to him individually, and that also being that the future lost profits in this matter should be returned to Laguardia USA as the parent company of the local investment vehicle, and ultimately Mr Grot, as the sole shareholder of the parent company. This also goes without saying, of course, that Respondent's advanced arbitration fees should be reimbursed entirely to Mr Grot, who has paid for them personally.
On this note, and if there are any questions I am happy to entertain them, but Claimants wish to express their thanks to this Tribunal for its sincere attention, not just to the
[Page 150]
12:59
quantum issue, but every issue that has been put forth this morning such that Mr Grot, after seven years, can finally see to it that his rights are vindicated.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. That completes Claimants' opening arguments. We are about 50 minutes behind schedule. The responsibility is ours and ours alone on the Tribunal. We are very grateful for your efficiency. The Respondent is of course allocated its full 90 minutes or up to 90 minutes.
In terms of planning going forward for the rest of the day, it would help me if I could have a sense of how long the Respondent believes it may need for the cross-examination of Mr Grot and Mr Beril? I am wondering whether we start now? The timetable would have us going to 13.35.
MR KOPECKY: We do not mind starting now. We would ask for a coffee break in the middle.
(Short discussion on timing)
I have one point of order. We heard this morning that there would be new data from the agricultural experts and maybe from the quantum experts. I understand it was admitted on condition that it is responsive to Mr Peer's report. However,
[Page 151]
13:01
I also understood that it would be circulated now, not tomorrow during the examination, so we would kindly ask that this data be sent to us now.
THE PRESIDENT: Claimant?
MR GLEASON: No problem.
MR KOPECKY: Also please send it to Ms Cusnir.
THE PRESIDENT: By the end of the lunch break let's submit those two "supplemental" reports. Can I ask that you also email to Ms Nitschke the slides so that she has a set also, and the supplemental report so she has everything? We want to send all of that to Mr Craven.
I think this allows us to take a 45-minute break for lunch which gives our court reporters a chance.
MR KOPECKY: We only spoke of the agricultural experts. I understand there will be some updates on the quantum numbers as well?
MR ASTUNO: Yes.
MR KOPECKY: We would also like to have that now, if possible.
MR ASTUNO: Mr Wiechen is in the process of finalising that, because he is not set to testify until Wednesday morning, so I do not believe we can
[Page 152]
13:02
give you a final analysis, but we know that there will be one.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you able to provide that material tomorrow? What I think we would not want to have is that he provides his updated figures in the course of his cross-examination because that would leave Respondent in the unhappy position of not having had time to prepare the material he is going to provide, and I think in the interests of balance and equality of arms --
MR ASTUNO: Absolutely. I will call Mr Wiechen at lunch and ask if he can complete that analysis by tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. It is now exactly one o'clock. We will come back at 13.45. You will then have up to 90 minutes to do your opening. Depending on the needs of the court reporters, we will then have another short break. We will then go into Mr Grot and Mr Beril.
Can you give us an indication of what you are imagining for cross-examination? This does not bind you. It is only for the purposes of planning our hope that we can finish today. We are all available to go longer today in order to accommodate that.
[Page 153]
13:04
MR KOPECKY: 90 minutes for Mr Grot. 30 minutes for Mr Beril.
THE PRESIDENT: That is very helpful. I think we can easily finish them both in the course of today. Don't feel rushed in relation to your opening. You have 90 minutes allocated to you. There may be questions. You are entitled toyour 90 minutes. Thank you to the Claimants for completing their submissions. We break now and we are back at quarter to two.
(Luncheon adjournment from 1.04 pm to 1.47 pm)
THE PRESIDENT: Please begin.
Opening Submission by Respondent
MR KOPECKY: Thank you, Mr President. Dear Mr President, members of the Tribunal, esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, as Claimants had promised at the outset of their opening, Claimants told us a story. That story is largely unproven. The impugned acts are overwhelmingly not those of the state, and for its most part, Claimants' story is not even central to their claims. Claimants say that the alleged taking occurred at the time of the dispositions. Claimants calculate their quantum accordingly.
Instead of commenting on Claimants' story
[Page 154]
13:49
point by point, I will do what the Tribunal encouraged the parties to do: focus on the essential issues in dispute, working with the evidence that is actually on record, and for the rest I respectfully point to Respondents' written submissions.
Please don't be alarmed by the size of the printout in front of you; it is mostly one statement per page, each with a reference to a supporting exhibit, and because it is rather interactive, I would direct your attention to the screens rather than the printout.
Our point is the Tribunal encouraged the parties to prepare a timetable, and here I must disappoint. The information the Claimants put on record is contradictory, and preparing a timetable on the relevant facts became impossible. It is unclear, for example, even from Claimants' own timetable, when the leases were signed. It says autumn, autumn 2010, and since we before heard the termination of the leases on a single day is mysterious, I would like to point to Claimants' submission that in two of the villages also a signature occurred on one single day. It is also unclear when Claimants' works actually started. Witnesses contradict themselves, each other and the
[Page 155]
13:50
documents on record, and Respondents hope that at least some contradictions will be resolved in this hearing, and Respondent may give the timetable another try in its closing.
Let me turn to what Respondents consider to be the essential issues here. There are four of them.
Claimants were not diligent in establishing their investment.
Had Claimants been diligent, they would have ensured that, 1, there was an informed business plan for the project; 2, that the team entrusted with the project was competent; 3, that responsibilities were clearly assigned and fulfilled; 4, that their lease agreements were compliant with the law, 5, that the lease agreements were valid, indeed signed and enforceable under law; and 6 and final, that Claimants had the farming
[Page 156]
13:51
right to connected plots. This is an important issue, which I will revisit later.
Claimants would have ensured there was an informed business decision for the project but they only submit what they wanted to achieve. First witness statement Grot, paragraph 18 "I was aware of some farming projects by British investors in the Ukraine and how they had later gone public with their businesses. This long-term view was an important part of my investment in Moldova". But Claimants never submitted how they intended to achieve it. There is no business plan on the record, no offtake agreements, nothing.
Had Claimants been diligent the team entrusted with the project would have been competent, yet Mr Grot's team consisted of acquaintances he made by chance in Moldova shortly before. First statement Grot, paragraph 10: "While working in Stefan Voda, I was leaving my hotel one day and I heard a group of gentlemen speaking Polish. I introduced myself to them and I met a gentleman named Igor Bugai, and he gave me his business card".
It was these acquaintances that Mr Grot entrusted with establishing his business. Witness
[Page 157]
13:53
statement Bugai, paragraph 1. "My name is Alexei Bugai. I have a higher degree in Journalism and Philology with a focus on the management of international investments. Mr Zbigniew Grot hired me to be Laguardia's administrator for a period of one year starting in March 2010 until March 2011. It happened after Mr Grot met my father Igor Bugai by chance".
Yet Mr Grot's and Mr Bugai's co-operation was a very short one. Witness statement Bugai, paragraph 10. "In March 2011, Mr Grot and I decided that it would be better for me to move on from Laguardia, as we had a difference of opinion concerning the methods that we should use to fight back and regain the leases and other further operation of Laguardia".
While Mr Bugai was made responsible for establishing Mr Grot's business, first statement Bugai, paragraph 2: "I was responsible for the entire process of registration", the actual task of establishing the business was outsourced to officials and civil servants, and referencing his first witness statement, paragraphs 12 and 14, "Mr Grot outsourced marketing and PR for his farming project, negotiating the leases with the land
[Page 158]
13:54
owners, obtaining their consent and even filling out those thousands of leases".
Yet government officials may only discharge the responsibility that were given to them by law. Second Report Mr Gladei, paragraph 7: "The public administration authorities shall discharge their attributions only in case the established facts and the applicable law give the right to do this thing". We had this during Claimants' opening.
No piece of law entitles those officials to execute the responsibilities Mr Grot sought to outsource.
Mr Bugai only got involved once all the leases were completed. Witness statement Grot. Paragraph 15: "Once the leases had been filled out by the cadastral agents and signed by the landowners, Mr Alexei Bugai, who I had hired as an administrator for ICS Laguardia SRL, was told that they were complete and Mr Bugai went to the mayor's offices to sign the completed leases". The whole process wasn't even supervised by Laguardia.
Had Claimants been diligent, they would have ensured that responsibilities were clearly assigned and fulfilled, yet there is no clear distribution even of those responsibilities that
[Page 159]
13:55
were not outsourced within Claimants' own team. Example 1, the question who should execute the leases on behalf of Laguardia. Mr Bugai, as administrator, was responsible for the entire process. Witness statement Bugai, paragraph 2: "I was responsible for the entire process of registration".
Mr Bugai understood that Mr Grot would enter into the lease agreements. Witness statement Bugai, paragraph 2: "Mr Grot, with Mr Rusu's help and expertise, started to meet with the local landowners and enter into the lease agreements with them".
This is Mr Grot's signature on record; CWS-1, first witness statement of Mr Grot, on page 22.
Mr Grot on the other hand had tasked Mr Bugai to sign the leases. Witness statement Grot, paragraph 15: "Mr Bugai went to the mayor's offices to sign the completed leases".
This is Mr Bugai's signature on record, CWS-13, his signed witness statement, page 8. Yet most signatures on the signed leases -- and I am referring only to the leases that were signed by Laguardia, that Claimants submitted for Cosernitą,
[Page 160]
13:57
look neither like Mr Grot nor like Mr Bugai's, and I direct your attention to exhibit C-27 and the interactive slide show on the screen. All those are exhibit C-27. None of those look like the signature of Mr Grot or that of Mr Bugai.
Indeed, Respondent noted as much in its Counter-Memorial, Counter-Memorial paragraph 127E. So Mr Grot amended his testimony accordingly, second witness statement Grot, paragraph 5: "These leases would have been signed either by Mr Alexei Bugai, Mr Ion Tugui, myself or Mr Dariusz Kozak". As did Mr Bugai; he too amended his testimony. This is the red line of CWS-5 versus CWS-13, the two witness statements of Mr Bugai on record, where in paragraph 2 he added the language, "There were over a thousand leases and I remember signing many of them. However, many others may have been signed by other people working for Laguardia".
Example 2. Who should fill out the leases of Laguardia? Mr Bugai understood that Mr Grot filled out the lease templates, together with the landowners. Witness statement Bugai, paragraph 3 "Then Mr Grot together with each individual landowner filled out a generic lease agreement template", and I repeat, with each individual
[Page 161]
13:59
1 landowner.
2 MR GROT: on the other hand, tasked the
3 cadastral agents with that responsibility, second
4 statement Grot, paragraph 3: "The plan was for the
5 cadastrals to hold the leases, to fill out the
6 relevant details for each lease and to watch the
7 landowners sign the leases in their office".
8 This outsourcing and failure to clearly
9 assign responsibilities had one serious consequence:
10 those responsibilities were not fulfilled.
11 For example, some leases are signed but
12 not stamped by Laguardia (exhibit R-18). Other
13 leases are stamped but not signed on behalf of
14 Laguardia (exhibit R-17).
15 Yet others are neither stamped nor signed
16 (R-20).
17 Had Claimants been diligent, they would
18 have ensured the lease agreements were compliant
19 with the law. Claimants submit that they had an
20 expert attorney at their side for the establishment
21 of their investment, including the leases. Second
22 statement Grot, paragraph 6: "The entire investment
23 is exactly what Mr Levintsa handles as an attorney
24 in Moldova. Mr Levintsa handled the leases in
25 Floresti", yet Mr Levintsa's attribution is entirely
[Page 162]
14:00
1 unclear. He certainly did not ensure that the
2 leases were compliant with the law, since, as
3 Mr Gladei confirms, Claimants' leases were not
4 (First Report of Gladei, paragraph 33). "The lease
5 agreements do not contain the mandatory reference to
6 the residence of the lessor". Paragraph 33.2:
7 "[They] do not contain the mandatory reference to
8 the document certifying the ownership".
9 Paragraph 33.3: "[They] do not contain mandatory
10 reference to the liability of the parties".
11 As just shown, many leases were not signed
12 or stamped, and others were actually signed by
13 persons other than the landowners. If we look at
14 contract No 40, a Varvareuca lease of 1 September
15 2010, in the name of a certain Blanitu Petru
16 Nicolae, and compare this to the contemporaneous
17 register extract, exhibit R-19, we see that for the
18 land plot in question, 108078, the registered owner
19 was Bodron Nicolai Procopi. That is not the same
20 person. Yet other leases contain erasures (exhibit
21 R-16), and all those non-compliances entitle the
22 Mayor to refuse registration, according to
23 Claimants' legal expert, expert report Gladei,
24 paragraph 24: "The mayor's office has the right to
25 refuse to register the lease if", or as Claimants
[Page 163]
14:02
1 will insist, "only if ... the documents submitted
2 contain erasures, completions, deleted words or
3 other corrections" or in point (e), much more
4 importantly, "the required signatures or seals are
5 missing".
6 Had Claimants been diligent, they would
7 have ensured that the lease agreements were valid,
8 signed and enforceable. Yet Claimants' leases were
9 invalid, many were not signed even by Laguardia
10 (exhibit R-20), and many of them were not even
11 signed by the landowners (exhibit R-14). For those
12 land plots Claimants never obtained farming rights.
13 As was rightly said today, an unsigned lease is an
14 invalid lease.
15 But for Claimants, as we heard today, and
16 as we read in their submissions, it was irrelevant
17 to timely sign and register all their leases.
18 Claimants' Reply, paragraphs 168 and 169. "Work may
19 have begun before every last lease was signed,
20 however, this is irrelevant". 169: "Claimants also
21 admit that work began before the leases were
22 registered in any of the villages. Again, this is
23 irrelevant".
24 Had Claimants been diligent in
25 establishing their investment, they would have
[Page 164]
14:03
1 ensured that they had farming rights to connected
2 plots of land.
3 This is very important. The success of
4 Mr Grot's project depended on farming rights to
5 connected plots of land. "Mr Rusu had picked these
6 lands because they were large unused connected plots
7 of land where Laguardia could do high-technology
8 farming".
9 Yet Claimants did not prove that all lease
10 agreements they sought to conclude would establish
11 connected plots of land, and the burden for this is
12 on them. They didn't prove that they verified this
13 fact at the time. They didn't prove that it still
14 would have been the case without all the lease
15 agreements that remained unsigned and invalid, and
16 I am not talking erasures or pencil use; I am
17 talking unsigned or invalid. But unless that is
18 verified, industrial farming is impossible.
19 This is a satellite image that Claimants
20 put in their Memorial, page 90. I am only using
21 this as an example to visualise the issue. This is
22 not the actual land in question. This is in the
23 vicinity. It is in the Ghindesti Floresti region
24 but it does not display the landplots in question.
25 So say you want to lease that big green
[Page 165]
14:05
1 area right of the red circle. You need to obtain a
2 valid lease with each individual landowner who owns
3 this field. Those people probably reside in those
4 houses around there. If you do not do that, the
5 area lease will have a lot of holes. I apologise
6 for the artistic value, but the white line would be
7 Respondent's suggested line that the high-technology
8 harvester would have to take to actually do any
9 farming while avoiding trespassing on unsigned
10 leases, therefore unleased lands.
11 All this means that Claimants were not
12 diligent in establishing their investment.
13 The second issue: Claimants were not
14 diligent in managing their investment. Had
15 Claimants been diligent, they would have enforced
16 their lease rights. In particular, Claimants would
17 have challenged the dispositions and sought relief
18 in court, not by politicians. They would have sued
19 Bio-Alianta and the landowners following the
20 applicable procedure, and they would have
21 complied with their obligations under the leases --
22 THE PRESIDENT: Just as you are jumping
23 between two areas, just coming back to something we
24 had earlier this morning, exhibit C-95, what is your
25 clients' explanation for what caused hundreds of
[Page 166]
14:06
1 farmers to seek, if you like, deregistration of the
2 leases? What is your account, and what is the
3 evidence supporting that account, that caused them
4 to come together to sign the documents they did, and
5 then presumably go to the Mayor and get the Mayor to
6 also sign those documents? What happened?
7 MR KOPECKY: Mr President, here I can only
8 speculate but I will use the same circumstantial
9 evidence that Claimants use when they say all the
10 leases were probably signed on the same day. These
11 people are in contact, they are very close
12 neighbours, they live together, most of them don't
13 have jobs -- this is speculation but this is a very
14 poor country and a very poor area, and they probably
15 talk a lot, so they probably got together and
16 discussed it, but on the exhibit itself, first, the
17 nature of the mayor's signature is unclear. It can
18 be a confirmation of receipt. We don't know what it
19 means. That signature doesn't produce any legal
20 effect from the Mayor. We don't know what it does.
21 Respondents do not argue that the leases were in
22 fact terminated on the basis of those cancellation
23 notices, and even Disposition 2 in that village was
24 not based on those notifications.
25 So the notifications were of sole
[Page 167]
14:07
1 relevance for not extending the leases to a fourth
2 year. That means that the leases would have
3 terminated in the third year, but the exact
4 relevance is unclear to us. Finally, I think it is
5 worth pointing out that a mayor of a small village
6 is not a lawyer, so he may well sign off on things
7 that he would not be entitled to sign, but the legal
8 nature of the signature is entirely unclear.
9 THE PRESIDENT: But what steps have you
10 taken -- you are Moldova, so you have the ability to
11 find out what happened What steps have you taken
12 to find out what happened that caused these farmers
13 to act as they did in very large numbers?
14 MR KOPECKY: Mr President, we have been
15 unable to find this out. We have inquired but have
16 been unable to find this out.
17 THE PRESIDENT: Would you accept that it
18 is curious, in the least -- there may be many
19 explanations, and inferences can be drawn in many
20 directions, but would you accept that it is odd for
21 so large a number of people to engage in the very
22 same act on the same day?
23 MR KOPECKY: Well, frankly, I would accept
24 the word "many". I would not accept the word
25 "strange" because it is not odd that villagers that
[Page 168]
14:09
1 have lived together for generations come together
2 and discuss their situation. They discuss their
3 situation and say "Let's sign leases with somebody",
4 and they may well meet and discuss the situation and
5 say "Well, we are not happy, we are not getting
6 paid" or anything else -- this is just
7 speculation -- meet together, find the courage and
8 all write to the mayor. This does not strike me as
9 particularly odd. It would strike me as odd if all
10 the tenants in that building over there terminated
11 their leases at once because they are not talking to
12 each other but we are talking about small villages,
13 connected over generations, in rural Moldova, and
14 their community means something. I think--
15 THE PRESIDENT: That is speculation. We
16 don't have any evidence before us to support any of
17 that?
18 MR KOPECKY: No.
19 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
20 MR KOPECKY: My last point is that I point
21 out that had Claimants been diligent, they would
22 have enforced their lease rights. As a first step,
23 Claimants would have challenged the dispositions and
24 sought relief in court, not by politicians.
25 Claimants submit that they did not
[Page 169]
14:10
1 challenge the dispositions because they did not know
2 how, when or where (Claimants' Memorial,
3 paragraph 76: "Claimants did not know how, when, or
4 where to challenge the dispositions, because
5 Respondent did not provide the information in
6 violation of Moldovan law". However, both
7 dispositions informed Claimants of their right
8 (exhibit C-31, page 3): "Laguardia has the right to
9 challenge it" -- the disposition -- "in accordance
10 to the legal provisions in force".
11 Exhibit C-48. Disposition 2. "Laguardia
12 has the right to challenge it in accordance to the
13 legal provisions in force, and would have certainly
14 been diligent to inquire how, when or where to
15 challenge the dispositions". And not to forget that
16 Claimants had an experienced attorney engaged at the
17 time including for the leases in Floresti. Second
18 statement Grot, paragraph 6: "Laguardia's attorney
19 during this entire process of setting up the
20 investment was Mr Victor Levintsa. "The entire
21 investment is exactly what Mr Levintsa handles as an
22 attorney in Moldova", and indeed, Mr Levintsa
23 handled the leases in Floresti
24 Claimants wanted to fight the dispositions
25 immediately, and were looking for a litigation
[Page 170]
14:11
1 attorney (second statement Grot, paragraph 7):
2 "I needed to find a litigation attorney to handle
3 the situation. I wanted to fight immediately". And
4 Claimants did find a litigation attorney, Mr Garmas,
5 in time, and Mr Garmas confirmed that Claimants
6 could still challenge the dispositions at the time.
7 Exhibit C-126, a witness transcript from the
8 Varvareuca injunction hearing, in April 2011, where
9 he, as a representative of Laguardia, put on record:
10 "We did not challenge the Mayor's office acts, we
11 have time for this". Claimants never challenged.
12 Claimants' Reply, paragraph 470: "The only action
13 Claimants did not take was the immediate challenge
14 of the disposition in the local administrative
15 courts".
16 So instead of seeking relief in court,
17 Claimants submit that upon receiving the
18 dispositions they addressed the government.
19 Claimants memorial, paragraph 186, "After the
20 Dispositions in Cosernita and Varvareuca initially
21 deprived Claimants of their investments, Mr Grot
22 began to seek assistance from various levels of the
23 Moldovan government", and CWS-1, paragraphs 30 and
24 31: "After returning urgently to Moldova, at the end
25 of March 2011 I went along with my local counsel to
[Page 171]
14:12
1 meet with the President of Floresti District,
2 Ruslan Zelenenco".
3 Mr Grot sought to challenge a legal
4 decision in the political forum, second statement
5 Grot, paragraph 7: "We complained to everybody that
6 we could in the government".
7 Exhibit C-77: "As a result of the
8 accident and divergences created, ICS Laguardia SRL,
9 through the administrator Zbigniew Piotr Grot
10 desires to be analysed this situation. Mr
11 Prime Minister, Vlad Filat, with all due respect
12 I am asking permission from an official meeting with
13 you".
14 Had Claimants been diligent they would
15 have enforced their rights and sued Bio-Alianta and
16 the landowners following the applicable procedure.
17 And Claimants did finally attempt to sue the
18 landowners and Bio-Alianta. Exhibit C-123. They
19 brought a request against Bio-Alianta and the
20 defendants - 526 landowners from Cosernita and the
21 City Hall of Cosernita village. Yet without
22 justification Claimants failed to comply with the
23 applicable procedure.
24 And the court found that the reasons given
25 by the Claimants' representative, namely that there
[Page 172]
14:14
1 were several litigations against the defendant in
2 question, and for this reason the Claimants
3 considered that it is not necessary to submit such
4 prior requests -- cannot be considered a well
5 founded reason for not taking into account the
6 provisions of the law regarding prior procedure
7 before submitting such claims.
8 And for that failure their claim could not
9 proceed. It was dismissed without prejudice. We
10 heard that today. We also heard that the Claimants
11 were entitled to comply, and refile
12 MR FORTIER: Counsel, what would have been
13 the applicable procedure? You say Claimants failed
14 to comply with the applicable procedure. What would
15 have been the applicable procedure?
16 MR KOPECKY: It is our understanding there
17 is a settlement procedure before you can escalate
18 matters to court. That is very common. I think it
19 can be found on several of the contracts on record,
20 including Claimants' contracts with I think
21 Bicoli-Agro -- I am not certain but the contracts
22 they signed with other third parties contained this
23 mandatory pre-trial procedure where after you can go
24 to court.
25 MR FORTIER: Is that after the issue of
[Page 173]
14:15
1 the disposition?
2 MR SOFER: I beg your pardon?
3 MR FORTIER: Is that after the issuance of
4 the disposition?
5 MR KOPECKY: Yes. The Zahar agreement
6 I think is 2012. So that is a very common procedure
7 in Moldova.
8 To take you back to exhibit C-123, the
9 court clearly said that "ICS Laguardia SRL [was]
10 entitled to address the parties a prior request for
11 all the claims submitted and, in the event that he
12 will not be satisfied with the decisions taken or
13 will not receive an answer within the time limit, he
14 will be entitled to address to the Court a writ of
15 summons".
16 Claimants never did.
17 Under Moldovan law parties have to comply
18 with procedural rules, and Claimants scream
19 discrimination and arbitrariness but this applies
20 equally to all parties in all instances. C-44: For
21 his failure to comply with procedural rules, the
22 Cosernita mayor's appeal was rejected, even at the
23 level of the Supreme Court. As we know, the
24 Cosernita mayor filed an appeal against the court
25 order, I believe it was the one setting aside the
[Page 174]
14:16
1 disposition, but failed to set forth the grounds for
2 appeal.
3 The court informed the appellant, the
4 mayor, about the necessity to review the appeal to
5 make it well grounded. Finally the Supreme Court
6 considered that the Balti Court of Appeal was right
7 when ordering to send Cosernita mayor's appeal back
8 as the appellants failed to comply with court
9 instructions. The law treats all the same.
10 Claimants did not manage the litigation diligently.
11 Exhibit C-50: "With the participation of
12 plaintiff's representative in the absence of the
13 defendant's representative". Plaintiff here was
14 Bio-Alianta, the defendant was Laguardia.
15 "The defendant's representative in the
16 person of the lawyer Alina Balan being repeatedly
17 summoned in the legal manner, in hearing session did
18 not appeared" -- and that sounds a bit like Master
19 Yoda but I believe it is clear. They failed to
20 appear in court repeatedly. Exhibit C-112: "ICS
21 Laguardia SRL did not show up at the term fixed for
22 the appeal and the court ordered the examination in
23 its absence".
24 Had Claimants been diligent they would
25 have complied with their obligations under the
[Page 175]
14:18
1 leases but Claimants breached their lease agreements
2 before the dispositions were even issued. We
3 already saw C-95, "the lessee breached the terms of
4 the Agreement and the lessee breached the
5 requirements for the technological use/work of the
6 land". And Claimants continued breaching their
7 agreements thereafter. Exhibit C-60.
8 THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, what was the
9 breach here?
10 MR KOPECKY: The alleged breach was -- it
11 appears to have been non-payment and the requirement
12 for technological use of the land. I can only take
13 it at face value. It is the will of the landowners
14 expressed here in exhibit C-95. We have not been
15 able to interview them. But they weren't happy.
16 And on 13 February 2013, C-60, the
17 prosecutor writes: "But till the moment the
18 enterprise you manage did not pay the agricultural
19 land rental payment for the year 2012, so you
20 gathered a back payment of 850,000 MDL".
21 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: What is that in euros?
22 MR KOPECKY: I think it is 1220.
23 Now Claimants seek to pin their failures
24 on Respondent. In their Reply Memorial,
25 paragraph 392, they submit that they lost their
[Page 176]
14:19
1 entire investment due to and at the time of the
2 dispositions. 392: "The time of the taking is the
3 date of the dispositions". Relating to Cosernita,
4 it was the date of Disposition 1-A,
5 20 February 2011. In Varvareuca the date of taking
6 was the date of Disposition 2, 10 March 2011, and
7 also in Rosietici the date of taking was
8 10 March 2011.
9 But Respondent is not responsible.
10 Respondent did not violate its international law
11 obligations nor cause the damage claimed, and this
12 includes the dispositions, which were based on a
13 reasonable reading of the law.
14 First Report Rusu, paragraphs 31 through
15 50: "I analyse the two elements of the Mayor's
16 dispositions separately", to refuse registration of
17 the lease agreements and to delete the entries.
18 Paragraph 41: "Dispositions 1-A and 2 were a
19 product of a reasonable interpretation of Moldovan
20 law to the extent that they provided for the refusal
21 of registration of agricultural leases". Paragraph
22 50: "also the second disposition" -- the order
23 contained therein -- "in both Dispositions 1-A and
24 2, i.e. to delete registration of the lease
25 agreements concerned was a product of reasonable
[Page 177]
14:21
1 interpretation of Moldovan law".
2 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Will you come to the
3 point where you discuss the decision of the
4 State Chancellery which characterises the
5 disposition A-1, only one, as illegal, and also the
6 Floresti court?
7 MR KOPECKY: Professor Knieper, we will
8 come to that, but I think it is a question best
9 asked to the legal expert, because he will be able
10 to give you the correct information. We don't want
11 to engage in further speculation.
12 But further to this, the dispositions were
13 indeed never found illegal by the Court of Appeal or
14 by the Supreme Court. First expert report Rusu,
15 paragraph 28: "The Floresti District Court set
16 aside Disposition 1-A. "Cosernita mayor failed to
17 file a reasoned appeal", and in the end the
18 Supreme Court of Justice, which did not hear the
19 merits of the case because "the scope of its review
20 was only the Balti Court of Appeal's decision on
21 return of the unreasoned appeal". So, if any, there
22 was a decision on the merits by the Floresti
23 District Court, which will be analysed by our legal
24 experts.
25 Therefore our legal expert concluded that
[Page 178]
14:22
1 even the Floresti District Court has not
2 subjected -- I am sorry, I am misquoting.
3 The Floresti District Court judgment of
4 24 July 2014 has not been subject to review by
5 superior courts on the merits. That was my
6 statement. I apologise.
7 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: The question comes to
8 my head, given this procedural situation, it is the
9 decision of the Floresti court which entered into
10 force. That was a final and binding decision.
11 MR KOPECKY: That is correct. In any
12 event, dispositions were not challenged by Claimants
13 in court. Claimants never challenged them in court.
14 They admit as much in Memorial paragraph 470. "The
15 only action Claimants did not take was the immediate
16 challenge of the disposition in the local
17 administrative courts".
18 And in any event to that, the dispositions
19 did not prevent the enforcement of Claimants' rights
20 against Bio-Alianta.
21 Claimants could enforce their rights
22 against the landowners regardless of registration.
23 First Report Rusu, paragraph 12. "Unregistered
24 leases remain valid (if the case)", meaning if they
25 are indeed valid, "under civil law, and can be
[Page 179]
14:24
1 enforced against the lessor".
2 Claimants could equally enforce their
3 leases against Bio-Alianta. Second Report Rusu,
4 paragraph 10: "Regardless of the registration of
5 the lease, it is enforceable against third parties
6 acting in bad faith. "Registration of a lease does
7 not automatically make it opposable (enforceable)
8 against third parties".
9 Indeed, in the injunction and in the
10 decision cancelling the injunction the reasoning
11 does not mention registration. If you look at
12 exhibit C-105 -- and I will walk you through it --
13 the court finds a preventive measure can be
14 cancelled at the defendant's request. The court
15 further finds that landowners from Cosernita village
16 concluded leases with Laguardia. The lessee worked
17 a part of the lands, about 140 hectares, from 680,
18 and the landowners signed new lease contracts with
19 Bio-Alianta, who requested the court to declare the
20 contracts signed by ICS Laguardia with the owners
21 from Cosernita voided, and requested preventative
22 measures.
23 But Bio-Alianta did not mention any
24 particular reason for the annulment of the
25 contracts, and therefore the court considered that
[Page 180]
14:25
1 the seizure measure was inappropriate as it would
2 impede Laguardia from the agricultural work and
3 cause it unfounded prejudice as its lease contracts
4 with the owners had not been terminated, and
5 therefore the court decided to cancel the preventive
6 measure in favour of Bio-Alianta. So to annul
7 Bio-Alianta's injunctions, only Claimants'
8 contractual rights under the law against the
9 landowners were considered, not the registration.
10 Finally, the other impugned conduct that
11 Claimants complain about is neither attributable nor
12 is it proven. It is not attributable. Claimants
13 allege no failure of Respondent's laws or its
14 judiciary to the extent that it was even ceased.
15 Claimants claim damage allegedly caused by
16 Bio-Alianta. However, Bio-Alianta is not
17 attributable to Respondent.
18 The other impugned conduct is not proven
19 either. Claimants did not prove they were induced
20 to invest by any alleged assurances of Respondent
21 and did not prove any of its alleged conspiracies.
22 Claimants' failure to seek correction is
23 relevant on the merits. Claimants agree that not
24 every unlawful act or decision constitutes a BIT
25 breach, and failure to seek correction may be
[Page 181]
14:27
1 considered by the Tribunal. Claimants' Reply,
2 paragraph 56: "Host states can make administrative
3 mistakes without violating the BIT; and tribunals
4 may consider the availability and efficacy of local
5 remedies when determining whether there was a
6 violation of the BIT. Claimants do not reject
7 either of these positions generally. However, the
8 circumstances are different here".
9 Respondents submit that the circumstances
10 are not different here, and there is no reason why
11 this principle should not apply in this case
12 Respondent agrees with Claimants to the
13 extent that Claimants' failure to seek correction
14 does not make their claim inadmissible, and that is
15 the working and operation of Article II(3)(b) of the
16 BIT. But Claimants' failure remains indicative of
17 the absence of a BIT breach, and as for that
18 failure, no BIT breach can be established, in its
19 decisive elements, decided case law is similar
20 enough to this case to permit the Tribunal to
21 consider Claimants' failure to seek correction in
22 their evaluation of whether the BIT had been
23 breached, and those elements are: Claimants impugn
24 particularly low level governmental acts. Those
25 acts were based on a reasonable interpretation of
[Page 182]
14:28
1 the law. First Report Rusu, paragraphs 31, 41 and
2 50. Those acts were open to a direct challenge in
3 court. First Report Rusu paragraph 67; Second
4 Report Rusu, paragraph 68. Those challenges would
5 not have been futile. Indeed, the district court
6 seized to review the dispositions' interpretation of
7 the law did not endorse it (C-043).
8 Claimants had legal representation at the
9 time (Second statement Grot, paragraph 6 and 9),
10 lawyers who were aware of the dispositions but held
11 off challenging them, C-126, pages 3 and 4. Yet
12 Claimants never challenged the dispositions.
13 Finally, or semi-finally, to be precise,
14 even if all were true, Respondent did not cause
15 Claimants damage.
16 In Cosernita and Varvareuca the farming
17 rights to those lands were derived from valid lease
18 contracts to the extent those contracts were valid,
19 and Claimants could enforce their rights against
20 landowners regardless of registration (expert report
21 Rusu, paragraph 12) and Claimants could enforce
22 their rights against Bio-Alianta as well regardless
23 of registration (Second Report Rusu, paragraphs 10
24 and 11).
25 As regards Rosietici, the operations in
[Page 183]
14:29
1 Rosietici alone would have been profitable even if
2 the operations in Cosernita and Varvareuca were shut
3 down and even if Claimants had not adapted to the
4 fact.
5 This is Claimants' case, and Claimants'
6 quantum expert. We do not endorse those figures,
7 but let's look at them. Claimants' expert report
8 sets out in tables 7, (a), (b) and (c) among others
9 the indirect and depreciation expenses for the
10 farming operations in all three villages for the
11 years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
12 If we look at the yellow highlighted
13 numbers in table 7(a), which are the indirect costs
14 in Cosernita, we arrive at certain numbers, which
15 now fly into the slides. Then if we look at those
16 figures for Varvareuca, table 7(b), those again are
17 the indirect costs and the depreciation expenses for
18 operations in Varvareuca on Claimants' case.
19 MR FORTIER: What are you telling us here?
20 MR KOPECKY: The next slide will say it
21 all.
22 MR FORTIER: I am ready!
23 MR KOPECKY: So if we add the indirect
24 costs and the depreciation expenses, we arrive at
25 total figures of between 85,000 and 133,000 per year
[Page 184]
14:31
1 in indirect costs and deprecation expenses, and if
2 we then subtract this from the EBIT, in that last
3 remaining village of Rosietici, which on Claimants'
4 case is between 353 and 401,000, we still arrive at
5 a positive number. And please don't make me speak
6 about numbers any further, because I am a lawyer,
7 and we have many experts who will hopefully explain
8 those numbers, but to me 353 minus 85 is a positive
9 number and it means that there was no survival mode
10 There may have been an impact, but the operations in
11 Rosietici alone could have borne all alleged
12 indirect costs and depreciation expenses, on
13 Claimants' case, which is not admitted or accepted,
14 but, on their case, Rosietici would have pulled it
15 off alone.
16 Finally, Respondent did not cause
17 Claimants damage, which damage is in any event
18 excessive. We will hear much more on this from the
19 quantum experts on Wednesday, but to summarise lost
20 profits cannot be based on DCF absent a proven
21 record of earnings. Claimants request pre-award
22 interest more than double the alleged actual damage.
23 The quantification blindly relies on the
24 agricultural expert report to be updated without any
25 apparent reasonability check by the quantum expert.
[Page 185]
14:32
1 The damage is based on at least partially invalid
2 leases in a four-year lease term, although only
3 three years had been agreed, and the presumed
4 performance of Claimants' business would have
5 exceeded the next comparable business more than two
6 times, and I'm not saying average; I am saying the
7 next best business would have been exceeded more
8 than two times.
9 Nevertheless, Claimants' high-tech farming
10 business operations appear to be less
11 capital-intensive than other comparable businesses.
12 And finally, Claimants claim the full value of
13 assets which they still control.
14 Under those assumptions, corrected,
15 Claimants' damage amounts to nil.
16 Mr President, members of the Tribunal,
17 Respondent just outlined why it is not responsible
18 for the damage Claimants claim. Because Claimants
19 were not diligent in establishing their investment,
20 they were not diligent in managing their investment,
21 and however Claimants seek to pin their failures on
22 Respondent, Respondent is not responsible
23 Thank you.
24 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Does that
25 conclude your opening argument?
[Page 186]
14:34
1 MR KOPECKY: Yes, it does.
2 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We will then
3 move to the first of our witnesses. Let's just take
4 a 5-minute break so we can get the courtroom ready
5 to hear from Mr Grot. There will be, in accordance
6 with our conversation, 15 minutes of direct to begin
7 with, and then we hand him over to your side,
8 Mr Kopecky. Very good. Back at twenty to three.
9 (Short break from 2.35 pm to 2.45 pm)
11 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Grot, welcome to
12 Vienna. I think Ms Nitschke has already explained
13 to you that you are appearing as a witness in these
14 proceedings, not only as Claimant, and that before
15 you are given an opportunity under direct
16 examination and then cross-examination, and then
17 re-direct, you have to make a statement, and I think
18 you have that statement in front of you. I would be
19 very grateful if you could just read for the record
20 aloud that statement.
21 MR GROT: I solemnly declare upon my
22 honour and conscience that I shall speak the truth,
23 the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
24 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
25 I think we have now agreed that your side, so to
[Page 187]
14:48
1 speak, the Claimants, will have 15 minutes of direct
2 examination, which will start now, and you will then
3 be made available to the Respondent, and then the
4 Claimant will have an opportunity to come back to
5 you with further questions, but only in relation to
6 matters raised by the Respondent in its
7 cross-examination.
8 MR GROT: Your honour, before Mr Wells
9 asks me questions, I think I owe you some
10 information, because to listen, the lawyers, I am
11 sitting, and there are two different scenarios, so
12 I think I will help you a lot.
13 This land which I took in Moldova was
14 three years unused
15 THE PRESIDENT: I think there is a
16 procedure that is agreed as between the parties.
17 I hope you will have the chance to say --
18 MR GROT: I apologise.
19 THE PRESIDENT: No need for an apology at
20 all. I express the hope that you will have the
21 chance during the course of the direct and the cross
22 to address all of the matters you want, and I am
23 sure also my colleagues will have questions, and
24 part of this is to allow you to say what it is you
25 want to say to clarify your witness statement.
[Page 188]
14:50
1 MR GROT: Thank you.
2 THE PRESIDENT: So have no worries. You
3 will hopefully be able to say everything you want to
4 say. Mr Wells?
6 MR WELLS: Mr Grot, could you finish the
7 last sentence, the point you were about to make?
8 MR GROT: The land which I took, the three
9 villages, was unused for three years. This was
10 vacant land, unfarmed, unseeded, unprocessed for
11 three years.
12 THE PRESIDENT: I think it is traditional,
13 just for the record, if you could take him to his
14 witness statement, and then clarify that these are
15 indeed his witness statements, it is indeed his
16 signature, and invite him to say whether there are
17 any corrections he would wish to make to the
18 documents that are before him, just for the sake of
19 good housekeeping. We can then move on
20 MR WELLS: Yes, Mr President.
21 Mr Grot, I am showing you on the screen
22 CWS-1, witness statement of Zbigniew Piotr Grot. Do
23 you remember this?
24 MR GROT: Yes.
25 MR WELLS: This front page? You have seen
[Page 189]
14:51
1 this?
2 MR GROT: Yes. No 1.
3 MR WELLS: I am going to briefly take you
4 through it --
5 THE PRESIDENT: If you could take him to
6 his signature and ask whether there are any
7 corrections to this document?
8 MR WELLS: Okay. Here is the end of the
9 witness statement, Mr Grot. Is that your signature?
10 MR GROT: Yes.
11 MR WELLS: It looks like you have dated
12 it. What is the date?
13 MR GROT: It looks like January 11, 2017.
14 MR WELLS: Are there any corrections you
15 would like to make to the witness statement?
16 MR GROT: During the opening statement of
17 Moldova there was a picture, you know --
18 THE PRESIDENT: Sorry, Mr Grot. At this
19 point, is there anything in this witness statement
20 that needs to be corrected? Does it accurately
21 reflect your views?
22 MR GROT: Yes. This is accurate.
23 THE PRESIDENT: Good. If we could do the
24 same for the second witness statement, just for the
25 sake of good housekeeping, just to make sure it is
[Page 190]
14:52
1 indeed your statement that we are looking at. That
2 is all this is about. It is just a formality.
3 MR WELLS: Here is CWS-12, second witness
4 statement of Zbigniew Piotr Grot.
5 MR GROT: Yes.
6 MR WELLS: Is that your signature there?
7 MR GROT: Yes.
8 THE PRESIDENT: Does this reflect an
9 accurate statement of your views?
10 MR GROT: Yes.
11 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Over to you,
12 Mr Wells.
13 MR WELLS: Thank you. Mr Grot, I have on
14 the screen C-083. Earlier today there was some
15 discussion during the housekeeping about the
16 admissibility of this particular exhibit. I would
17 like to take you through it and show you this
18 briefly, and note at the top right corner it states
19 "Translation from Romanian into English". You will
20 see that this is in the English language, this
21 letter. I will just go through it briefly here.
22 You will see at the end it states "Zbigniew Grot".
23 You see the Laguardia stamp. Is this your letter?
24 MR GROT: Yes.
25 MR WELLS: At the top it stated at the
[Page 191]
14:54
1 beginning that it was a translation, a translation
2 from Romanian into English.
3 MR GROT: Yes.
4 MR WELLS: Are you aware of where is the
5 Romanian version of this letter?
6 MR GROT: I never thought about that, but
7 there is probably in the translation office,
8 translator office, we could find a copy. But
9 I don't remember.
10 MR WELLS: Have you attempted to look for
11 this?
12 MR GROT: This issue came to me today, to
13 my attention, so for what reason am I supposed to
14 look for?
15 MR WELLS: During the production of
16 documents in this case, not from a request from the
17 Respondent but during the submission of documents in
18 this case by the Claimants, this is one of the
19 documents that was submitted, and one of the
20 requirements in Procedural Order No 1 is to provide
21 an original version of the document. So this is
22 translated into English.
23 MR GROT: Yes.
24 MR WELLS: We need to identify if this is
25 your letter and whether or not it was possible to
[Page 192]
14:56
1 locate the original Romanian version of this letter.
2 MR GROT: I was trying to find at home,
3 I was unable, and I never thought this would be so
4 important. By the way, you know, actually this
5 letter could be written from the very beginning in
6 English, though the version of Romanian, this letter
7 I was writing, I hire some Romanian translator in
8 Colorado Springs to do that, because I got a
9 telephone call from Moldova, from anti-corruption
10 department, Mr Lilian Pintia, he called me and he
11 asked me to contact US Embassy to write the letter,
12 and themselves, I mean the anti-corruption and US
13 Embassy, those guys were trying to resolve the
14 problem, you know, the criminal problem --
15 MR WELLS: Do you speak Romanian?
16 MR GROT: No.
17 MR WELLS: Who wrote it?
18 MR GROT: The guy who does translation,
19 I did in my language and we translated to -- the
20 Romanian guy, he did writing. I was dictating him,
21 do this, do this, do that, so when he accomplished
22 the Romanian language, then we translated to
23 English, and the Romanian was sent to those three
24 people.
25 MR WELLS: But to be clear, you could not
[Page 193]
14:57
1 locate the original version of this?
2 MR GROT: No.
3 MR WELLS: In response to Mr Grot's
4 testimony, the Claimants would request that this
5 exhibit be admitted into evidence, after
6 authentication.
7 MR FORTIER: Mr Grot, you have explained
8 how the document actually saw the light of day. You
9 dictated in English to a Romanian translator.
10 MR GROT: Exactly.
11 MR FORTIER: The letter that is here in
12 our book, is that correct, that is before you?
13 MR GROT: Yes.
14 MR FORTIER: And that letter was
15 translated into Romanian?
16 MR GROT: Yes.
17 MR WELLS: The Claimants would request
18 again that this particular exhibit be admitted into
19 evidence.
20 THE PRESIDENT: Give us one minute. We
21 will confer.
22 (The Tribunal conferred off the record)
23 THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal's position is
24 that we are happy to allow this to be admitted into
25 evidence, but we express no view as to its weight or
[Page 194]
14:59
1 authority or probative value, but subject to that,
2 it is admitted into evidence.
3 MR WELLS: Thank you, Mr President.
4 Mr Grot, with the ten minutes or so that
5 we have remaining in your direct examination,
6 I would like to have questions related to REX-3, the
7 expert report on damages from Mr Michael Peer.
8 Mr Peer's report refers to certain profits
9 obtained by Laguardia in Stefan Voda district, where
10 Laguardia first began farming in Moldova. To be
11 clear, could you just clarify, when was it that
12 Laguardia first entered Moldova? What year? In the
13 Stefan Voda district?
14 MR GROT: 2008.
15 MR WELLS: After that first year you
16 engaged in farming operations. How successful were
17 you with the operations in Stefan Voda?
18 MR GROT: I was happy, and there was, you
19 know, nice profit for this kind of investment. It
20 was only 250 ha, and in the similar situation as
21 Floresti, the land was unused for 5 or 6 years,
22 prior to my investment
23 MR WELLS: The Respondent has requested
24 that the Tribunal make what is called a negative
25 inference for the fact that especially regarding
[Page 195]
15:01
1 Laguardia's ability to make a profit in Stefan Voda,
2 and that can be found on page 31 of the Rejoinder.
3 What type of contracts did Laguardia enter into to
4 perform farming in Stefan Voda?
5 MR GROT: I sign a contract, a lease
6 contract, for one season for 250 ha.
7 MR WELLS: We have heard a lot about
8 leases, over 1,500 leases. How many leases were in
9 Stefan Voda?
10 MR GROT: One.
11 MR WELLS: Did you make an attempt to
12 locate that one lease?
13 MR GROT: Yes.
14 MR WELLS: What happened? Could you find
15 it?
16 MR GROT: Mr Wells, you know, seven years
17 ago if I had knowledge I will go to court, I will
18 hire a person to hold those documents. We
19 transferred from one place to another place,
20 impossible to find
21 MR WELLS: Who looked for that lease?
22 MR GROT: Well, we checked, because the
23 lease is supposed to be in the CPA office, the
24 bookkeeper's office, and she said she does not have
25 it there.
[Page 196]
15:02
1 MR WELLS: And she could not locate it?
2 MR GROT: No.
3 MR WELLS: You have referred to this lease
4 as a servicing contract in your witness statement
5 and pleadings. Since it is missing, can you
6 describe the terms of the contract? The basic
7 terms?
8 MR GROT: The basic terms is I am taking
9 land for one year and I am paying a return for the
10 lease. I remember I think we pay like 8,000 USD for
11 the 250 ha for one farming season.
12 MR WELLS: Moving on to the next question
13 relating to Mr Peer's expert report, the report
14 incorporates, as we heard earlier in the opening
15 statements, what is called "average yields" as part
16 of the calculation. I would like to talk about the
17 differences between Laguardia's approach to farming
18 in comparison to normal Moldovan farming. How did
19 your equipment compare?
20 MR GROT: Prior to my investment in
21 Moldova, there were some modern farms in Moldova.
22 On average, small farms, because there was 50 ha, 70
23 ha, 30 ha. There was old from the other system,
24 I mean the communist system, farm equipment, which
25 was old equipment, so you can't compete. This is
[Page 197]
15:04
1 apple and orange different.
2 MR WELLS: What about your use of
3 fertilizers?
4 MR GROT: We use a technology. In my
5 business in Poland I use some professor from a
6 Polish university to help me figure the right
7 technology for the right culture. I was trying to
8 use my data, my information, from my experience
9 here, you know, in Moldova, to use a proper amount
10 of fertilizers per hectare, to use a chemical
11 treatment, so actually I was doing western
12 technology in farming.
13 MR WELLS: And that was different from
14 what was normal?
15 MR GROT: Definitely. There were even
16 jokes at that time, everything in Moldova is organic
17 because there are no fertilizers, no chemicals --
18 which is good for customers, this is good, healthy
19 food -- but you cannot yield a high result.
20 MR WELLS: Can you give a more specific
21 example, like something like ploughing differences?
22 MR GROT: Our technology, for example, no
23 plough technology, which some people do it like this
24 today in Moldova, no plough, which means using,
25 instead of ploughing the land and making even, you
[Page 198]
15:05
1 go straight with the planter, so actually there is
2 some kind of disc, which is like knives, cutting the
3 groove and placing the seed, so modern technology is
4 very important, you know? Because, for example, to
5 seed a winter wheat, each seed must be in a certain
6 depth in the soil, so our technology allowed us to
7 plant every single seed on the same level. The old
8 technology, one seed is 7cms, one is 3cms, one is on
9 top, so this is the type of difference in
10 technology.
11 MR WELLS: Getting back to Mr Peer's
12 report again, and what we saw earlier, references in
13 the opening to negative profits, all four years were
14 addressed in the report, if Laguardia had
15 experienced high costs and low yields in such a way
16 that it resulted in negative profits, or no profits
17 rather, is that something that your business could
18 easily have adjusted? What could you have done?
19 MR GROT: Definitely, right away, to fix
20 that because you could switch culture and some other
21 stuff. But, you know, how could you survive four
22 years with no profits, right?
23 MR WELLS: Thank you. Another thing that
24 is addressed in Mr Peer's report is reference to
25 business divisions involved in Laguardia's farming
[Page 199]
15:07
1 operation. That is at section 3.3 of the report,
2 starting at page 9. Did Laguardia have different
3 business divisions?
4 THE PRESIDENT: I can allow Mr Grot to
5 answer this question, but we are out of time at that
6 point. Pleas do answer that question, Mr Grot.
7 Take as long as you need to answer.
8 MR GROT: You asked me about other?
9 MR WELLS: So the question relates to --
10 Mr Peer's report refers to different business
11 divisions that Laguardia had.
12 MR GROT: No, this is untrue.
13 MR WELLS: So what was Laguardia's
14 business?
15 MR GROT: Farming.
16 MR WELLS: What exactly does that
17 constitute? Presumably what we just talked about,
18 growing crops, but anything else?
19 MR GROT: Growing crops. At this stage of
20 business the plan was to grow a crop.
21 MR WELLS: Nothing else, such as selling
22 equipment?
23 MR GROT: No, absolutely not.
24 MR WELLS: Thank you. No further
25 questions.
[Page 200]
15:08
1 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: One very technical
2 question. I am sure it is easy to answer.
3 In your first witness statement,
4 paragraph 24, you say that you went back to the
5 United States in December 2011, but I am sure it is
6 2010. Is that correct? Did you mean 2010? That is
7 a typo?
8 MR GROT: Yes, I went back home for
9 Christmas.
10 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: In 2010?
11 MR GROT: 2010.
12 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Not in 2011?
13 MR GROT: Well, I went back in 2011.
14 Every winter, after season.
15 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: You say here
16 in December 2011. What do you mean by that? Did
17 you mean December 2010 or 2011? You say now 2011.
18 MR GROT: No. I said, your Honour, I went
19 back to the United States every end of December for
20 Christmas, 2010, 2011, 2012.
21 THE PRESIDENT: I think I can clarify.
22 You say here, "with the leases signed and initial
23 operations frozen for winter, in late December 2011
24 I travelled back to the United States". We think
25 you probably meant to write "December 2010"?
[Page 201]
15:11
1 MR GROT: Yes.
2 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: The other question
3 that I have before we start cross-examination is
4 I want to come back to this lease contract in
5 Stefan Voda. You said there was only one landowner.
6 Was that a private landowner?
7 MR GROT: It looks like one owner of the
8 land, yes.
9 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: If you say there was
10 only one
11 MR GROT: Only one, definitely. I do not
12 know if he was subleasing or this was his land, I do
13 not know.
14 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Did you have this
15 lease registered with the mayor's office in
16 Stefan Voda?
17 MR GROT: No, your Honour. This piece of
18 land was in a different country, we could say that.
19 Pridnestrovie Nistria. So this was on the border.
20 There was Stefan Voda and part of the land was the
21 other side. It is like an independent country, I
22 don't know how to figure that Nistria area with
23 Tiraspol. The landowner took care of that. He took
24 the lease, I paid the money and there was no issue
25 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: But you did not bother
[Page 202]
15:12
1 to have it registered for the validity of this lease
2 contract? You simply concluded a private contract
3 and you worked this land.
4 MR GROT: Yes.
5 PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you.
6 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Kopecky?
8 MR KOPECKY: Good afternoon, Mr Grot.
9 Welcome to Vienna and welcome to our office. My
10 name is Leon Kopecky and, as you know, I repeat the
11 Republic of Moldova in these proceedings. If I may
12 I will ask you a few questions with regard to your
13 witness statements.
14 We have already established that the
15 signatures on your witness statements were indeed
16 yours. I would like to take you to exhibit C-125,
17 which will appear on the screen. Looking at the
18 original, at the bottom of those pages, every page
19 is signed, but whether that is your signature?
20 MR GROT: This is my signature?
21 MR KOPECKY: Mr Grot, as you certainly
22 know, these proceedings relate to your investment in
23 Moldova and in particular the farming operations you
24 sought to establish in Floresti. Your idea was to
25 industrially farm land in three villages in Floresti
[Page 203]
15:16
1 District.
2 MR GROT: Yes.
3 MR KOPECKY: And to farm that land you had
4 to lease that land. Am I right?
5 MR GROT: Yes.
6 MR KOPECKY: So the leases were the very
7 core of your investment?
8 MR GROT: Yes.
9 MR KOPECKY: And you planned to lease
10 about 3000 ha?
11 MR GROT: Yes.
12 MR KOPECKY: That is how much all those
13 leases together would have covered?
14 MR GROT: Yes.
15 MR KOPECKY: Industrial farming of large
16 plots is, as we heard, more profitable than farming
17 small fields. Is that right?
18 MR GROT: Yes.
19 MR KOPECKY: So it is important that the
20 field that you are farming is one connected plot,
21 rather than many small ones Is that correct?
22 MR GROT: Yes.
23 MR KOPECKY: Mr Grot, when you worked in
24 Stefan Voda, which for the record is not in
25 Transnistria but it is indeed on the border, you met
[Page 204]
15:17
1 Mr Igor Bugai. Is that right?
2 MR GROT: Yes.
3 MR KOPECKY: Is Mr Bugai also a farmer?
4 MR GROT: No.
5 MR KOPECKY: Mr Bugai speaks Polish?
6 MR GROT: Yes.
7 MR KOPECKY: He invited you to Floresti to
8 look at some farmland?
9 MR GROT: No.
10 MR KOPECKY: He didn't invite you?
11 MR GROT: Do I have a chance to explain
12 how this happened?
13 MR KOPECKY: Go ahead.
14 MR GROT: When I met Mr Bugai we exchanged
15 telephone numbers. He went back home. I went back
16 to work. The conclusion of our meeting was "we will
17 be in touch". And then one day I don't remember,
18 I called him or he called me, and let's go for a
19 meeting, so we met together and he said, "Ziggy",
20 because I share my thoughts with him, and herein
21 Stefan Voda it is a difficult time, there is not
22 enough land for expansion for us, and he said,
23 "Ziggy, I have a friend in Floresti, he is
24 Vice-President of the Floresti region", and he said
25 "I spoke with Mr Rusu and there is a vacant land.
[Page 205]
15:18
1 They are looking for a farmer to lease the land",
2 because the structure of Moldova, after the system
3 collapsed, Mr Kopecky, I try to help you because
4 I was there for four years. I want to assure you
5 that the old pieces, old villages which we took as a
6 lease, this is one huge piece, because this is old
7 farm cohorts. Under the Soviet Union there was
8 government-owned farms, so when the system collapsed
9 they cut only on paper -- okay, they issue title to
10 you, 2 ha, 2 ha, 2 ha, 2 ha, so there are 500 owners
11 but still one piece of land, so I don't have to jump
12 over one piece to get to another piece. This was a
13 huge, huge farm.
14 So Mr Bugai, he arranged a meeting with
15 Mr Rusu. We travelled together to Floresti and we
16 spoke with Mr Rusu, and, you know, he hugged me like
17 that. He said, "Ziggy, you are from Heaven. There
18 are three years unused land. The people wait for
19 the bread". So actually the payment for the lease
20 every year is 300-kilo of wheat, 100-kilo of
21 sunflower, 50 or 80-kilo of corn. The people, they
22 raise their chickens, milk cows, so they are waiting
23 for the payment, but for three years none, zero.
24 Then I am in the picture and Mr Rusu is
25 telling me, "Hey, next year, in May, there is an
[Page 206]
15:20
1 election in Moldova". For us it would be great to
2 prove to people: hey we, the administration of the
3 region, were doing stuff, the land is occupied,
4 income is coming, so Mr Kopecky, from your
5 statement, I took this, I went there, I was crying
6 "Give me the land, please". I was fighting. No.
7 It is the opposite way. The people, local politics,
8 they need me and they invited me there, so let's
9 start from this point.
10 This is nothing, you know, like I was hey,
11 I want a big business here, you know, so I move to
12 Floresti from Stefan Voda, and there is opportunity,
13 there is vacant land, but if we take a lease and we
14 started our farming, so there was no competition,
15 zero, none.
16 MR KOPECKY: Thank you. Going back to
17 Mr Bugai, because I want to understand the
18 relationship, Mr Alexei Bugai is the son of
19 Mr Igor Bugai?
20 MR GROT: Yes.
21 MR KOPECKY: You engaged this Alexei as
22 administrator of Laguardia?
23 MR GROT: Yes.
24 MR KOPECKY: In your first witness
25 statement you say that you, Mr Grot, was the man
[Page 207]
15:22
1 running the operation. Is that correct?
2 MR GROT: Yes.
3 MR KOPECKY: That means that you were also
4 responsible for signing and registering the many
5 leases that we just discussed?
6 MR GROT: Before I answer this I want to
7 clarify some stuff which I think will be helpful for
8 all. I hired Mr Bugai as an administrator.
9 Actually, I was doing the work, but at that time
10 I applied for legal residency in Moldova and
11 actually I can't be as a legal administrator on
12 paper. The prior administrator, I discovered, in
13 the CPA office was stealing money from the accounts,
14 so I was desperate to switch the person who is
15 controlling the account. I think this was
16 unpleasant for some people from Moldova. He was
17 stealing my administrators, so this was the reason
18 why I switched to Mr Bugai.
19 Later on I took responsibility -- I mean,
20 they place me, Mr Levintsa, as administrator, when
21 I received what I call the green card in Moldova.
22 So this was legal for me to be administrator.
23 MR KOPECKY: I understand the
24 administrator now. I want to understand the
25 registering of the leases, because if you were the
[Page 208]
15:24
1 man running the operation, I wonder what was
2 Mr Bugai's role, because Mr Bugai says that he was
3 responsible?
4 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, to sign at that time
5 any documents you have to be, there are two persons:
6 administrator or a CPA. I can't sign at that time
7 in a legal way. I don't know why the law is like
8 that. I don't know if this is against the law.
9 I was told I can't sign this document
10 MR KOPECKY: But you testified that you
11 did sign some of the documents?
12 MR GROT: I did sign, yes.
13 MR KOPECKY: Because it was so complicated
14 and specific under law, you entrusted Mr Bugai, and
15 at that time you deemed him to be a competent
16 administrator?
17 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, before I answer this
18 I try to help you more. This is not a situation
19 like I am coming to this store and I am asking give
20 me one kilo of apples. I am meeting the people in
21 villages, people farming, the landowners.
22 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Grot, I do not want to
23 interrupt you unduly, but we are under some
24 constraints of time and I think it would be helpful,
25 we want to make sure you have a chance to say
[Page 209]
15:25
1 everything you want to say, but if you could answer
2 the questions as briefly as possible otherwise we
3 will get into difficulty of time, and I think it is
4 only fair to you and to the Respondent to make sure
5 questions go shortly and answers go shortly.
6 MR GROT: Your Honour, I have a question
7 to you. When would be my time? Because I think
8 this is very important for you to make
9 THE PRESIDENT: We have had a statement
10 from you. We may well have questions for you and
11 that will be an occasion, but if you could keep your
12 answers to Mr Kopecky short and tight, thank you.
13 MR KOPECKY: Thank you. I wonder, did
14 Mr Bugai exercise his responsibilities diligently?
15 Or, to put it more simply, did Mr Bugai do a good
16 job?
17 MR GROT: I could say yes. I was happy
18 with that.
19 MR KOPECKY: Are all the leases signed on
20 behalf of Laguardia?
21 MR GROT: I think this is a difficult
22 question. We are talking about 1300 leases, and you
23 ask me, well, you want to show me unsigned, so
24 I could prove, yes, this is unsigned. I thought
25 everything was signed to my knowledge
[Page 210]
15:26
1 in December 2010 when I left back home for
2 Christmas.
3 MR KOPECKY: It is because you say in your
4 first statement that Mr Bugai signed all the leases
5 MR GROT: If I signed this, it does mean
6 I said that.
7 MR KOPECKY: But can we agree that many
8 leases were not signed on behalf of Laguardia?
9 MR GROT: Well, if you prove, if you show
10 me unsigned leases, yes, I could say that
11 MR KOPECKY: Then let's have a look at
12 exhibit R-17. Is this lease signed on behalf of
13 Laguardia?
14 MR GROT: No, it is not signed, no.
15 MR KOPECKY: Let's have a look at R-20.
16 MR GROT: No.
17 MR KOPECKY: Let's have a look at R-21.
18 MR GROT: You could see in this case, this
19 is a simple thing. Sometimes people were forgetting
20 to do things. He places a stamp and he forgot to
21 sign. So you got a seal, right? So an accident.
22 During the business sometimes you get two pieces
23 together. If this is the point -- I mean, there was
24 no problem with leases, Mr Kopecky, until the leases
25 were deleted and Bio-Alianta was registered. So
[Page 211]
15:28
1 then is arrival of a problem and from this point you
2 are leading the case. But there was no problem.
3 I left to the United States for Christmas, beautiful
4 Christmas in Colorado. In 2010 I was happy,
5 everything was going in a perfect direction and
6 I was waiting to return in spring to continue my
7 business.
8 MR KOPECKY: But we agree that those
9 leases and others were not signed?
10 MR GROT: Yes.
11 MR KOPECKY: And those that were signed
12 were not all signed by the administrator,
13 Alexei Bugai. As you say in your witness statement,
14 no.2, paragraph 5, the leases were signed by one of
15 four persons, which was, either yourself, Mr Bugai,
16 Mr Tugui or Mr Kozak, and not the one we have in the
17 room, another one. Did all these people sign as
18 Mr Administrator Alexei Bugai?
19 MR GROT: At that time every person --
20 Bugai, Tugui and Kozak -- those guys were in
21 possession of a power of attorney from Laguardia to
22 represent the interests of Laguardia.
23 MR KOPECKY: I see, and that was approved
24 because those leases still had the stamp of
25 Laguardia? The leases had a stamp? The round stamp
[Page 212]
15:30
1 of Laguardia.
2 MR GROT: Yes.
3 MR KOPECKY: If I could take you to
4 exhibit R-18, can we agree that the stamp does not
5 have a sign of Laguardia?
6 MR GROT: Yes.
7 MR KOPECKY: So, sir, would it be fair to
8 say that not all steps in the process were free of
9 mistakes?
10 MR GROT: Well, that would be speculation,
11 but I could say that all leases were registered, so
12 let's say in the process of registration, the person
13 who registered the lease, you know, like I register
14 a car in Colorado, I have to pay the fee. I pay the
15 fee to register.
16 MR KOPECKY: Yes, Mr Grot, but if you buy
17 the car you do not buy it off the authority, you buy
18 it off the dealer. I am asking about the lease with
19 the villager.
20 MR GROT: The fee, the person who
21 registers, the Mayor City Hall, you could say that,
22 he checks all the leases before they register,
23 right, so probably the question is more proper to
24 the mayor of the village, or cadastral engineer, not
25 to me.
[Page 213]
15:31
1 MR KOPECKY: It was their responsibility?
2 MR GROT: No, not responsibility. When
3 I went to Floresti, villagers, landowners, mayors,
4 head of region, they actually -- at the first stage
5 there was a handshaking agreement. They said,
6 "Ziggy, after meeting, we are so happy, go to work
7 and we will start a process, preparation. All
8 leases, we will help you". So not like I came to
9 Floresti and I was running, like you showed me the
10 picture, run from one person. Remember the thing,
11 there are 350 people, landowners. These people are
12 very poor people and I am not sure if this will be
13 offensive -- this is very, like farmers
14 I apologise if I use the term "primitive", but let's
15 say in a village like that everything which is said
16 by the mayor is done. If the mayor said: "Hey
17 guys, sign those leases", it is done. So this is
18 the kind of organisation, not like I was running
19 from one place to another to another.
20 MR KOPECKY: That was Mr Bugai, right?
21 That was his job?
22 MR GROT: Yes.
23 MR KOPECKY: But we see that he made
24 mistakes, so it seems he was not really as diligent.
25 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, if this will make
[Page 214]
15:33
1 you happy, I will say yes, he made mistakes. As a
2 human, we are making mistakes.
3 MR KOPECKY: I agree. We all do.
4 MR GROT: Yes.
5 MR KOPECKY: So, moving on, Mr Grot, and
6 I am about halfway through
7 MR GROT: That is nice!
8 MR KOPECKY: We already had that statement
9 where you said in your second witness statement,
10 "the leases would have been signed either by
11 Mr Alexei Bugai, Mr Ion Tugui, myself or
12 Mr Darek Kozak". (Paragraph 5, second witness
13 statement). You also say it has been a long time
14 since those events occurred
15 MR GROT: Almost ten years.
16 MR KOPECKY: Indeed. You say you cannot
17 exactly remember who signed which lease when. After
18 ten years I do understand that.
19 MR GROT: Yes.
20 MR KOPECKY: You would have known at that
21 time, ten years ago you would have known who signed
22 which lease?
23 MR GROT: Probably, yes. At that time,
24 yes.
25 MR KOPECKY: If I can take you to exhibit
[Page 215]
15:34
1 C-125, we are going to look at the English
2 translation this time, pg.4, of the original
3 translation. You testified at this hearing as a
4 representative of Laguardia SRL, Z Grot? Take all
5 the time you need.
6 MR GROT: What is the question?
7 MR KOPECKY: The question is if you
8 testified at this hearing as a representative of
9 Laguardia?
10 MR GROT: When this hearing took place?
11 MR KOPECKY: 7 and 8 April 2011, so about
12 a month after the dispositions
13 MR GROT: Yes.
14 MR KOPECKY: You testified at the hearing
15 as a representative of Laguardia.
16 MR GROT: Yes.
17 MR KOPECKY: If we turn to page 3 of the
18 document, page 7 of the transcript, when you were
19 asked, you said "all the contracts were signed by
20 me". Is that correct?
21 MR GROT: Yes.
22 MR KOPECKY: So at the time you remembered
23 that you personally signed those leases?
24 MR GROT: Okay. Remember one thing: we
25 are in Moldova 2010, right?
[Page 216]
15:37
1 MR KOPECKY: 11, but yes, at that time.
2 MR GROT: I got a lawyer, Mr Garmas, he
3 speaks Russian, and there is translator to Romanian.
4 My Russian is not perfect so I don't remember,
5 Mr Kopecky, what is that
6 MR KOPECKY: We can look at the Romanian
7 original.
8 MR GROT: Okay, but we do not have my
9 actual voice with Mr Garmas' conversation in
10 Russian, right, we don't?
11 MR KOPECKY: But I understand that you too
12 rely and your lawyers rely on cotemporaneous court
13 documents and emphasise how important it is what is
14 said in court. When you sign something
15 MR GROT: If I said so, if I signed, yes.
16 So it could happen.
17 MR KOPECKY: May I now take you to exhibit
18 C-27, which are the leases that Laguardia signed in
19 Cosernita? If we look at the signature page of the
20 first lease, is that your signature?
21 MR GROT: No.
22 MR KOPECKY: If we move to page 4 which is
23 the signature page of the second lease, exhibit
24 C-27, is that your signature?
25 MR GROT: No.
[Page 217]
15:38
1 MR KOPECKY: If I ask you to confirm that
2 also the next few signatures resembling the first
3 two are not yours, you could confirm that none of
4 those signatures under the respective signature page
5 of those leases are yours?
6 MR GROT: No, these are not mine.
7 MR KOPECKY: So most of the leases were
8 not signed by you?
9 MR GROT: I saw three leases.
10 MR KOPECKY: Shall we go on?
11 MR GROT: Up to you. No, if this is not
12 signed, it is not signed, but what is the point? He
13 is a representative of Laguardia.
14 MR KOPECKY: Yes, of course, but you told
15 the court and signed the minutes --
16 MR GROT: I don't remember what I said.
17 I spoke with a Russian lawyer. My Russian is 50/50,
18 and I can't remember ten years ago what Garmas
19 lawyer asked me, what I responded, what was
20 translated. Maybe this is a mistake because I don't
21 want to mislead people. So I don't know. I don't
22 remember this moment when I said yes, I did sign all
23 leases. This is ten years ago. Like I said, there
24 was three people to the judge, there was four
25 people: Ziggy Grot, Mr Garmas, translator and the
[Page 218]
15:40
1 judge, and the person who filed the report, five
2 people involved to produce your statement. So I
3 don't know. My answer is I don't know.
4 MR KOPECKY: Mr Grot, you are not a
5 lawyer, are you?
6 MR GROT: No, I am not a lawyer.
7 MR KOPECKY: Have you studied Moldovan
8 law?
9 MR GROT: No.
10 MR KOPECKY: To set up your investment you
11 hired an attorney, Mr Victor Levintsa.
12 MR GROT: Yes.
13 MR KOPECKY: And he specialises in
14 investments like yours in Moldova
15 MR GROT: He was recommended to me in
16 Warsaw, Poland. He speaks English and so this is
17 one of the reasons why I chose Mr Levintsa
18 MR KOPECKY: He also handled the leases in
19 Floresti, correct?
20 MR GROT: No.
21 MR KOPECKY: Mr Grot, in your second
22 statement, paragraph 6 --
23 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, I want to help you
24 right now. As you know, my language, English, is
25 not perfect. Maybe there is a misunderstanding
[Page 219]
15:41
1 between us, even lawyer maybe, I did say something,
2 but you are asking me who physically took the leases
3 from Cosernita to Floresti?
4 MR KOPECKY: No, I am asking you if
5 Mr Levintsa handled the leases in Floresti as you
6 testified.
7 MR GROT: Can you explain to me "handle"?
8 MR KOPECKY: If you can explain what you
9 see on the screen. "Mr Levintsa handled the import
10 of equipment, corporate matters for ICS Laguardia
11 SRL, the leases in Floresti ... He is experienced in
12 all kinds of commercial matters". I ask you what
13 you meant by "handle".
14 MR GROT: Let me explain. I don't
15 remember where we got examples of Moldovan lease
16 I went to Mr Levintsa, he checked the lease and he
17 said, "Yes, this is the lease which we are supposed
18 to use", and I went to a print shop, I ordered 5000
19 copies and period. This is the Levintsa part. He
20 reviewed the lease, if this is a proper lease for
21 this kind of business, so this is his involvement.
22 Maybe my language is not perfect, but this is what
23 I mean.
24 MR KOPECKY: Because if I look at that,
25 you say that, "Mr Levintsa handled this entire
[Page 220]
15:42
1 process of setting up the investment", right?
2 "Laguardia's attorney during this entire process of
3 setting up the investment was Mr Victor Levintsa'.
4 But he was not the one who represented you in the
5 local court. That was Mr Garmas, correct?
6 MR GROT: Yes.
7 MR KOPECKY: Because you wanted a
8 litigation attorney for that
9 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, I think this is an
10 excellent time to inform the Tribunal why I chose
11 Mr Garmas. I went to Chisinau, I went to
12 Mr Nagacevschi. I think the first three lawyers in
13 Moldova, Nagacevschi name, I was interested to hire
14 him. He was recommended by some person and in two
15 days he called me, "Ziggy, I apologise, I can't take
16 this case". Victor Levintsa -- maybe this would be
17 funny, I don't know why -- he said, "Ziggy, this is
18 130 kilometres, I don't want to drive there". So
19 later on I discovered there were a lot of people
20 when they heard Bio-Alianta they turred back. They
21 turned back because they're a smelly thing.
22 MR KOPECKY: When you found Mr Garmas to
23 deal with the dispositions, his advice was to first
24 focus on the injunctions that had been issued
25 against Laguardia, correct?
[Page 221]
15:44
1 MR GROT: Yes.
2 MR KOPECKY: And you trusted his advice?
3 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, I wish that time
4 I could hire you. You are a lawyer in Moldova, so
5 you could help me. You could save my life. I hired
6 Mr Garmas, yes, because there was no choice for me.
7 MR KOPECKY: I would have been useless.
8 I don't speak any Romanian.
9 MR GROT: But according to your knowledge,
10 what is Ziggy supposed to do? Today from the ten
11 years, you know, at that time I needed a good lawyer
12 there, but there was a strange situation.
13 MR KOPECKY: Moving back to the
14 agriculture, you said that you wanted to lease about
15 3000 ha, and for that you needed about 1,000 leases.
16 MR GROT: Everything between the villages
17 there was about a thousand.
18 MR KOPECKY: I am not quite sure but there
19 were four digits.
20 MR GROT: That is okay.
21 MR KOPECKY: To fill out the leases you
22 needed the data on the landowners and the plots,
23 correct?
24 MR GROT: Yes.
25 MR KOPECKY: Cadastral agents have access
[Page 222]
15:45
1 to that data, right?
2 MR GROT: Yes.
3 MR KOPECKY: So you asked them to help you
4 fill out the leases?
5 MR GROT: During the meeting with
6 villagers and mayor and the director of the Floresti
7 region, I remember exactly that day in Varvareuca
8 Mr Zelenenco I met the head of the region for the
9 first time, and I asked even, "Who is this guy?"
10 "Oh, this is the head of the region of Floresti".
11 He assured me, "Ziggy, we need you here. We will
12 try to do our best to help you", so actually the
13 people from the office, from Zelenenco and Rusu,
14 they asked each village to help because, you are
15 right, the data is there. So we brought the leases,
16 copies -- and this is not my request, Mr Kopecky,
17 I was not looking for a favour -- this is the head
18 of the region directed the guy: "Hey, listen, this
19 guy is going to plough the land to produce bread and
20 you must help them to prepare thať". So this is the
21 scenario. I have never been to the cadastral office
22 and asked, "Hey, listen, can you?" No.
23 MR KOPECKY: But you say you paid them a
24 small fee for the service of about six lei per
25 lease, correct?
[Page 223]
15:47
1 MR GROT: This is on the record. I don't
2 know how much is the fee, if this was six lei.
3 Because, like I said, if we register a car, there is
4 a registration fee. If we register a lease, there
5 is a registration fee. Lease: registration fee. So
6 we received the invoice from the village, from the
7 mayor, and we wire-transfer the money for the
8 registration leases.
9 MR KOPECKY: So the money was paid only
10 for the registration?
11 MR GROT: For registration of those
12 leases.
13 MR KOPECKY: Because if we look at
14 paragraph 14 of your first witness statement, you
15 say that, "the cadastral agents were paid a small
16 fee of about six lei per lease for this service" and
17 the registration fee was also paid for each lease.
18 MR GROT: I don't know what this means,
19 but I remember I was not so enthusiastic to spend a
20 lot of money, so we paid I think six lei per lease.
21 So I don't know, maybe I mislead, or I did some
22 improper term to my lawyer, and this is the result
23 of that, but I remember exactly, we paid that
24 registration fee. Period.
25 MR KOPECKY: So they did the filling out
[Page 224]
15:49
1 of over 1000 leases for you for free?
2 MR GROT: There is nothing free. I was
3 working on the field.
4 MR KOPECKY: No. I am speaking about the
5 cadastral agents, because they imported a lot of
6 data into a thousand leases
7 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, I don't know. Maybe
8 we are supposed to ask the mayor how this happened,
9 but they tried to help me. They tried to bring me
10 there because they need me, so I don't know. How
11 about if people are doing favours to others, I don't
12 know, so everything must be paid. They ask me to
13 take the land to produce bread because people are
14 hungry.
15 MR KOPECKY: I understand, but they filled
16 out the leases. Did you supervise them while they
17 were doing it? Did Mr Bugai supervise them?
18 MR GROT: Yes. I mean, who supervised?
19 MR KOPECKY: They were filling out a
20 thousand-plus leases.
21 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, there was no need.
22 They call us when the leases were ready to sign
23 MR KOPECKY: Yes, but the leases have
24 mistakes, so I wonder if somebody checked if they
25 actually did a good job?
[Page 225]
15:50
1 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, I am not a lawyer,
2 and I think this is offensive to the intelligence of
3 these people. You are digging some stuff, leases,
4 leases. Listen, you know, at that time ten years
5 ago I was thinking how to plough the land, how to
6 seed the wheat, and you are trying to make a story
7 one signature or two signatures?
8 MR KOPECKY: A couple of hundred,
9 actually.
10 MR GROT: That is okay, but if you want to
11 ask me a nice question so I could help you, I could
12 give you some idea about what happened to Laguardia.
13 I know you are escaping from this issue
14 MR KOPECKY: I will try to ask nicer, but
15 I am doing my best
16 MR GROT: I know you get hired by people,
17 by Moldova, but I want to just remind you that time
18 when I was working in Moldova, the Prime Minister is
19 in the jail right now for nine years. The other guy
20 who was involved in Bio-Alianta, Mr Platon(?), is in
21 the jail.
22 MR KOPECKY: I will not be the last one
23 asking questions. After this will be what is called
24 a re-direct --
25 THE PRESIDENT: Why don't we proceed with
[Page 226]
15:51
1 the questions. You have been very helpful in giving
2 short, succinct answers. We very much appreciate
3 that. Carry on exactly as you have been doing.
4 MR KOPECKY: Coming back to the farming,
5 you wanted to launch quite a big operation. Is that
6 right?
7 MR GROT: At that time I used to own 500
8 ha in Poland, so my next step, because I was
9 successful in Poland, and it is impossible in Poland
10 to get more land so, yes. This is a normal thing.
11 Progress. You are growing, right?
12 MR KOPECKY: And you knew that the lives
13 of the people there relied on that farming?
14 MR GROT: Yes.
15 MR KOPECKY: Under your leases the
16 landowners were to be paid a certain fixed amount?
17 MR GROT: Yes.
18 MR KOPECKY: That fixed amount was owed
19 regardless of how good the harvest was.
20 MR GROT: You are right, yes.
21 MR KOPECKY: Am I right in assuming that
22 any efforts to increase the harvest would only
23 benefit Laguardia?
24 MR GROT: And landowners.
25 MR KOPECKY: How?
[Page 227]
15:52
1 MR GROT: Because they will receive the
2 payment.
3 MR KOPECKY: But they received that
4 nonetheless.
5 MR GROT: And village taxes, so it was a
6 three-way street.
7 MR KOPECKY: But the landowners received a
8 fixed amount, no matter if the land produced zero or
9 one hundred percent?
10 MR GROT: Hmm mm.
11 MR KOPECKY: Because you say in your first
12 witness statement that the mayors asked to you start
13 farming right away from the beginning.
14 MR GROT: Yes.
15 MR KOPECKY: And in your second witness
16 statement you say you were instructed by the
17 district president and Vice-President also to start
18 farming right away?
19 MR GROT: Yes.
20 MR KOPECKY: Did you get that in writing?
21 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, I don't know how to
22 answer. Listen, I am 65 years of age and I left
23 Poland under a communist system and I feel free.
24 I could say everything which I want to say it. What
25 was the point?
[Page 228]
15:53
1 THE PRESIDENT: Briefly.
2 MR KOPECKY: Did you receive the
3 instruction "please start farming" from the mayor or
4 the President in writing, or not?
5 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, maybe Zbigniew Grot
6 is naive. I am Christian. I believe in God. To me
7 a handshake means a lot. For western civilisation,
8 to us you could challenge in the court a handshaking
9 agreement. This is the United States of America.
10 At that time ten years ago Mr Rusu said, "Ziggy, you
11 are from the Heaven. We need you. Mr Zelenenco,
12 each villager -- Ziggy, bravo". So you are asking
13 me I was supposed to ask for a piece of paper,
14 right? No.
15 MR KOPECKY: I am trying to understand one
16 thing. The villagers and the politicians would not
17 have benefited from any extra harvest because they
18 were paid the same if you worked or not, if the
19 harvest was good or bad.
20 MR GROT: But what is the point?
21 THE PRESIDENT: Just to be clear,
22 presumably some of the villagers were involved in
23 the harvesting of the crop? Who did the harvesting
24 of the crop?
25 MR GROT: No. Bio-Alianta took
[Page 229]
15:55
1 everything.
2 THE PRESIDENT: But under your proposal?
3 MR GROT: No, everything will be cropped
4 by me, harvested by me.
5 THE PRESIDENT: But who would do actually
6 all of the work? You were going to do all of the
7 work personally?
8 MR GROT: Laguardia.
9 THE PRESIDENT: And you would not do any
10 of the work with any of the local inhabitants of the
11 villages?
12 MR GROT: We would hire some local people,
13 local farmers operating tractors and combines and
14 some other stuff, yes.
15 THE PRESIDENT: So is it the case that the
16 more successful the farm, the more you would hire
17 people?
18 MR GROT: Of course, because our dream was
19 to hire 50 local people to build a business on a
20 high scale.
21 MR KOPECKY: I would like to make
22 reference to a statement submitted by Mr Tugui. He
23 worked on establishing this project. He was your
24 right-hand man, Mr Tugui?
25 MR GROT: Yes.
[Page 230]
15:56
1 MR KOPECKY: And he also submitted a
2 witness statement in this arbitration?
3 MR GROT: Yes.
4 MR KOPECKY: Because he explains that
5 farming was started early because Laguardia, because
6 you were interested in processing the lands as soon
7 as possible?
8 THE PRESIDENT: Could you take us to the
9 paragraph and the witness statement, and could you
10 for the benefit of the witness put that paragraph on
11 the screen?
12 MR KOPECKY: Yes. It is paragraph 4, last
13 sentence.
14 "The work had to start immediately after
15 signing the contracts as we were interested in
16 processing the lands as soon as possible in order to
17 obtain a proper harvest".
18 MR GROT: So what is your question?
19 MR KOPECKY: Is that a correct
20 understanding of your business plan?
21 MR GROT: This is his statement.
22 MR KOPECKY: But is it correct? Did he
23 understand it correctly?
24 MR GROT: I am not going to agree with
25 that, because I remember exactly during the meetings
[Page 231]
15:57
1 each village mayor, they asked us to start as soon
2 as possible. Remember, this is the end of August.
3 This is September, October, November, and winter, so
4 there is no time to play. To me I don't pay any
5 attention to details, who said what, if the mayor
6 asked me or the President lurie Leanca ask me.
7 I don't pay attention. I know one thing: next day
8 we get a tractor and start ploughing the land.
9 And by the way, Mr Kopecky, I would like
10 to let you know, Mr Tugui I used the term "my right
11 hand". I think this would be very important for
12 your Honours too. Mr Tugui was appointed to me by
13 Mr Rusu. Mr Rusu was at that time the
14 Vice-President of the Floresti region. Mr Rusu and
15 Mr Tugui, this is a member of the PLMD Party, which
16 head of the party at that time was Mr Vlad Filat,
17 Prime Minister, and there is a third guy, Mr Tapu,
18 he is a congressman, so today I am looking seven or
19 ten years back, so I am not sure if Mr Tugui was
20 helping me or he was against me, I don't know.
21 I left Moldova, and this is the truth, because the
22 story is rumours. They are talking a story --
23 THE PRESIDENT: Let's go back to
24 Mr Kopecky's questions.
25 MR KOPECKY: I only have one last issue,
[Page 232]
15:59
1 Rosietici. In Rosietici you did not pay the
2 landowners in December 2012, did you?
3 MR GROT: One second, please.
4 MR KOPECKY: All the time.
5 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, there was problem.
6 We asked for an extension and actually, in spring
7 2012, we approached people, we did an announcement
8 on the monitor, we invited people to be paid. There
9 was delay, you are right, absolutely, but some
10 people took the payment and they returned it back.
11 MR KOPECKY: I understand, but I am
12 talking about December 2012 when you did not pay.
13 If I may take you to exhibit C-60a, I understand
14 that these people you did not pay included 119
15 pensioners who had no other source of income. We
16 will come to this exhibit. It is C-60a.
17 MR GROT: This is 2011?
18 MR KOPECKY: December 2012. If I can take
19 you to C-72a, which is dated August 2013, that is a
20 decision on the outstanding payment in Rosietici.
21 If we scroll through it, we see that the amounts are
22 in the region of 400 to 4000 lei
23 MR GROT: Hmmmm.
24 MR KOPECKY: And that would be about 25 to
25 250 USD per landowner.
[Page 233]
16:01
1 MR GROT: Yes.
2 MR KOPECKY: You offered to make those
3 payments several months later.
4 MR GROT: Yes.
5 MR KOPECKY: Did you offer interest?
6 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, 2012, December,
7 I escaped Moldova, I was scared to death, and there
8 was end of story. My dream was killed I wanted to
9 see my son, I wanted to see my family. Period.
10 Mr Utica, during the process in the court, he
11 informed me, "Ziggy, this is very powerful people.
12 Bio-Alianta. They could kill one person a year and
13
14 THE PRESIDENT: Could you answer the
15 question.
16 MR KOPECKY: I hate to interrupt but I
17 asked whether you offered these 119 pensioners and
18 the other people you owed money, whether you offered
19 them
20 MR GROT: I don't remember.
21 MR KOPECKY: Because if I take you to
22 exhibit C-67a, you offered rent payment for 2012.
23 It deals with rent payment but it does not mention
24 interest. This is your invitation to the landowners
25 to pay.
[Page 234]
16:02
1 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, everything which
2 happened after the end of December 2012, if
3 something happened in Moldova there was my
4 representative and there was no Grot any more.
5 There was no Zbigniew Grot.
6 MR KOPECKY: But my point is these
7 villagers had to bear the shortfall because you did
8 not pay them, and later when you offered to pay them
9 you didn't offer them interest, so they gave you a
10 short term loan effectively.
11 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, this land was unused
12 three years prior to when I took the land.
13 MR KOPECKY: I am talking about December
14 2012.
15 MR GROT: One more time. In 2012 I left
16 Moldova for good. I don't know what happened, if my
17 guy, the administrator offered them interest or not.
18 I don't know.
19 MR KOPECKY: But, Mr Grot, you could have
20 taken out a loan in December to pay those villagers
21 who had nothing else to live on.
22 MR GROT: So what do you want to hear from
23 me now?
24 MR KOPECKY: I want to hear whether you
25 considered it cheaper for them to finance your
[Page 235]
16:03
1 operations than actually taking out a loan
2 and paying your obligations under the contract?
3 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, at that time I was
4 not interest about Moldova, period.
5 MR KOPECKY: But you had a valid contract
6 with villagers who you failed to pay, so even if you
7 were not interested in them any more, you still had
8 to fulfil your --
9 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, when I went for a
10 meeting with Bio-Alianta --
11 MR KOPECKY: 119 pensioners. I understand
12 it was stressful, but I am talking about these
13 people in --
14 MR GROT: But this is connected together.
15 MR KOPECKY: But these people were waiting
16 for your money and you didn't give them any money.
17 MR GROT: Yes. There was delay. There
18 was delay on the payment, yes.
19 MR KOPECKY: Mr Grot, you claim that the
20 Republic of Moldova took from you three years of
21 farming for which you ask 14 million USD in this
22 arbitration, give or take?
23 MR GROT: Yes.
24 MR KOPECKY: If everything worked out the
25 way you planned, how much would one villager or the
[Page 236]
16:04
1 villagers in aggregate receive for leasing to you
2 their land?
3 MR GROT: They would receive the amount
4 which we agreed to pay and this is a Moldovan
5 standard. It is nothing like I was cheating on
6 people. This is standard. The people say, "I give
7 you my land, you have to pay me back, 100-kilo, 250
8 of corn". This is the landowners request.
9 MR KOPECKY: We can agree that what you
10 just mentioned is several orders of magnitude less
11 than 14 million USD.
12 MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, you could ask those
13 questions of our expert.
14 MR KOPECKY: We will.
15 MR GROT: I think you could save time in
16 this moment. I am not an expert. I am not a
17 lawyer.
18 MR KOPECKY: Thank you, Mr Grot. I have
19 no further questions. You have been extremely
20 helpful to us.
21 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Kopecky.
22 Thank you, Mr Grot. Mr Wells, do you have any
23 questions by way of re-direct on the matters
24 addressed by Mr Kopecky?
[Page 237]
16:06
1 MR WELLS: Thank you, Mr President.
2 Mr Grot, there was a lot of discussion during your
3 examination regarding words like, "we" or "you",
4 "us", or at one point there was discussion about you
5 as a representative for Laguardia. When you say
6 things in your witness statement like "I signed the
7 leases", are you referring to you personally, or do
8 you mean Laguardia signed?
9 MR GROT: Yes. This is my company. I.
10 MR WELLS: So would you say that the
11 confusion -- there seems to be a lot of confusion
12 over who signed which leases so when you said
13 things like "me", "we", that is not you personally,
14 it is the business?
15 MR GROT: Mr Wells, I think you are right,
16 but I would like to let you know that this is ten
17 years ago, no 1. No 2, I think there is in the file
18 information, for the last eight years I am taking
19 every day seven pills, some kind of medication,
20 which has side-effects. You are missing the point
21 I took medicine half an hour ago and I am asking
22 myself why did I do that? So there is some kind of
23 problem sometimes, you know. Time. Time.
24 MR WELLS: One of the other questions
25 I had or points I just raised was when you said that
[Page 238]
16:07
1 you acted as a representative of Laguardia, was that
2 being made in a technical legal sense or just in
3 general, you as an owner of Laguardia?
4 MR GROT: No. There was a situation,
5 I was travelling back to Poland, I was travelling
6 back to the United States, so we have to handle
7 stuff, you know. So we went to notary in Floresti
8 and I signed a power of attorney for Darek Kozak,
9 lon Tugui, so he was representing the interests of
10 Laguardia at that time.
11 MR WELLS: So some of these mistakes that
12 were discussed, also, are you aware of how many
13 mistakes were made?
14 MR GROT: No.
15 MR WELLS: In terms of the Rosietici rent
16 payments, why were they not paid?
17 MR GROT: To people.
18 MR WELLS: Which was one of the last
19 issues which were addressed, the Rosietici rent
20 payments. Why were they not paid?
21 MR GROT: This is related to other
22 business which was contracted with Moldova-Zahar.
23 We planted 500 ha or 400 ha of sugarbeet on the
24 land, and Moldova-Zahar -- actually our agreement
25 I was not ready to sign the lease because I said
[Page 239]
16:09
1 I am not ready, I don't have equipment for
2 sugarbeet, so Moldova-Zahar pressed on me. They
3 asked me, "Hey, we will help you. We will buy the
4 planters, we will buy sprayers", and later on it
5 never happened, so they signed with us contracts, so
6 they provided to us a service. They planted the
7 seeds and they sprayed the land, and everything was
8 delayed like three or four weeks. As a result of
9 that from 1000 hectares we were supposed to get a
10 crop like 30,000 metric tons. We got 3,000 --
11 THE PRESIDENT: Mr Wells asked you a
12 simple question: why were they not paid?
13 MR GROT: Because there was problem with
14 the crop.
15 MR WELLS: What were the terms of the
16 lease? When were you supposed to pay, and how?
17 MR GROT: Well, actually the end of year,
18 at the end of the season. I'm not sure, we have got
19 Professor Rusu and Mr Gladei, we could see what is
20 the flexibility on payment. What time, from where
21 to where.
22 MR WELLS: In general how did it work?
23 MR GROT: When you collected the crop, you
24 are selling the crop, you get money or you get the
25 physical item like sugar beets or wheat, so you are
[Page 240]
16:10
1 giving to people after the harvest.
2 MR WELLS: So there was a problem with the
3 harvest?
4 MR GROT: Yes.
5 MR WELLS: Professor Knieper asked you a
6 question earlier in your testimony about the
7 Stefan Voda lease. He asked about whether you
8 registered the lease. Are you aware of whether it
9 was required to be registered, that particular type
10 of lease?
11 MR GROT: I think the next witness,
12 Mr Beril, because he was in this region, you could
13 ask if this is required, because I was new in
14 Moldova and today, I know, I am supposed to go here,
15 there, ask, you know, but there was no need. I got
16 one contract for 250 and there is one guy telling me
17 "Hey, go ahead, do your job, pay for the lease".
18 And I got piece of paper and that was it. There was
19 no question.
20 MR WELLS: There was the discussion of the
21 six lei per lease payment. Was that a bribe?
22 MR GROT: What?
23 MR WELLS: Was that some kind of a bribe?
24 MR GROT: No, absolutely not.
25 MR WELLS: What was it for?
[Page 241]
16:12
MR GROT: This is for registration of those leases. I think this is Moldova law. You have to pay to register. They place the stamp. You have to pay to the mayor's office or a cadastral office.
MR WELLS: Based on what you know, that six lei per lease payment was required by law?
MR GROT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What are we looking at here?
MR WELLS: This is exhibit C-125, an exhibit which was used in part of the cross-examination by the Respondent's counsel. At the beginning of that cross-examination, Mr Grot, you were asked if the signature on the page, and I can't remember which page it was, was your signature. Do you see your signature on any of these pages?
MR GROT: No.
MR WELLS: I believe it was on here. There it is.
MR GROT: Yes.
MR WELLS: Do you understand what this document says?
MR GROT: No.
[Page 242]
16:15
MR WELLS: Do you know what language this is?
MR GROT: I have no idea.
MR WELLS: Mr Kopecky also showed you various leases which contained what he described as mistakes from Laguardia. How many of those leases did he actually show you?
MR GROT: Two or three.
MR WELLS: Beyond those leases which he actually showed you, would you say that there are on your knowledge more mistakes?
MR GROT: I don't know.
MR WELLS: Among the people who signed the leases, so that would be Mr Bugai, Mr Kozak, Mr Tugui, they all had authority?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR WELLS: These were your employees?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR WELLS: And they all had the authority to use the stamp of the company?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR WELLS: Just staying on the lease for one more minute, Mr Levintsa, your attorney, reviewed the template lease, and according to your testimony determined that it was a sufficient lease
[Page 243]
16:16
for agricultural leasing purposes
MR GROT: Yes.
MR WELLS: And that was the purpose of his engagement?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR WELLS: When the injunctions that were issued against your company in favour of Bio-Alianta were issued by the Floresti court, did you have knowledge of the dispositions that they used to obtain those injunctions?
MR GROT: No.
MR WELLS: So the mayor's office had not given you copies of those dispositions?
MR GROT: No. I remember this was probably summer, we went with Mr Tugui to the mayor's office, Cosernita, and we asked because we want to do some legal work and he was running from us, the mayor of the village. He was hiding.
MR WELLS: Because he still had not given you the decision?
MR GROT: Because we called and we said we need a copy.
MR WELLS: And he would not give you the copy?
MR GROT: No.
[Page 244]
16:17
MR WELLS: We can stop there. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Do my colleagues have any questions?
MR KOPECKY: Mr President, may I have two questions in re-cross?
THE PRESIDENT: Are they brief?
MR KOPECKY: Very.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
Further cross-examination by Respondent
MR KOPECKY: If I could ask my colleagues to pull up C-125, page 2 of the document, which is a translation, under the heading "PG1" it says, "The representative of Laguardia SRL, V Garmas, explains the Court". So, Mr Grot, you are represented by the attorney Garmas in this hearing.
MR GROT: I don't remember, but if this document proves that, this is true
MR KOPECKY: The second question I had is to your representation since when have you been the administrator of Laguardia SRL?
MR GROT: You would have to check the record. I don't remember.
MR KOPECKY: Could it be March 2011?
MR GROT: Mr Kopecky, if you are in possession of this information, share it with me.
[Page 245]
16:19
I don't remember it.
MR KOPECKY: I am not. That is why I am asking.
MR GROT: I don't remember.
MR KOPECKY: Thank you. That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Excellent. Which of my colleagues would like to go first?
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal
MR FORTIER: Mr Grot, in paragraph 7 of your second witness statement, CWS-12, you say in the middle of that paragraph, "It was very clear that somebody at a high level in the government had decided that Bio-Alianta would take over these lands".
I have two or three questions to ask you about that sentence but, before I do, could you tell the Tribunal what you know about Bio-Alianta? Who are they? What were they doing in Moldova? What did you learn about them at the time?
MR GROT: Your honour, this is a great question. Thank you for asking me. Bio-Alianta, there is one person, Mr Viroel, he is acting as the owner, but he is my knowledge, because I was there four years. Everything which happened to me, my opinion is he is only a face of some big people.
[Page 246]
16:21
Who is behind would be difficult to figure. Probably I thought, I asked my lawyers and I laughed, you know, and I don't know why we in the 21st century don't have the power or the instrument to do an investigation to ask Moldova, it is so simple to figure who is who, because your Honour, when I got the problem, beginning of the problem, I went to Causeni, which is near Stefan Voda, and I met the major of the Moldova customs, I met the guy before and we got some kind of friendly relation, so I went there and I was actually crying and I said: "Alexander, I have a problem here and there", and so he checked in the system, "I don't care if this is legal or illegal", and the customs file record Bio-Alianta brought to Moldova on 4/2010 a lot of farming equipment, tractors, combines, and on one end this receiver is Bio-Alianta and the sender to Moldova is an offshore company. So, common sense, I work all my life with my hands and if I have got a little bit of money invested I never established any offshore, so an offshore company was established by serious, serious people, and at the same time I would like to let you know, your Honour, during the meeting with Bio-Alianta I went there and I thought they would pay me my investment in the
[Page 247]
16:23
land when they took the land.
Your Honour, I don't know how to say that. I am 65 and I have got a son, I have got a baby, and Mr Viroel, he told me like that: "Be quiet. If you want to see your son, your family, be quiet, and even if you leave Moldova, we can find you there". Mr Kopecky asked me a lot of questions, and at this point I was done. I was done. I was thinking how to secure my investment, because I spent a lot of money and I escaped from Moldova.
If you ask me directly, your Honour, my knowledge, there are two people behind Bio-Alianta and Autotehnica. There is Mr Filat and Mr Platon(.) There is two people. This is my knowledge from speaking to people, doing some homework on the internet. One of these gentlemen is nine years in the jail time and the other one is 19.
MR FORTIER: You said in answer to a question from counsel for the Respondent that the Bio-Alianta were very powerful people. Do you remember that?
MR GROT: Yes. Your Honour, this was told by Bio-Alianta's lawyer to me on the steps of the court when we walked out from the court after the injunction decision. He spoke English to me and
[Page 248]
16:25
he said, "Ziggy, I am advising you not to fight. These are powerful people". At the same time, your Honour, I would like to let you know, Mr Utica, I don't know how he is related to US aid, actually my money as a taxpayer, we are helping Moldova, US aid. He is some kind of boss managing the US aid. So I asked lawyers in Moldova how could you get a job like that. Well, special connections. So I know, your Honour, it is difficult for us. I am 40 years in the United States. Our life is different. There it is different.
MR FORTIER: Why did you leave Moldova?
MR GROT: Why? I told you, your Honour, I wanted to see my son, and I want to raise my son, because at that time he was ten years of age.
MR FORTIER: What made you leave Moldova?
MR GROT: Leave Moldova and go back to the States?
MR FORTIER: Yes. What made you leave?
MR GROT: I was scared to death and actually I don't care any more about business. So after the business meeting with Bio-Alianta, where he is telling me, "Hey, Mr Grot", because we asked I think for some kind of money because I invested to the land, and he said hey, listen, so I said hey,
[Page 249]
16:27
Mr Viroel, I will go from here to US Embassy and I will ask for assistance and help, and to that he said, "hey, be careful, be careful".
So listen, there were a lot of incidents, your Honour. There were people killed and I witnessed on the field on the farm an A-47 shooting. So I know this is a beautiful job for lawyers, for Mr Kopecky, for Mr Wells, but I was there for four years, and you know I am driving the car which was stopped and you hear A-47, because there was some kind of disagreement so this made me run because I want to raise my son. I have got two adults, my second marriage, my first wife passed away, and I have a ten years baby.
MR FORTIER: In the paragraph to which I directed your attention earlier, which I think is still on the screen, you wrote, "it was very clear that somebody at a high level" -- "very clear", you say -- "that somebody at a high level in the government had decided that Bio-Alianta would take over these lands".
On what basis do you assert, do you affirm that somebody at a high level of the government had decided that your lands, the land that you had rented, that you had leased, would be taken over by
[Page 250]
16:28
Bio-Alianta?
MR GROT: Your Honour, when I returned back to Moldova in the spring of 2011, we went for a meeting to Mr Zelenenco. He is head of the region, director. Three months before that, or four months before that, Mr Zelenenco is supporting Laguardia, and now I came to the office to ask Mr Zelenenco what happened between October, September and today. What happened? Mr Rusu at that time he is back from me, he don't want to talk to me. Mr Zelenenco and I don't remember exactly who asked, or maybe to go and ask Mr Zelenenco why you supported Bio-Alianta to lease the land? Instead of answering that, Mr Zelenenco pointed to Mr Tugui, because Mr Zelenenco was from a different party than Mr Tugui and Mr Rusu, so Mr Zelenenco he pointed the congressman Tapu. He said, "Mr Tugui, yes, I supported Bio-Alianta, but your Tapu supported them too". This is my conclusion, my thought. Mr Zelenenco, director of the region, he is saying in front of me the congressman, or how you call it, senator or representative of Parliament, supported Bio-Alianta. What was the interest of private party business Bio-Alianta with landowners? This is my conclusion, why I said this is heavy support from
[Page 251]
16:31
heavy people because Mr Zelenenco stated that.
MR FORTIER: It is on that basis that you made an assertion that it was very clear that somebody at a high level in the government had decided that Bio-Alianta would take over those lands?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR FORTIER: At the commencement of your evidence you were asked by Mr Wells if your witness statements contained the truth, and you said yes. I ask you the same question in respect of exhibit C-83, the letter that you wrote in English, and which was translated in Romanian for transmission to Moldova. You are familiar with that statement?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR FORTIER: Is everything in that letter that you have written the truth?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR FORTIER: Thank you. No more questions.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Perhaps we can pick up more or less on your leaving the country or coming back. Were you aware that when you went to Colorado in December 2010 when the leases were not yet registered, and you started to plough the land, as
[Page 252]
16:33
you say, that there were difficulties?
MR GROT: Your Honour, the best of my memory, when I was leaving in 2010 I remember the leases were accomplished ready for registration, I left with this knowledge.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Then did you hear in January that there was a distribution of sugar by Bio-Alianta?
MR GROT: Your Honour, in January I did receive a telephone call. Actually this call was directed by Mr Rusu. Physically Mr Tugui called me and he said, "Ziggy, have you to come back to Moldova because there is problem There is people trying to take your land".
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: The crucial period was really around between the beginning of February to 20 February, the crucial period for at least Disposition 1-A. Why did you not come back? Because in your witness statement you say, "I was in a hurry to fight and come back", but why did you wait until the end of March to come back, because then everything had already happened?
MR GROT: Your Honour, No 1, there was some family issue, because, you know, I can't explain it right now, but at the same time
[Page 253]
16:35
I thought -- before I left, I was invited to Floresti by Mr Rusu, Mr Zelenenco, and I got the full support of these people, so I asked Mr Tugui, I said, "Well, listen, I'm not sure if this is the truth even, because I left with assurance, hey, everything is okay, we ploughed the land, we planted some part of the winter wheat, and I was preparing myself for, you know, heavy work in spring, but the main thing, to answer you, your Honour, there was a family problem and I was unable to jump on the plane right away and come back to Moldova.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Is it possible that you have not received these dispositions because you were simply not in Moldova?
MR GROT: No, this is not truth, your Honour.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: I ask the question. I don't want to insinuate that is the way it is. I simply want to ask the question you were not in Moldova when the disposition was first delivered, and you were not in Moldova when the injunctions were put in place, right?
MR GROT: No. I think in March/April I was in Moldova.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: You were in Moldova,
[Page 254]
16:36
if I remember your witness statement right, when the injunction was lifted, but not when it was first rendered?
MR GROT: We get at that time the physical address of Laguardia in Chisinau. If there is any mail their people will be calling me, "hey, here is the letter", or decision, and "Come on, take this", but there was none. And to be honest, even today it is difficult for me to understand what this means -- injunction disposition -- I have no idea. Like I said, at that time I needed a good lawyer after, but it is difficult for me to explain even why I did a step like that. You are in a new country, you do not know the language, you don't know the law, and people try to scare you, so you are running from wall to wall.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Were you scared already in March 2011?
MR GROT: In 2011, during the court in Floresti, the injunction -- I am pronouncing it properly? After the court we stepped outside and Mr Utica, the lawyer for Bio-Alianta, he said, "Ziggy, be careful, this is powerful people", and he said they could kill a person one per year and this will be okay.
[Page 255]
16:38
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: That we have heard already, but you tell now that you were already threatened to be killed in March 2011 and you stayed on until December 2012.
MR GROT: Well, 2011, this was not addressed like to me directly. He stated, you know, "this is powerful people". He didn't say they could kill you. "They could kill someone and they will survive", but this happened next year with Bio-Alianta's owner, which he pointed to me like that, "hey, be careful".
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you. There is another little question that I have. That concerns your dealings with Zahar and Bicoli Agro. You have said in your witness statement that you signed the leases to these two companies, to Zahar in 2011 and to Bicoli Agro in 2013. Did you ask the landowners whether it was okay to sign the leases?
MR GROT: Your Honour, the lease which was signed to Bicoli Agro was after my departure and I left a power of attorney. To be honest with you, I can't answer. Like I said, Grot was gone from Moldova and I was not interested, so Igor Tcaci was administrator and what he did he did, but without me, something like that, I can say. I think this is
[Page 256]
16:40
a proper statement because I left in December --
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: 2012.
MR GROT: And I said, "Goodbye, Moldova. No more".
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: This is it?
MR GROT: Yes. And I left a power of attorney because there was a lot of equipment
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: So you don't know whether this assignment went through the approval process with the landowners?
MR GROT: No, I have no idea.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: And you were not interested to know?
MR GROT: No.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: The last part of the question, if you say you don't know the details of having to pay this and that, I had the impression from what I read that you paid the agents six lei per contract for helping you to fill it out and then you paid an additional official fee of registration. Is that a good understanding?
MR GROT: Your Honour, I think this is the negative side of my quality of language. Yes, I paid six lei for registration of those leases.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: And then you paid in
[Page 257]
16:41
addition a registration fee for the leases?
MR GROT: No. I paid a registration fee. Not an addition. I paid once. Once. We received the invoice from the village cadastral office and wire-transferred money on the village cadastral office account.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: So what you have said in your written statement is not completely -- you simply did not make the difference? Because there you say you paid two things a registration fee plus a token fee for the agents, because they had --
MR GROT: It is different, your Honour. Like I said, this is my statement, and maybe there is some kind of discrepancy between me and my lawyers preparing that, my quality of language, maybe there is misunderstanding or something, but one more time: I paid a one-time registration fee to the cadastral office in each village.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one question, Mr Grot. You have described the circumstances in which you left Moldova. You decided you had had enough and you would go back to the United States. At that point did you reflect on the possibility of continuing with legal proceedings in Moldova? After
[Page 258]
16:43
all, you had had a certain success in the courts of Moldova. Why did you not proceed with legal proceedings in Moldova?
I appreciate that you wanted to leave but you could have instructed a lawyer who was there to continue on your behalf with you at a distance, safely away in the United States on your account. Why did you not do that?
MR GROT: Your Honour, this is a great question. I went, one more time, to Mr Nagacevschi, who is a good lawyer, and he advised me -- because he had documents in the file -- here are the requests to the Prime Minister or to the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Justice, and he said, "Ziggy, go back home. It is not worth it to spend time". This is the statement of the Moldova lawyer. He said, "there is no way, it doesn't make any sense to waste time. You got BIT, only one chance". So this is advice of Mr Nagacevschi, and he started the process of arbitration BIT. He wrote the first documents. So actually I am in front of the lawyer, I am asking what to do, and he said hey, do this.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that already in 2012 you had looked at the BIT and you had taken legal advice on the BIT?
[Page 259]
16:44
MR GROT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that the advice you received was that you did not need to take any further steps in Moldova?
MR GROT: Well, advice of lawyers, Moldovan lawyers, I asked good lawyers to represent my case. They were not interested because when the Bio-Alianta appeared the name, they said well, no, no, no, no. So anyway, I tried with Mr Garmas one more time. I don't know if these people were helping me or not, or these people were against me, because I know in the United States I could go to your office, to a lawyer and he will explain to me what option I got here. So I remember I went with Mr Garmas. He is a lawyer in Moldova. He was doing some construction at home and I called him, hey, we have a court date. So he stepped with me to court in short pants. This is the kind of representation where I could go. I asked people for help --
THE PRESIDENT: Were you surprised? You didn't do badly in the courts of Moldova.
MR GROT: Well, your Honour, listen. When I turned to Soroca, I went to the process in the Moldova court, Floresti, and I was losing everything. When I went with the same papers to the
[Page 260]
16:46
Chancellery office and they took the case, they went the same pathway. They got lucky because there was no way, because this is a simple thing. I don't know if this is offensive or not. In Moldova this is public information how much you have to pay to get a good judgment in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Is what you are telling us that the courts of Moldova only came up with decent judgments when the application was made by the Chancellery on behalf of the government?
MR GROT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And your testimony to us is that you were under the impression at that point in 2012 you could not get justice in the courts of Moldova.
MR GROT: Exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: And this is based on what your then lawyers told you at the time?
MR GROT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So you simply decided to leave.
MR GROT: Exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: Because you were frightened?
MR GROT: Yes, sir.
[Page 261]
16:47
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I have no further questions. I do not know if there are any more questions in addition to those that we have asked?
MR GLEASON: If I may be permitted on a couple of points?
Re-examination by Claimants
MR GLEASON: Mr Grot, was the agreement with Moldova-Zahar an assignment agreement? Did you assign your leases to Moldova-Zahar?
MR GROT: No.
MR GLEASON: What was it? Just briefly? What kind of agreement was it?
MR GROT: There was a contract to produce sugar beet?
MR GLEASON: Could it be accurately described as a servicing agreement?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR GLEASON: That was in 2011?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR GLEASON: In 2013 did you assign your leases to Bicoli Agro?
MR GROT: No.
MR GLEASON: You did not?
MR GROT: No.
[Page 262]
16:48
MR GLEASON: Can I perhaps show you the agreement?
MR GROT: I don't remember. If I did I did at the request of Igor Tcaci.
MR GLEASON: Where were you in 2012?
MR GROT: In Colorado Springs.
MR GLEASON: So you weren't aware of the nature of that agreement with Bicoli Agro?
MR GROT: No.
MR GLEASON: That was your administrator who was handling that issue?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR GLEASON: So as far as you are aware if the Bicoli Agro is an assignment, that is the only assignment of the Rosietici leases?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR GLEASON: I would like to ask more question concerning the courts of Moldova. Concerning Disposition 1-A, there was some significant litigation concerning that disposition, correct, by the State Chancellery?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR GLEASON: When was the first decision of the State Chancellery issued in favour of your position? In other words, saying that
[Page 263]
16:49
Disposition 1-A was illegal?
MR GROT: We would have to check the record.
MR GLEASON: Was it after you left Moldova?
MR GROT: I think so.
MR GLEASON: I just wanted to make this point clear to make sure the record was clear. This was in 2013?
MR GROT: Yes, so I was gone from Moldova
MR GLEASON: So any successful results concerning the State Chancellery's challenge of your dispositions did not happen until 2013?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR GLEASON: By this point what was the status of your investment? Was it in good shape?
MR GROT: I don't know how to answer that.
MR GLEASON: Honestly.
MR GROT: Honestly? For many years I am working with my family, my brothers, my sister. When this happened they actually turned from me, because there was some kind of family money investment, you know, and so the situation was terrible.
MR GLEASON: Terrible. You would describe
[Page 264]
16:50
the situation concerning the investment at the time the disposition was cancelled in 2013 to be terrible?
MR GROT: Plus my health condition at the same time.
MR GLEASON: Your health was deteriorating. Do you know when Disposition 1-A was finally cancelled by the Moldova court system?
MR GROT: No.
MR GLEASON: Are you aware of the Supreme Court decision?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR GLEASON: You do not remember exactly when that was?
MR GROT: No, I do not remember the day, but I think 13 or 14.
MR GLEASON: I am going to try to refresh your recollection, if I may. I am going to pull up the actual document. It is on the record.
(Exhibit C-44 displayed)
We are just trying to get the date of this document. Just go to the first page.
MR GROT: January 21, 2015.
MR GLEASON: And that is a decision from the Supreme Court concerning Disposition 1-A in
[Page 265]
16:53
Cosernita?
MR GROT: Yes.
MR GLEASON: What was the status of your investment by this point?
MR GROT: Disaster.
MR GLEASON: Even worse?
MR GROT: Yes.
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: Since we are already at C-44, can we see C-42? That is the decision of the State Chancellery, and if you have a look at the date it says May 2012, not 2013. You said it was 2013.
MR GLEASON: We were discussing the court decisions, not the --
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: But this was the first step of declaring the Disposition 1-A illegal. At that time you were still in Moldova, right, in May 2012?
MR GROT: Yes.
PROFESSOR KNIEPER: So you received certainly the decision of the State Chancellery declaring the Disposition 1-A illegal, even if you don't know what disposition or injunction means, but you were aware that you had a success with the
[Page 266]
16:55
State Chancellery?
MR GROT: It is hard to remember, but at that time I was there, I was in Moldova.
MR GLEASON: This is a writ of summons. It is essentially a complaint filed by the State Chancellery.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we can come back to that with our legal experts. There will be questions about the consequence of this. This probably is not the moment.
MR GLEASON: I want to make clear this is not a court decision.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's come back to this with our legal experts. We have plenty of wonderful legal experts with us and I think that is the point to address what this is, what its consequence was, and what effect, if any, it had on the legal conditions governing the circumstances. We have just Mr Grot, you have established the point that he was present at the time this came down What its consequences are I think are not for Mr Grot.
I think that concludes our examination of Mr Grot. I hope you feel, Mr Grot, that you have had an opportunity to say probably not everything you wanted to say, but sufficient to make you feel
[Page 267]
16:57
you have had a decent day in court. You have had questions from your own side, you have had questions from Mr Kopecky, you have had questions from us. You are now released. You are free to continue in this room. I thank you very much. I wish you a good stay on behalf of the Tribunal in Vienna. I hope it is not too stressful for you to sit through the rest of these proceedings and we will no doubt see you over the next couple of days.
MR GROT: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a break and then take Mr Beril.
(Short break from 4.58 pm to 5.11 pm)
VALERIU BERIL (through the interpreters)
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, Mr Beril. Are you able to understand me in your own language?
MR BERIL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are appearing as a witness and I would ask you to read out the oath which is in front of you which indicates the solemnity and the truth of what you will say.
MR BERIL: I solemnly declare on my honour and conscience that I will tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
[Page 268]
17:14
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr Beril. My name is Professor Philippe Sands. I am a professor at the University of London. To my left is Professor Knieper, and to my right is Mr Yves Fortier. We are the Arbitrators in this case. You are going to have a short number of questions right now from Mr Wells and then Mr Kopecky will cross-examine you, and Mr Wells will then have a chance briefly to respond to anything Mr Kopecky has said. It may be that members of the Arbitral Tribunal will also have some questions. Mr Wells.
Examination by Claimants
MR WELLS: Thank you, Mr President. Mr Beril, can you just take a look at what you see on the screen here and actually the document in front of you? I would like to ask you to confirm that this is your witness statement and that it is correct?
MR BERIL: Yes, yes. It is in English. If I could have it in Romanian? Yes, it is in Romanian now. Yes, I stand by what is in this statement.
MR WELLS: Is this your signature here?
MR BERIL: Yes, it is.
[Page 269]
17:15
MR WELLS: Is this correct to the best of your knowledge?
MR BERIL: Yes.
MR WELLS: Mr Beril, in your witness statement it states that you were the President in the Stefan Voda District in 2008. What was the total time period you were President in the Stefan Voda District?
MR BERIL: I was the President between June 2007 and July 2011.
MR WELLS: You were President in Stefan Voda District when Laguardia entered There was a contract for Laguardia to farm in the Stefan Voda District. Are you familiar with the contract? Do you know anything about it?
MR BERIL: I have known Mr Grot from Mr Mirhot. He had a contract with somebody to use and to process the land, but it is not my duty to know these sort of things. That was not within my scope because the contracts were not monitored by the President of the district
MR WELLS: Do you know if it was the type of contract that would need to be registered in local land records?
MR BERIL: From what I saw, the contract
[Page 270]
17:18
was between Laguardia and the landowner who offered the lease, because this land had been left to rot for about 6-7 years, and all the agronomists were saying that it would be impossible to get any yield on that particular land.
MR WELLS: Mr Beril, since the time you submitted your witness statement in this case, have you had a change in circumstances such as a new job? Have you moved? What are you doing now?
MR BERIL: Yes. I have been recently appointed a counselor to a senator in Romania.
THE INTERPRETER: I could not catch the name of the Minister.
MR BERIL: Ion Hadârca.
THE PRESIDENT: In which Parliament? Did you say in the Romanian Parliament, or in the Moldova Parliament?
MR BERIL: In the Romanian Parliament.
MR WELLS: Were you concerned about submitting a witness statement in this case?
MR BERIL: No.
MR WELLS: Were you concerned about your safety or your business? Any of your business interests?
MR BERIL: The Republic of Moldova is a
[Page 271]
17:20
country with many, many problems and any witness statement could have some consequences. I did feel some pressure.
MR WELLS: So based on your change in circumstances with your new position involved in Romania, could you say whether, based on that change of circumstances, there was any high level support for the deregistration of the leases in Floresti?
MR BERIL: No. In Floresti I have just been there once and I saw the land of Mr Grot but I had nothing to do with Floresti, either with the village or with the area. I knew what the situation was there and that was that.
MR WELLS: An expert report was submitted by the Respondent in this case related to the calculation of damages for Laguardia. For the one year that Laguardia was in your district, in Stefan Voda District, can you give the Tribunal an idea of how successful that operation was? Are you aware of any profits that were made?
MR BERIL: Everything connected with Laguardia's activity in Stefan Voda, they were the lands, they had something that still needed to be registered. I don't know whether they had losses or not. I do not have this sort of information, but
[Page 272]
17:22
all I know is that anybody who was part of this work, in particular the agronomists, did not advise Laguardia to start working these fields. However, he, with his technology, proved that the land could be processed and could have some high yields.
MR WELLS: So are you saying that it was a successful operation?
MR BERIL: Yes. Yes, indeed, a successful operation.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is the five minutes, I am afraid. I am going to hand over to Mr Kopecky.
Cross-examination by Respondent
MR KOPECKY: Mr President, thank you very much. Subject to any Tribunal questions, we have no questions of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I then ask my distinguished co-arbitrators whether they have any questions for this witness? (Pause)
Questions by the Arbitral Tribunal
THE PRESIDENT: If you could just have a look at your witness statement, paragraph 5, you say in paragraph 5 that you called Mr Stefan Chitoroaga, who was the vice Minister. When did that happen and can you tell us a little bit more about your
[Page 273]
17:24
conversation with the vice Minister in the Minister of Agriculture?
MR BERIL: I had a preliminary discussion with Mr Grot when I asked him, I don't remember the date exactly, I was asking him how things were going in Floresti and saying that we were really sorry that he left Stefan Voda because we really thought he was an economic player that was very good for our area. Then he told me that he had very big problems, including the issues of contract, that I thought they were illegal as well.
So then I called the vice Minister to give him a hearing so that he could present his case. I asked him to help him to sort out things with the legal division of the Ministry of Agriculture so things could run smoothly. I do confirm that that was the case. He gave me some times when he could meet with the Laguardia people so they could settle the issues and clarify everything.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know that did not happen? Things were not settled? Things were not clarified? What do you know from your own personal experience about what happened next?
MR BERIL: All I know is that after all this situation Mr Grot and Laguardia and the
[Page 274]
17:26
administrators of Laguardia had a signed contract in several areas in order to process land plots in Floresti which were then replaced by other contracts, and I wondered at the time whether those other contracts were registered and signed at the town hall. I always thought they were signed and registered. And then I said go to the legal department of the Ministry of Agriculture and see what happened, because it is not possible to replace one contract with another three year old contract which is valid. It has to be according to the law. It cannot just be replaced.
And I understand he had this appointment, and they had a meeting, they had a discussion, but the result of the discussions, I had a telephone conversation with him and asked him, and somebody told me that some legal representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food somewhat asked that he should be paid, and I thought that was not right, that was illegal. I actually felt quite embarrassed by this.
THE PRESIDENT: When you mentioned that the leases were replaced by another company, do you know the name of that other company which got leases for those agricultural lands?
[Page 275]
17:28
MR BERIL: No, I don't know everything. I understand it is a company that was around in the area. That is why I didn't mention it here. I understand it is something like Bio-Alianta or something similar.
THE PRESIDENT: Did it mean anything to you, that company? Was it well known? What can you tell us about that company?
MR BERIL: I know that Bio-Alianta was doing something with chemicals, other stuff, something like agro and chemical areas, from what I know. I don't know what they are doing now.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr Grot told us that he had been told that it was a powerful company. From your own knowledge, do you know whether that is an accurate characterisation of Bio-Alianta? Did it have certain powers? Important people behind it?
MR BERIL: Yes. The company is well known in the Republic of Moldova, but it has to be found out with documents who is behind this company. Sometimes in the Republic of Moldova there is a front man but then actually there is a lot of other people behind, maybe people in government who are very powerful. Very influential
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any knowledge
[Page 276]
17:30
as to who is behind this company?
MR BERIL: I don't know. If I had enough time I might have found out, if I would have known about this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you recall whether in the summer of 2011, maybe in July 2011, you had a conversation with Mr Grot in which you described to him the knowledge of the Prime Minister of Moldova in relation to his case? Do you have any memory of such a conversation with Mr Grot?
MR BERIL: I did have a chat about it with Mr Grot but I certainly did not have any leeway to discuss this with the Prime Minister, and that is why I advised him to go to the Ministry of Agriculture, because I thought they had the competence to give advice on these issues. But to tell you here today that things are like this or like that, I could not quite tell you, because this is what happened in our country. There are all sorts of things with Ministers, Vice-Ministers, who had the companies, and they acted often through those companies. This is a situation that persists even today.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you please put upon the screen paragraph 8 of Mr Grot's second
[Page 277]
17:32
statement? In the third line of that paragraph it says, "Mr Valeriu Beril had high level connections in his position with the government and even he later told me in July 2011 that the Prime Minister himself was aware of what was going on and that nothing would be done to look into the matter".
Do you remember that conversation with Mr Grot?
MR BERIL: Well, what can I say? The Prime Minister should know -- should have known what the situation was, but that is why I said, in the Republic of Moldova, a very small country, everything is known really. It is a small country. In particular with an investor coming from the United States. We really don't have that many US investors in Moldova.
THE PRESIDENT: But the form of words that Mr Grot uses in his second witness statement is very clear. He doesn't say that the Prime Minister should have known. He says that you said the Prime Minister himself was aware of what was going on. Is that accurate?
MR BERIL: In the Republic of Moldova the Prime Minister has all the time information regarding the foreign investment, let alone
[Page 278]
17:34
investors from the United States. He must have known what the situation was. Same with Prime Minister today, whoever the Prime Minister is. They have to know the situation with foreign investors.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say he had to know, did you at the time back in 2011 have conversations with --
MR BERIL: He was obliged to know. It was his duty to know.
THE PRESIDENT: What I am asking is whether in 2011 you had any conversations with any person. Mr Grot says you had "high level" connections in the position of government. You have told us yourself you were able to introduce him to the Vice-Minister of Agriculture. Did you have conversations with anybody about the knowledge or involvement of the Prime Minister?
MR BERIL: I had asked the Vice-Minister, Mr Chitoroaga, asked him if he could not solve the things by himself, to report the issue to the Prime Minister. It was his duty to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: And did the Vice-Minister tell you that he knew about this story?
MR BERIL: He said that in principle he
[Page 279]
17:36
will report what was being discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: That wasn't my question. My question was whether Mr Chitoroaga had told you that the Prime Minister -- did the Vice-Minister tell you that the Prime Minister already knew about this story?
MR BERIL: The Vice-Minister told me that he would report to him. I could not supervise this. I asked Mr Grot to go again to the Ministry of Agriculture so that everything would be sorted out, but I don't know more than that. I am convinced somewhat that Mr Stefan Chitoroaga, the Vice-Minister of Agriculture, would have brought this to the attention of the Prime Minister.
THE PRESIDENT: One other question in relation to farming issues. I am not a farmer. You were the President of Stefan Voda. Do you know a little bit about how farmers make decisions?
MR BERIL: The district Stefan Voda is an area of agriculture. 70 per cent of the Republic of Moldova -- 70 per cent of our GDP is from products in agriculture. We live from agriculture.
THE PRESIDENT: I am just curious to know about the following situation, with your expertise, with your human experience. In 2010 hundreds of
[Page 280]
17:38
farmers in the district of Floresti sign a lease with Mr Grot or with Laguardia. A few months later, on 11 February 2011, hundreds of farmers sign the same document purporting to terminate those leases. I was struck by those documents and I thought it strange that hundreds of farmers on the same day would sign the same piece of paper terminating the lease. Assuming that is what has happened, could you explain to us how it could be that so many farmers would come together and do exactly the same thing on the same day? I am just curious, in the farming community, to understand in the context of Moldova of one village or one town, how that could happen?
MR BERIL: I was not there present, but I will try to answer your question. In my opinion, first of all, the lease contract, the three year lease contracts are registered in the town hall, which is a public state institution. The town hall has a contract. One copy stays with the town hall, and one copy goes to the economic player, and one stays with the landowner. It is not possible that in a short period, while the first contract is force, to have another contract issued on the same land. This is illegal. It can happen only when the
[Page 281]
17:40
Mayor is under the influence of somebody who would then gather everybody, tell them -- give them a story line, and then have other contracts
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think that is what happened in this case? I appreciate you were not there so what you say is of limited probative value but, just on the basis of what you know, is that what happened, do you believe, in this case?
MR BERIL: I think there is no other way. I think that must have happened. I can't think of any other way. But it is illegal.
THE PRESIDENT: Can I ask you to put up exhibit C-95, page 5? Could you take a moment to read this document? You probably have never seen it before.
MR BERIL: Yes, I can see it. It is in Russian. First of all, this is illegal. It is not written in the language of the state.
THE PRESIDENT: Just read the whole thing -- I am assuming you speak Russian, do you?
MR BERIL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's analyse it. First could you tell us what it says?
MR BERIL: Well, it says -- it is a notice advising a person, a given person, I don't know to
[Page 282]
17:42
whom it is addressed, Laguardia or Bugai, that the lease contract is being annulled. This is very unusual.
THE PRESIDENT: You said it was in Russian, but why is it in Russian and what is wrong with it being in Russian?
MR BERIL: A notice, a notification, of contract termination, resilience, is not done like this. The lessee has to be present and it has to be well-grounded. There have to be some reasons behind it. Maybe the lessee didn't pay what he had to pay, maybe he did not follow the contractual obligation. I don't know what else it could be
THE PRESIDENT: One thing we have been confused about, if you look at the date it says 11/02/2011. Do you see that?
MR BERIL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If you could read the line immediately above, could you translate what that line says?
MR BERIL: Sorry, the person who signed, Poslaro Bos Stefan(,) there is a series of numbers, the data from his passport, ID code, and it says the lessee did not comply with the conditions of the contract, but it didn't mention what exactly was
[Page 283]
17:44
non compliance, and the technological procedure for processing the land has not been done. But I have seen the technical installations, I have seen the tractors, the equipment, that were imported by Mr Grot. We never had this sort of technology in Moldova at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: Just below the signature of the individual lessor there is another line signed by the person who we believe to be the mayor of Floresti. What does that say? What has the Mayor of Floresti signed?
MR BERIL: It is written that there is a confirmation -- it is like a confirmation of the mayor of the village of Varvareuca, Mrs Ivanes. It is "I confirm". It is a confirmation of this particular notification.
THE PRESIDENT: Why would she sign this document?
MR BERIL: I don't think that the Mayor has to sign a document like this
THE PRESIDENT: So why did the Mayor sign the document?
MR BERIL: I told you, she must have been under somebody's influence, because while I had different jobs and functions it is for the first
[Page 284]
17:46
time that I see such a notice. I have never seen anything like this before. This is not like a document, an official document.
THE PRESIDENT: And the Mayor signs 560 more of these documents on the same day. What is going on here?
MR BERIL: This means that the Mayor had to gather all these people who had to sign, Mr Bugai, Mr Grot from Laguardia should have been invited together, and they should have resolved the issue, but not to issue like this a document saying things that are totally unclear.
THE PRESIDENT: And every single one of these documents in the typed-up part appears to be identical. Who do you think would who have prepared this document? Would the farmers have all typed up exactly the same document? Would they all speak Russian? Would they all have type writers or computers?
MR BERIL: I don't think so. I told you, there must have been some influence. All those notices would have been photocopied, the people, the persons would have been summoned to come, or maybe they were visited, something was maybe told to them, "Look, the Mayor signed; now you have to sign".
[Page 285]
17:47
Probably that is how things went.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR FORTIER: Mr President, just following your questions, Mr Beril, you met Mr Zbigniew Grot in 2008. That is almost ten years ago.
MR BERIL: Yes.
MR FORTIER: Do you consider Mr Grot a friend?
MR BERIL: I consider him a friend because he invested money in the Republic of Moldova. Unfortunately he had a lot to suffer because of that. I know him. I would not quite say he is a friend.
MR FORTIER: But you kept in touch with him for the last ten years?
MR BERIL: Yes. Sometimes we saw each other. Once I talked to him over the phone
MR FORTIER: Would you describe Mr Grot as an honest man?
MR BERIL: I would confirm that Mr Grot is an honest person, and a man who would come to help the economy, lots of people, and I saw his business in Poland, how he was running his business in Poland. If the truth be told, your honours, I have to say I was sometimes surprised that people like
[Page 286]
17:49
Mr Grot who come to help us, to teach us, and of course to do his own business, and I am really sorry for what happened.
MR FORTIER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr Wells?
MR WELLS: Nothing further, Mr President
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Beril, thank you very much for coming all this way to see us. The Tribunal very much appreciates that you have given this matter your time, and we appreciate and have listened attentively to everything you have said to us.
You are now released. We now wish you a wonderful evening in Vienna and a safe trip back to your home in Moldova, or Romania where you may now be living.
MR BERIL: I thank you for listening to what I had to say. Please take into account what I said, that I said it out of honesty. I have no particular interest to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. We are now at the end of our first day. I am very grateful to my colleagues but also mostly to counsel. We are pretty much on time.
We will resume tomorrow at 9.30am, and we
[Page 287]
17:51
will hear in the morning our legal experts, which provides also an opportunity to tease out more of these issues, and in the afternoon we will hear the Claimants' agricultural experts. We have two people in the morning and one person divided in two in the afternoon, so I don't think we have any constraints or pressures of time tomorrow, so I would hope we are able to finish at 5.30 pm. I have an appointment at 6 pm so it would be excellent if we could, but I don't envisage any difficulty at all. I wish both sides, unless there are any closing housekeeping matters, a fine evening in this fine city. Thank you very much indeed.
(The hearing was adjourned at 5.52 pm)
[Page 81]
|
C-27... [2] 216/18 C-31 [1] 169/8 C-33 [1] 87/22 C-42 [1] 265/10 C-43 [2] 65/14 65/15 C-44 [3] 173/20 C-48 [1] 169/11 C-50 [1] 174/11 C-58 [1] 94/25 C-59b [1] 94/25 C-60 [2] 175/7 175/16 C-60a [2] 232/13 C-67a [1] 233/22 C-71 [1] 13/20 C-72a [1] 232/19 C-76 [1] 13/20 C-77 [1] 171/7 C-83 [2] 13/20 251/12 C-88 [2] 95/13 117/12 C-89 [2] 13/9 13/17 C-89a [2] 13/11 13/14 C-94 [1] 114/6 C-95 [9] 73/2 73/2 C-97 [1] 87/22 c.lindinger [1] 4/9 c/o [1] 2/14 Cabinet [1] 2/10 cadastral [41] 35/5 cadastrals [8] 53/22 calculate [1] 153/23 calculated [2] 69/9 calculates [1] 42/23 calculating [2] 56/17 calculation [10] 22/12 calculations [4] 35/20 California [1] 3/7 call [10] 31/15 38/3 |
135/15 152/11 192/9 called [14] 35/18 calling [1] 254/6 calls [1] 117/14 came [9] 30/20 64/5 can [111] 7/8 7/13 can't [12] 89/4 89/6 Canada [1] 2/11 cancel [1] 180/5 cancellation [4] 78/24 cancelled [5] 91/10 cancelling [2] 88/1 |
cannot [14] 36/8 canola [1] 143/9 capacity [5] 51/12 Capex [1] 22/11 capital [4] 147/2 capital-intensive [1] car [4] 212/14 212/17 card [2] 156/23 care [3] 201/23 246/14 career [3] 134/10 careful [6] 16/10 carefully [1] 16/15 carry [4] 46/1 99/17 case [146] 1/5 7/5 case for [1] 49/14 cases [8] 32/13 78/21 cash [2] 134/7 135/6 catch [1] 270/12 categories [1] 46/20 causation [2] 112/6 cause [5] 110/15 caused [4] 165/25 Causeni [1] 246/8 caution [1] 138/20 CC [2] 1/15 2/9 ceased [1] 180/14 cel [1] 4/12 cent [5] 56/13 57/5 central [3] 52/24 94/1 centre [7] 1/2 141/7 century [1] 246/4 certain [15] 52/21 certainly [11] 33/20 certainty [2] 124/23 certifying [1] 162/8 Cervin [2] 30/6 30/10 CEX [4] 42/19 63/21 CEX-1 [2] 42/19 63/21 CEX-4 [2] 75/18 100/4 CH [12] 34/21 34/25 CH-1 [1] 34/21 CH-2 [1] 34/25 CH-3 [3] 35/4 35/9 CH-4 [6] 35/10 35/13 CH-5 [1] 36/1 chair [1] 6/10 challenge [21] 103/5 challenged [9] 106/24 challenges [2] 107/19 challenging [2] 38/7 Chambers [1] 2/5 chance [16] 10/19 chancellery [14] Chancellery's [1] change [15] 22/5 changes [4] 24/16 characterisation [2] characterised [1] characterises [1] characteristics [3] charge [2] 69/15 chart [1] 35/14 charts [1] 140/7 chat [1] 276/11 cheaper [1] 234/25 cheating [1] 236/5 check [6] 50/3 64/20 checked [10] 54/23 |
[Page 82]
|
checked... [9] 63/18 checking [1] 224/13 checks [1] 197/10 chemical [2] 197/10 chemicals [2] 197/17 Cheptene [1] 205/22 Chisinau [5] 4/13 Chitoroaga [4] 272/23 choice [1] 127/11 choices [1] 127/9 choosing [1] 130/24 chose [3] 86/19 chosen [1] 37/12 Christe [2] 18/6 Christian [1] 228/6 Christmas [5] 200/9 CHRISTOPH [1] 4/4 circle [1] 65/1 circulate [1] 21/10 circulated [2] 25/7 circumstances [17] circumstantial [1] citation [2] 101/1 citations [5] 56/5 cite [3] 99/24 100/24 cited [8] 63/19 71/16 cites [5] 64/16 100/6 citizen [2] 99/14 106/3 city [10] 6/3 49/22 city hall [3] 129/10 city halls [1] 130/3 |
civil [6] 58/13 76/1 Civil Code [2] 58/13 civilisation [1] 228/17 CL [6] 12/1 12/2 12/4 CL-100 [1] 12/4 CL-81 [4] 12/4 12/12 CL-91 [1] 12/1 claim [15] 87/3 87/5 Claimant [30] 3/12 5/2 Claimants [182] 1/1 Claimants' [11] 8/2 claims [2] 19/18 clandestined [1] 80/15 clarification [11] clarifications [5] 14/22 |
clarified [1] 273/22 clarify [10] 15/20 clear [41] 17/19 27/5 clearer [2] 51/6 clearly [23] 40/23 clerk [1] 103/18 client [2] 81/7 282/2 clients [1] 165/23 climate [1] 148/24 close [1] 39/24 closed [2] 82/24 closing [5] 20/14 closings [1] 23/16 co [1] 2/8 co-arbitrator [2] 2/8 co-arbitrators [2] 2/19 co-operation [1] co-ordinates [1] code [4] 58/13 76/1 coerce [3] 272/6 272/6 coerced [1] 31/16 coherent [1] 109/5 cohesive [1] 205/7 collaped [1] 205/3 colleagues [5] 8/23 9/7 collect [1] 20/19 collected [1] 239/23 collective [1] 123/1 collusion [1] 66/3 colonel [1] 120/3 Colorado [8] 3/7 38/4 colour [5] 68/24 78/11 combines [2] 229/13 come [1] 137/11 come [39] 14/3 20/9 comes [3] 15/9 78/23 comfortable [5] 23/22 coming [1] 48/13 command [7] 106/23 commence [1] 14/25 comment [4] 14/8 commenting [1] comments [1] 134/3 commercial [2] 41/17 commingling [1] commingling of [1] commit [1] 122/17 committed [2] 26/16 committee [1] 109/17 commodities [3] common [3] 172/18 community [2] 123/4 communicate [1] 10/17 communicated [8] |
[Page 83]
|
communicated... [8] communication [2] communications [1] communist [2] 196/24 community [2] 168/14 companies [5] 109/19 company [34] 38/6 company-specific [2] comparable [2] 185/5 comparative [2] compare [2] 162/16 compared [1] 32/17 comparison [3] compete [1] 196/25 competence [1] competent [3] 155/20 competition [1] competitor [12] 38/22 complain [1] 180/11 complained [1] 171/5 complaint [3] 87/15 complaints [3] 31/23 complete [3] 7/14 completed [3] 158/14 completely [2] 61/16 completeness [2] |
completes [1] 150/5 completing [1] 153/8 completion [1] 128/4 completions [1] 163/2 compliance [12] compliances [1] compliant [4] 71/8 complicated [1] complied [2] 165/21 complied with [1] comply [8] 100/7 compounded [1] compromised [1] compulsory [3] 124/9 computation [2] computer [1] 36/17 computers [1] 284/19 conceded [1] 130/15 conceived [1] 39/7 concern [1] 69/9 concerned [7] 21/12 concerning [60] 31/21 concerns [5] 17/10 concert [2] 55/19 conclude [2] 164/10 concluded [7] 117/25 concludes [2] 144/13 conclusion [6] 39/13 conclusive [2] 125/13 condition [2] 150/24 conditions [5] 125/5 conduct [23] 46/22 conducted [4] 134/6 conducting [1] 141/4 confer [6] 27/12 28/4 conference [3] 31/3 conferred [1] 193/22 conferring [1] 28/1 confident [1] 144/3 confirm [10] 10/1 10/8 confirmation [5] 78/2 confirmed [4] 127/13 confirming [1] 47/18 confirms [3] 71/24 conflict [1] 115/1 confused [6] 26/22 confusing [2] 54/10 confusion [4] 51/25 congressman [3] conjunction [1] 38/21 connect [3] 53/10 connected [9] 156/1 |
connections [3] 248/8 conscience [2] conscious [2] 34/1 consent [1] 158/1 consequence [4] consequences [2] conservative [7] consider [6] 19/9 consideration [2] considered [9] 56/24 considering [2] 32/1 consisted [1] 156/16 consistency [2] 52/22 consistent [3] 40/25 conspiracies [1] conspiracy [3] 66/8 constitute [3] 94/7 constitutes [1] 180/24 constitution [1] 99/17 constitutive [3] constraints [2] 208/24 construction [1] consult [2] 41/15 51/5 consultants [1] 55/4 consulted [2] 43/6 contact [9] 45/15 contain [11] 56/23 contained [8] 56/14 containing [1] 62/2 contemplated [1] contemporaneous [2] content [1] 64/15 contents [3] 29/6 64/8 contested [2] 108/14 context [18] 32/14 continue [12] 7/1 continued [4] 90/13 continues [4] 93/18 continuing [2] 133/6 continuous [1] 40/25 contort [1] 128/16 contorted [1] 127/19 contract [52] 42/5 contracted [1] 238/22 contracting [4] 50/20 contracts [28] 43/14 contractual [3] 84/11 contradict [1] 154/25 contradictions [1] |
[Page 84]
|
contradictory [1] contrary [2] 99/16 contrast [2] 130/9 contrasts [1] 139/16 contributed [1] 19/3 control [1] 205/14 controlling [1] 109/14 convened [1] 27/1 convention [9] 27/1 conversation [3] conversations [1] converted [1] 179/11 coordination [1] cops [8] 79/20 88/13 copy [13] 54/18 65/1 Coram [1] 20/21 core [1] 203/7 COREN [5] 3/4 8/13 coren hinkle [1] coren.hinkle [1] 3/10 CORINA [1] 2/24 corn [5] 143/8 145/19 corner [3] 11/10 54/7 corporate [1] 219/10 correct [29] 6/6 corrected [1] 266/9 correcting [3] 111/17 correction [8] 40/16 correctly [6] 28/24 |
correctness [1] 64/8 Correla [1] 2/14 corresponding [1] corroborate [1] corroborates [1] corroboration [1] corruption [2] 192/9 Cosmin [31] 87/9 cost [17] 138/21 138/24 Costa [2] 30/6 30/10 Costa Rica [2] 30/6 costs [23] 19/3 19/21 contemporaneous [1] could [130] 7/3 7/22 council [1] 109/24 counsel [11] 1/13 counsel's [1] 270/11 count [1] 107/24 Counter [3] 107/24 Counter-Memorial [3] counterfeit [1] 118/1 counterfeited [1] country [10] 140/24 couple [5] 210/6 courage [1] 168/7 course [28] 7/14 8/17 court [105] 21/11 21/13 Court of Appeal [2] Court of Appeal's [1] courtroom [1] 186/4 courts [20] 102/2 cover [3] 119/9 cows [1] 205/23 CPI [3] 195/22 207/13 CRACIUNEANU [2] craven [1] 151/13 create [2] 61/8 110/24 credibility [4] 39/2 crime [1] 236/14 criminal [4] 39/2 39/6 criteria [1] 142/15 crop [8] 137/16 cropped [1] 229/3 crops [5] 116/21 cross [17] 5/6 5/8 |
cross-examination [7] crossed [5] 152/21 crossing [1] 241/13 crucial [3] 123/24 cry [2] 240/6 culmination [1] 84/16 culture [1] 197/7 curious [3] 144/12 current [1] 24/9 currently [1] 13/17 Cusnir [10] 10/9 10/13 customs [2] 197/20 customers [2] 246/9 cut [1] 205/9 cutting [1] 198/2 CWS [7] 159/2 CWS-1 [3] 159/13 CWS-2 [2] 159/2 CWS-3 [2] 159/22 CWS-5 [1] 160/13 damage [9] 176/11 damages [13] 19/22 DAN [2] 2/23 2/23 DANIELA [1] 2/24 Daniel Kozak [1] Dariusz [1] 2/14 data [19] 136/11 |
[Page 85]
|
data... [9] 149/5 date [14] 79/18 83/12 dated [5] 81/22 82/10 dates [2] 43/19 44/18 day [27] 12/19 23/12 day-to-day [1] 85/10 days [9] 6/5 6/19 20/9 DCF [3] 134/6 147/5 de [3] 2/14 67/17 de-register [1] 67/17 de-risked [1] 134/21 dead [1] 117/23 deadline [1] 12/9 deal [11] 14/3 15/16 dealer [1] 212/18 dealing [1] 44/11 dealings [1] 255/14 deals [1] 233/23 Dear [1] 153/15 death [3] 115/24 decade [1] 134/11 December [26] 1/21 December 11 [1] 6/1 December 2010 [1] decent [2] 260/8 decide [1] 20/19 decided [13] 10/18 |
157/11 180/5 181/19 decision [37] 10/17 decision-making [6] decisions [13] 65/6 decisive [1] 181/19 declaration [5] 76/21 declaration from [1] declare [4] 13/6 declaring [2] 265/17 deducted [2] 37/6 deemed [1] 208/15 deepening [1] 38/13 deeply [1] 6/15 defence [1] 102/5 defend [1] 105/20 defendant [2] 172/1 defendant's [3] defendants [1] 171/20 defer [2] 26/23 119/4 definitely [5] 76/21 definition [1] 127/19 defy [1] 147/22 degree [2] 37/17 delay [10] 37/2 71/5 delayed [1] 239/8 delaying [1] 25/20 delays [2] 71/9 71/19 delete [4] 62/20 62/23 deleted [4] 68/23 |
deleting [1] 89/23 deletion [4] 57/20 delict [2] 98/14 104/10 deliver [1] 28/20 delivered [2] 83/25 Deloitte [2] 3/18 42/19 demonstrate [1] demonstrated [4] demonstrates [4] demonstrating [2] demonstration [1] demonstrative [4] demonstratives [1] denied [1] 106/25 Denver [1] 3/8 deny [1] 107/14 department [2] departure [1] 255/20 depended [1] 164/4 Depending [1] 152/17 depends [1] 148/13 deprecation [1] 184/1 depreciation [10] 21/9 deprived [1] 170/21 depth [1] 198/6 Deputy [1] 93/22 deregister [1] 66/10 deregistration [2] derived [1] 182/17 describe [4] 98/16 described [5] 27/19 describing [1] 100/15 designated [2] 35/16 desires [1] 171/10 desperate [1] 207/14 despite [20] 38/17 destroy [1] 98/23 destroyed [3] 38/22 detail [8] 55/7 69/12 detailed [1] 67/10 details [6] 47/20 details of [1] 47/20 deteriorating [1] determine [1] 123/17 determined [5] 98/4 determining [1] 181/5 development [1] deviations [2] 125/23 DIANA [1] 2/22 dictated [1] 193/9 dictating [1] 192/20 did [144] 14/19 17/20 didn't [11] 83/20 difference [11] 34/15 differences [3] 32/9 different [33] 9/12 differentiate [1] 59/22 differently [1] 77/23 difficult [8] 30/23 difficulties [2] 104/4 difficulty [2] 209/3 dig [1] 107/20 digging [1] 225/3 digits [1] 221/19 diligence [2] 41/14 diligent [19] 155/8 diligently [3] 42/12 direct [19] 24/22 26/1 directed [3] 222/18 direction [1] 211/5 |
[Page 86]
|
directions [1] 167/20 directly [5] 63/19 director [3] 222/6 disagree [1] 56/20 disagreement [3] disappoint [1] 154/14 Disaster [1] 265/5 disc [1] 198/2 discharge [2] 158/4 disclosed [1] 18/18 disclosure [1] 16/8 discount [2] 147/8 discounted [2] 134/7 discovered [2] 207/12 discredit [1] 100/13 discrepancies [1] discrepancy [1] discretion [7] 106/21 discretionary [1] discriminated [1] discrimination [1] discuss [16] 25/16 discussed [15] 10/7 discussing [7] 40/10 discussion [10] 17/2 discussions [1] dismissed [4] 19/21 disparate [1] 110/25 dispense [1] 10/24 dispensed [2] 11/14 |
display [1] 164/24 displayed [1] 264/20 disposition [62] 57/10 Disposition 1-A [19] Disposition 2 [11] dispositions [89] |
243/13 253/13 263/13 dispositions' [1] dispute [14] 54/17 disputed [5] 39/25 DISPUTES [1] 1/3 disregard [1] 101/3 distance [2] 101/4 distinct [1] 58/5 distinction [1] 60/5 distinguish [1] 61/15 distinguishable [2] distinguished [1] distribute [2] 33/5 distributed [1] 33/9 distribution [3] 33/8 district [42] 38/13 disturbing [1] 95/17 divergences [1] 171/8 divided [1] 287/5 division [1] 273/15 divisions [3] 198/25 do [183] 7/18 7/21 do-able [1] 7/21 document [33] 12/25 document and [1] documentary [1] documentation [1] documented [1] documents [51] 11/21 does [53] 24/13 30/13 doesn't [3] 166/19 doing [16] 37/4 60/9 Dolzer [3] 12/18 12/22 domestic [6] 33/22 don't [93] 17/20 50/12 |
[Page 87]
|
don't... [39] 233/20 done [16] 11/1 58/15 door [2] 109/13 doors [2] 8/8 82/24 double [2] 57/2 doubt [11] 11/1 12/24 doubts [2] 108/13 down [11] 8/14 9/12 downplay [1] 99/9 Dr [4] 1/16 2/13 Dr Andrei Gumovschi Dr Mihail Rurac [1] dramatically [2] 146/9 drastically [1] 116/15 drawn [1] 167/19 dream [2] 229/18 drive [1] 220/18 driving [1] 249/9 due [12] 12/24 18/15 Duly [1] 30/8 during [28] 14/2 15/4 |
230/25 233/10 237/2 duty [4] 50/2 269/18 dying [1] 94/10 Eeach [33] 7/4 28/10 eager [3] 7/11 7/12 earlier [12] 27/16 earliest [1] 46/7 early [4] 20/23 45/23 early March [1] 89/13 earnest [1] 55/5 earnings [4] 145/10 easily [2] 153/4 easy [1] 200/2 EBIT [1] 184/2 ECE [1] 110/17 economic [3] 105/25 economy [1] 285/22 effect [6] 80/3 110/11 effective [1] 121/19 effectively [1] 234/10 effects [4] 107/9 effectuate [1] 129/11 efficacy [1] 181/4 efficiency [1] 150/9 efficient [1] 132/13 efforts [8] 40/16 40/20 eight [1] 237/18 either [9] 36/24 50/7 elaboration [1] 33/15 election [1] 206/1 electronic [1] 36/14 element [4] 61/7 |
elements [7] 124/9 else [5] 168/6 199/18 elsewhere [1] 19/5 email [3] 36/11 36/16 embarrassed [1] Embassy [3] 192/11 emphasise [1] 216/13 employees [5] 55/2 empt [1] 32/25 empty [1] 110/9 encouraged [2] 154/2 end [20] 12/19 31/7 endeavoured [2] 75/9 endorse [2] 182/7 ends [1] 127/10 enforce [8] 112/3 enforceability [1] enforceable [4] enforced [7] 112/18 enforcement [1] engage [6] 41/13 engaged [8] 41/24 engagement [1] 243/4 engaging [2] 45/3 engineer [2] 39/4 English [17] 13/7 enough [4] 181/20 enshrined [1] 124/24 ensure [2] 125/6 ensured [6] 155/18 enter [5] 43/13 116/25 entered [6] 45/3 48/11 enterprise [1] 175/18 enterprises [1] 134/14 entertain [1] 149/23 enthusiastic [1] entire [13] 30/16 35/6 entirely [9] 131/23 entirety [7] 19/21 entitle [1] 162/21 entitled [9] 32/9 62/7 entitlement [1] 15/3 entitles [1] 158/10 entries [1] 176/17 entrusted [4] 155/19 environment [1] 38/7 envisage [1] 287/10 equal [3] 145/15 147/9 equaling [1] 137/17 equality [3] 29/16 equally [6] 9/2 10/21 equipment [13] 55/2 equipped [1] 105/14 equivalent [1] 103/18 erasures [3] 162/20 errata [3] 21/9 27/8 erratum [1] 25/8 erred [1] 138/20 erroneous [2] 102/18 error [1] 25/5 errors [2] 53/23 98/25 escalate [1] 172/17 escaped [2] 233/7 escaping [1] 225/13 especially [6] 31/25 essence [3] 24/22 essential [5] 121/6 essentially [3] 102/15 establish [2] 164/10 established [10] 40/9 establishing [9] 155/9 establishment [1] esteemed [1] 153/15 estimate [1] 57/3 EU [1] 100/13 Europe [2] 100/14 euros [1] 175/21 evaluate [4] 93/7 evaluation [5] 59/15 evaluations [1] even [48] 57/4 62/17 evening [2] 286/14 event [4] 173/11 events [7] 55/11 55/17 |
[Page 88]
|
events... [1] 214/14 ever [3] 82/9 84/19 every [11] 150/1 every end [1] 200/19 everybody [3] 112/23 everything [32] 28/22 evidence [24] 17/13 evidenced [1] 130/4 evidencing [1] 136/10 evident [1] 120/1 evidentiary [3] 31/22 ex [14] 66/23 87/8 ex ante [1] 118/8 ex parte [11] 66/23 ex post [1] 128/9 exact [5] 87/2 136/17 exactly [24] 44/23 examination [32] 5/5 |
150/15 151/2 152/6 examine [1] 268/8 example [14] 62/5 examples [1] 219/15 exceeded [4] 130/5 excellent [6] 8/19 except [1] 128/12 excessive [1] 184/18 exchange [3] 21/8 exchanged [1] 204/14 excise [2] 130/22 excited [1] 20/24 exclude [1] 118/7 excluded [1] 109/15 exclusion [1] 128/11 exclusively [3] 70/17 excuse [1] 104/12 execute [4] 50/6 51/15 executed [6] 52/6 executing [2] 49/3 execution [5] 47/11 executive [1] 113/10 exercise [3] 109/9 exercised [2] 108/12 exercising [1] 92/17 exhausting [1] 133/7 exhaustion [1] 115/19 exhibit [55] 12/16 |
174/11 174/20 175/7 exhibit 2 [1] 56/12 exhibit 43 [1] 122/13 exhibit 6 [1] 122/12 exhibit 95 [1] 76/7 exhibited [1] 119/20 exhibits [3] 24/11 exist [5] 30/13 79/2 existed [1] 28/11 existing [3] 18/19 exists [4] 30/12 89/16 expand [1] 45/8 expanding [7] 41/22 expansion [3] 43/23 expect [2] 53/18 expectation [1] 60/20 expectations [10] expecting [1] 18/16 expeditiously [1] 6/19 expending [1] 17/24 expenses [5] 183/9 experience [10] 31/5 experienced [3] expert [51] 3/17 3/18 expert's [6] 26/13 expertise [3] 119/4 experts [39] 3/15 4/15 expiration [1] 78/22 explain [14] 57/25 explainable [1] 134/8 explained [3] 147/6 explains [2] 230/4 explanation [6] 19/9 explanations [2] 18/6 express [6] 12/20 expressed [4] 6/25 expresses [2] 128/11 expressing [4] 6/22 expression [1] 77/24 expressly [1] 109/14 extend [1] 11/17 extended [1] 65/23 extending [1] 167/1 extends [1] 90/10 extension [1] 232/6 extensive [1] 94/8 extent [8] 18/20 23/5 extra [4] 15/16 20/5 extract [1] 162/17 extracts [1] 32/6 extraordinary [4] 31/9 extremely [2] 34/16 Fface [5] 71/16 104/22 faced [2] 100/1 104/3 facilitated [1] 131/3 facing [1] 115/16 fact [31] 18/14 19/2 facts [9] 39/18 46/16 factual [7] 42/16 factually [1] 110/25 faded [1] 79/21 fail [3] 103/12 104/23 failed [12] 20/1 102/7 fails [1] 146/7 failure [15] 93/5 93/25 failures [3] 155/12 fair [6] 15/8 29/17 fairly [3] 6/6 6/19 faith [10] 19/10 22/21 fall [3] 45/23 45/24 familiar [4] 34/13 53/6 family [7] 115/3 233/9 famous [3] 86/8 86/18 Fantastic [1] 53/9 far [6] 11/10 16/24 |
[Page 89]
|
farm [13] 38/1 38/1 farmed [1] 41/4 farmer [6] 26/14 38/3 farmers [10] 166/1 farming [64] 38/5 farmland [2] 148/14 farmlands [1] 141/14 farms [3] 196/21 fashion [2] 82/7 94/2 fast [1] 7/10 father [1] 157/7 faults [5] 99/1 102/12 favour [9] 108/12 favours [1] 224/11 features [1] 148/14 February [14] 65/25 fee [17] 212/14 212/15 |
feel [12] 7/20 29/20 fees [1] 149/19 FELIX [3] 4/5 9/6 9/18 Felix Schneider [1] felt [2] 80/25 274/20 fertilizers [11] 136/3 few [12] 32/15 45/23 field [4] 165/3 203/20 fields [6] 38/10 91/3 fifth [1] 79/10 fight [5] 157/14 fighting [1] 206/6 figure [6] 21/14 44/22 figures [8] 21/12 Filat [4] 144/22 171/11 file [7] 13/21 13/25 filed [10] 13/12 71/11 files [1] 59/15 fill [6] 47/20 160/19 filled [4] 158/15 filling [5] 59/7 60/16 final [8] 25/22 39/10 finalising [1] 151/24 finally [12] 40/16 finance [2] 234/25 |
financed [2] 99/12 financial [1] 42/17 find [20] 27/2 32/19 finding [2] 64/13 findings [2] 65/15 finds [2] 179/13 fine [7] 6/3 20/18 24/2 finish [4] 152/23 first [84] 8/22 9/16 fist [1] 6/6 five [8] 15/23 20/14 fix [2] 53/23 198/19 fixed [4] 174/21 flag [1] 23/7 fled [1] 94/12 fleshed [1] 144/4 flexibility [3] 37/17 flexible [1] 133/16 Floresti [76] 38/12 flow [2] 134/7 135/6 fluent [1] 31/15 fly [1] 183/15 focus [14] 39/17 focuses [2] 70/17 focusing [5] 31/7 98/9 follow [3] 36/11 followed [4] 43/10 following [6] 83/7 food [3] 93/23 197/19 footnote [2] 30/14 forbidden [1] 88/4 force [5] 110/11 forced [2] 115/14 forefront [1] 134/13 foreign [6] 41/18 foremost [3] 42/11 forge [1] 40/22 forget [1] 169/15 forgetting [1] 210/19 forgot [1] 210/20 form [10] 17/14 24/11 formality [1] 190/2 formally [1] 31/6 forms [1] 60/17 forth [3] 37/12 150/2 forthcoming [1] 20/12 Fortier [9] 1/15 2/9 Fortunately [2] 109/7 forum [1] 171/4 forward [7] 45/21 forward-looking [4] found [17] 33/23 founded [1] 172/5 four [18] 122/25 four-year [1] 185/2 fourth [3] 117/9 118/7 framework [4] 46/24 France [1] 2/15 frankly [1] 167/23 fraudulent [1] 39/6 FRAUKE [2] 2/18 6/13 Frauke Nitschke [1] free [7] 15/17 148/6 friend [4] 204/23 friendly [1] 246/10 frightened [1] 260/24 fro [1] 23/25 front [15] 32/18 38/25 frozen [1] 200/23 fulfil [1] 235/8 fulfilled [4] 115/6 full [5] 29/17 32/15 |
[Page 90]
Ffull [3] 150/10 fully [11] 8/6 12/8 14/4 functional [1] 253/25 funded [5] 14/25 funder [2] 16/14 18/19 funders [2] 16/17 funding [8] 13/9 16/12 funds [1] 17/4 Further [24] 5/8 18/8 futile [1] 115/23 futility [1] 114/19 future [2] 145/22 Ggained [2] 17/1 17/23 GALIS [1] 2/25 Gasan [13] 170/4 Gasan's [1] 216/8 gather [2] 281/2 284/8 gathering [1] 175/20 gave [3] 156/23 234/9 GDPR [1] 279/21 general [11] 36/22 generally [6] 34/13 generated [1] 141/6 generations [2] 168/1 generic [1] 160/24 generous [1] 240/1 genesis [2] 121/25 gentleman [1] 156/22 gentlemen [4] 8/21 |
genuine [1] 30/11 get [38] 19/16 23/11 getting [3] 79/3 168/5 Ghindesti [1] 164/23 GIEDRE [2] 3/5 8/15 give [35] 7/12 8/2 given [32] 15/16 17/13 gives [1] 25/15 giving [5] 24/17 34/15 GLADE [2] 240/18 go [26] 3/16 3/17 8/22 63/7 Gisela's [8] 29/16 Gleason [1] 27/14 GLEASON [11] 3/3 Gleason Wells [1] gleasonwells.com [3] |
3/9 3/9 3/10 gmail.com [1] 2/16 GMSH [1] 10/17 go [68] 4/6 7/10 9/12 God [1] 232/8 goes [10] 26/18 26/18 going [80] 8/14 16/19 Good [6] 16/24 93/16 good [62] 8/2 20/18 goodbye [1] 256/3 got [31] 7/4 7/5 8/1 |
246/20 247/3 247/3 go to [12] 9/10 25/18 government [18] government-approved governmental [1] graciously [1] 6/21 grand [2] 54/19 71/7 grant [1] 286/11 granted [3] 14/24 grateful [4] 107/12 Gray [1] 2/5 green [8] 17/1 57/10 grew [2] 164/25 groove [1] 168/14 gross [1] 137/13 GROT [184] 1/8 3/12 |
186/11 186/18 186/21 ground [9] 105/18 grounded [2] 174/5 groundless [1] 135/6 groundlessness [2] grounds [3] 57/19 group [2] 118/5 grow [1] 199/20 growing [4] 116/21 guarantee [1] 171/13 guess [1] 79/12 guidance [1] 281/8 guided [1] 23/19 guilty [1] 144/16 GUMBOVSCHI [2] 3/18 guy [10] 192/18 guys [3] 192/24 GUZUN [3] 4/11 9/7 HH [1] 2/18 had [17] 41/24 43/6 hadn't [10] 111/21 |
[Page 91]
Hhad... [174] 27/24 Haiduc [1] 270/11 half [3] 8/12 82/12 halfway [1] 21/4 hall [10] 49/25 75/22 |
119/23 129/10 171/21 halls [1] 119/18 hallway [1] 119/18 halls [2] 45/15 90/3 hamper [1] 107/24 hand [23] 10/19 30/9 handed [3] 28/19 handle [1] 19/11 handling [5] 105/14 handled [2] 161/24 handles [2] 161/23 handling [2] 262/14 handshake [1] 228/7 handwashing [2] 213/5 handwritten [3] 56/23 hang [1] 73/21 happen [10] 89/1 happened [12] 23/8 happening [1] 92/23 happens [2] 91/9 happy [14] 9/2 10/9 hard [2] 54/14 266/9 hardline [1] 226/8 harder [4] 226/22 harvested [1] 165/8 harvesters [1] 116/14 harvesting [3] 116/8 has [80] 3/13 8/13 |
41/2 42/14 50/2 57/17 hate [1] 89/11 haven't [1] 89/11 having [480] 16/14 he [190] 43/4 43/9 |
220/17 222/11 229/22 He invited [1] 204/7 head [8] 58/2 100/5 heads [1] 244/2 health [2] 264/4 264/6 healthy [1] 197/18 hear [25] 7/11 10/2 heard [21] 14/12 hearing [12] 1/19 hearings [1] 29/19 |
Heaven [2] 205/17 heavily [1] 248/13 heavy [3] 250/9 hectares [1] 197/10 hedges, from [1] held [5] 45/19 84/13 Heimann [1] 109/16 help [26] 12/18 45/25 helped [3] 48/23 helpful [13] 16/21 helping [7] 38/18 helpless [1] 49/11 hence [3] 36/11 36/12 her [37] 6/1 6/1 8/8 hesitate [1] 41/4 hesitated [12] 205/24 |
[Page 92]
Hhiding [1] 243/18 high [25] 40/22 high-ranking [1] high-tech [1] 185/9 high-technology [2] high-yield [4] 40/22 higher [10] 120/2 highest [1] 121/16 highlight [12] 52/14 highlighted [4] 21/13 highlighting [1] 134/4 highlights [1] 137/4 highly [2] 100/14 him [37] 8/13 11/14 himself [3] 277/5 HINKLE [8] 3/4 8/13 hire [7] 192/7 195/18 hired [7] 55/3 157/4 his [65] 8/23 9/9 14/12 |
115/23 124/3 125/3 hit [1] 10/20 Hmm [2] 227/10 Hmm mm [2] 227/10 hoc [1] 109/16 hold [6] 18/1 31/19 holder [1] 56/25 holding [1] 31/20 holes [1] 165/5 holistic [2] 105/14 home [7] 192/2 200/8 homework [1] 247/15 homing [2] 33/13 Hon [2] 1/15 2/9 hone [1] 119/16 honest [6] 22/6 Honestly [2] 263/18 honesty [1] 286/19 honour [28] 6/10 Honourable [1] 6/11 honoured [2] 7/25 honours [2] 231/12 hope [13] 6/25 11/15 hopefully [3] 18/16 |
184/7 188/3 hopelessly [1] 35/3 host [4] 46/21 46/25 hotel [1] 156/19 hour [2] 111/25 housekeeping [7] 7/8 houses [1] 165/4 how [76] 12/19 15/2 however [19] 14/8 huge [5] 31/9 79/7 hugged [1] 205/16 human [2] 214/2 hundred [2] 225/8 hundreds [10] 81/2 hungry [1] 224/14 hurry [1] 252/20 hyperlinked [2] 12/5 hypothetical [1] 106/9 II actually [1] 274/20 I advised [1] 276/14 I agree [2] 49/8 214/3 |
I also [2] 133/23 151/1 I always [1] 274/6 I am [109] 6/11 8/10 I answer [2] 207/6 I apologise [7] 54/4 I applied [1] 207/10 I appreciate [3] I as [1] 33/22 I ask [6] 151/10 217/1 I asked [8] 246/2 I beg [1] 173/2 I believe [8] 46/6 I call [1] 207/21 I called [3] 204/18 I came [2] 213/8 250/7 I can [10] 68/19 110/7 |
112/13 166/7 175/12 I can't [9] 207/11 I cannot [1] 74/11 I certainly [1] 276/12 I check [1] 69/20 I chose [2] 218/17 I cite [1] 114/5 I close [1] 148/8 I come [2] 33/16 58/2 I confirm [1] 283/15 I consider [1] 285/9 I could [21] 7/22 I created [1] 51/24 I decided [1] 157/11 I did [12] 23/20 192/19 I didn't [1] 275/3 I direct [2] 139/1 I directed [1] 249/16 I discovered [2] I do [17] 18/17 26/4 I don't [35] 76/10 I escaped [2] 233/7 I express [1] 187/20 I feel [1] 227/23 I get [1] 101/25 I give [1] 236/6 I got [7] 192/8 216/2 |
[Page 93]
II got... [5] 240/15 I guess [1] 79/12 I had [14] 27/21 I have [1] 233/16 I have [56] 6/9 10/6 I hear [1] 37/22 I heard [2] 22/9 I hire [1] 192/7 I hired [2] 207/8 221/5 I hope [5] 29/15 36/22 I intended [2] 119/15 I introduce [1] 8/5 I introduced [1] I invested [1] 248/24 I invite [2] 95/5 251/7 I just [5] 7/1 10/18 I keep [1] 62/22 I knew [11] 27/11 I laughed [1] 246/3 I left [11] 210/1 213/1 I look [1] 219/24 I made [2] 18/25 53/12 |
I may [18] 36/6 40/19 I mean [6] 10/24 I mention [1] 136/25 I met [5] 204/8 204/9 I might [1] 276/3 I mislead [1] 223/21 I misunderstood [2] I moved [2] 170/2 I need [3] 162/20 I never [3] 191/6 I now [1] 133/6 I only [3] 209/10 I own [1] 187/8 I paid [3] 256/24 I say [1] 212/14 I please [4] 76/12 I received [2] 26/10 I recall [1] 212/13 I remain [1] 69/21 I remember [10] I remind [2] 160/25 I respectfully [1] I responded [1] I returned [1] 250/2 I right [2] 203/4 I saw [20] 33/11 44/7 I saw [1] 269/19 |
I say [1] 271/10 I see [11] 28/5 28/1 I shall [1] 219/20 I share [1] 204/20 I signed [4] 19/5 I simply [2] 186/21 I spent [3] 31/14 I spoke [2] 204/25 I stand [1] 268/22 I suggest [1] 233/15 I suppose [1] 228/24 I supposed [1] 191/13 I switched [1] 207/17 I take [1] 285/18 I think [60] 12/15 I thought [10] 16/20 I told [3] 246/8 276/13 I took [5] 187/13 I travelled [1] 200/9 I tried [2] 205/20 208/18 I turn [2] 16/6 100/3 |
I turned [1] 259/23 I understand [16] I understood [3] 213/14 I used [2] 33/21 226/17 I very [1] 80/22 I want [24] 6/8 11/8 15/9 I wanted [2] 170/3 I was [65] 15/21 15/22 I went [32] 13/20 I will [14] 7/7 15/19 I wish [3] 22/3 267/5 |
287/11 I witnessed [1] 249/6 I wonder [5] 10/9 I wondered [1] 274/4 I work [1] 246/19 I would [88] 8/2 8/6 I'd [3] 81/17 185/6 I've [1] 239/13 ICS [1] 176/24 ICSID [10] 41/19 45/1 ICSID's [10] 1/5 2/17 ID [1] 282/23 idea [7] 10/25 111/19 identical [2] 81/1 256/15 identification [1] identify [3] 15/4 identified [4] 91/19 ignores [3] 114/19 ignoring [1] 63/19 II [3] 83/1 87/13 87/25 |
[Page 94]
Iignores... [9] 103/23 ignoring [5] 106/17 Igor [1] 262/2 Igor Guzun [2] 71/23 Igor Toaci [1] 255/23 II [1] 181/15 illegal [17] 73/2 84/7 illegally [9] 35/25 illogical [1] 101/18 image [1] 164/19 imagine [1] 80/25 imagining [1] 162/21 immediate [2] 170/13 immediately [9] 16/25 imminent [1] 82/21 impact [1] 141/10 impede [1] 30/24 implicated [1] 91/21 implicated [2] 102/20 imply [1] 139/23 import [1] 219/9 importance [1] 141/2 important [22] 62/12 importantly [7] 42/15 imported [4] 55/2 impose [3] 109/23 impossible [9] 65/15 impression [3] 92/9 impressions [1] |
impressive [1] 8/4 improper [2] 123/20 improperly [1] 131/13 impugn [1] 181/19 impugned [2] 153/19 in April 2011 [1] 170/8 in December [2] in December 2010 [2] in December 2011 [2] in December 2012 [1] in February [1] 65/25 in late [1] 92/22 in March 2011 [3] in March/April [1] in May [1] 205/25 in May 2012 [1] inability [1] 42/3 inadmissible [2] 13/6 inappropriate [2] incentives [1] 144/18 incidents [1] 249/4 inclined [1] 9/4 inclination [4] 10/18 include [3] 10/15 included [2] 118/22 including [3] 19/2 includes [3] 43/24 including [15] 11/22 incoherent [1] 107/23 income [2] 206/4 inconsistency [1] incorporates [1] incorrect [1] 136/17 incorrectly [1] 140/1 increased [1] 140/1 indeed [26] 9/24 |
169/22 177/13 178/25 independent [2] index [2] 12/8 12/17 indicate [7] 33/21 indicated [2] 143/23 indicates [9] 36/21 indicating [7] 73/12 indicted [6] 183/16 indirectly [1] 184/12 individual [4] 123/13 individually [1] induced [2] 180/19 industrial [1] 164/18 industrially [1] 202/25 industry [3] 93/23 inelegantly [1] 18/3 inevitable [1] 126/18 infer [1] 141/3 inference [4] 42/2 inferences [1] 167/19 inflate [2] 99/11 influence [3] 139/6 influenced [3] 281/1 influential [1] 21/14 informal [2] 275/24 informe [2] 135/20 information [17] informed [5] 85/15 infringed [1] 229/10 initial [9] 38/11 51/10 |
146/24 147/20 149/11 initially [2] 38/17 initiated [2] 122/8 injunction [18] 66/23 injunctions [16] 87/9 inn [1] 2/5 innocent [1] 120/6 innovative [1] 10/1 inorganic [1] 145/2 input [4] 6/21 145/14 inputs [3] 147/22 inquiry [2] 169/14 inquired [2] 71/25 insert [1] 145/20 inserted [1] 143/3 insight [1] 118/8 insist [3] 9/5 163/18 insisted [1] 163/1 insistence [1] 283/3 instance [2] 10/9 instances [1] 173/20 instead [7] 15/18 institution [1] 280/19 instructed [3] 114/7 instruction [1] 225/2 instructions [2] 2/4 instrument [1] 110/8 insufficient [1] 246/4 integrity [1] 17/11 intelligence [1] 22/5 intend [3] 20/11 intended [3] 28/13 intensive [1] 185/11 intention [2] 85/23 intentions [2] 154/9 interest [9] 147/22 |
interested [7] 220/13 interesting [4] 90/16 interfere [3] 90/8 interfered [2] 76/3 interfering [1] 79/9 interim [2] 20/10 international [20] 1/2 internet [1] 247/16 interrogation [10] interpreted [1] 32/13 interpreters [3] 2/23 interrupt [1] 95/9 interrupted [1] 22/12 interrupt [2] 208/23 interrupted [1] intervention [4] 95/11 interview [2] 144/21 introduce [11] 7/3 introduced [2] 44/20 introduction [2] 12/12 invalid [5] 163/9 invalidate [1] 130/16 invalidity [3] 129/2 invariably [1] 31/17 invent [2] 78/23 invert [2] 10/24 35/24 invested [3] 52/24 investigating [1] investigation [5] 39/2 |
[Page 95]
investment [74] 1/3
38/11 38/13 38/19
38/22 39/19 40/4 40/6
40/8 40/20 41/14
41/24 41/25 43/1 43/4
43/15 44/10 44/12
44/2 44/12 45/9 45/17
47/2 47/5 48/16 90/9
92/24 98/23 103/9
103/12 104/2 104/9
104/13 108/16 109/23
110/10 110/21 115/13
116/8 116/12 116/17
148/24 149/3 151/1
155/15 155/9 155/11
155/19 156/10 161/21
161/24 163/25 165/12
165/14 194/20 194/21
194/21 195/11 195/22
194/19 194/22 196/20
202/22 203/1 210/13
212/8 222/2 241/8
247/9 263/1 263/23
264/1 264/4 275/25
investments [6] 40/7
97/22 131/4 157/4
170/25 218/14
investor [3] 49/5
145/15 277/14
investors [6] 41/18
156/7 277/16 278/1
278/2
invitation [2] 69/24
233/24
invite [8] 12/10 13/13
16/19 95/5 95/17
126/3 158/19 204/10
invited [7] 45/12
92/22 204/7 206/8
252/9 253/11 254/10
invitee [1] 45/12
inviting [1] 72/23
invoice [2] 223/6
257/4
invoices [5] 15/24
16/3 92/8 158/12
involving [2] 218/20
242/23 261/21
involvement [3] 94/3
136/1 278/18
ion [8] 2/24 88/25
89/10 136/1 160/11
214/11 238/8 270/14
Ion Lugu [2] 136/1
238/8
IONESCU [1] 2/24
iron [1] 6/6
irrelevant [4] 115/21
120/14 183/19 262/23
is execution [1] 60/11
issuance [1] 173/3
issue [84] 10/19 13/25
11/20 13/2 14/19 15/6
15/9 16/6 16/23 17/6
17/10 17/17 17/20
17/22 17/24 18/3 18/5
18/17 18/18 19/7
19/14 23/8 24/17
24/20 25/1 25/22 26/1
26/8 26/15 26/19
26/21 27/15 28/23
31/19 32/14 32/24
32/25 34/7 45/20
46/25 52/12 57/6
61/21 64/25 65/4 68/9
75/20 90/21 96/12
96/15 97/14 99/1
99/15 101/3 105/11
116/16 116/9 120/14
127/1 131/4 134/14
137/12 138/5 139/6
139/9 139/14 140/11
143/7 150/1 150/1
160/1 186/21 189/1
172/23 191/12 201/24
205/9 225/13 231/25
252/24 262/11 278/9
284/11 284/11
issued [10] 75/8 88/9
92/10 92/20 161/14
220/24 243/7 243/8
252/24 269/24
issues [62] 7/5 7/8 7/9
9/21 10/6 11/18 15/1
18/21 19/19 20/14
21/1 22/13 22/14
22/19 23/25 25/4
26/13 27/6 28/22
29/18 31/24 32/11
34/20 37/14 44/8
45/11 53/11 63/7
69/14 96/14 116/3
118/1 118/12 119/8
119/11 119/14 120/16
120/20 121/6 126/9
133/19 137/14 153/19
137/13 154/3 155/6
238/10 275/13 276/14
276/15 278/10 281/3
issuing [1] 123/3
145/23
it [1] 30/3 44/1
109/25
item [1] 44/1
its [56] 13/9 14/10
17/9 17/18 18/18
18/24 22/23 27/22
91/4 99/18 102/5
102/7 103/8 104/15
105/16 110/11 120/12
121/7 121/8 121/8
122/16 122/16 127/23
134/14 134/17 134/21
135/2 135/24 136/16
137/2 137/8 138/24
139/21 140/17 141/16
142/24 146/11 146/24
147/19 147/22 149/25
150/10 153/20 155/4
156/10 171/17 171/9
171/23 174/23 176/13
180/25 181/1 187/20
191/12 244/19 264/24
itself [12] 49/24 65/1
87/24 121/4 121/14
122/18 123/24 123/14
123/24 124/10 127/17
169/24
Ivan [1] 231/6
Ivanes [11] 66/25 72/1
72/12 72/25 77/21
79/16 79/24 93/1
93/13 114/6 283/14
jail [3] 225/19 225/21
247/17
January [10] 65/7
66/13 66/17 67/18
67/20 189/13 252/7
252/9 264/23
job [7] 14/16 164/13
167/18 167/19 181/24
182/8 182/9 203/11
224/25 240/17 243/8
248/3 259/9 271/12
jobs [2] 166/13 283/25
joined [1] 131/15
joining [1] 266/14
jokes [1] 157/2
Journalism [2] 36/7
147/2 176/5 176/6
judge [5] 107/14
118/15 133/19 217/23
218/1 241/13 257/14
judge's [1] 107/12
judges [1] 108/21
107/5 108/1
judges' [1] 107/5
judgment [4] 154/14
142/14 178/3 260/6
judgments [1] 260/9
judicially [1] 107/14
July [4] 178/4 269/10
270/9 271/4
jump [1] 40/1 122/6
278/4 278/4
jumped [3] 26/9
133/13 165/22
253/10
jumping [1] 205/11
June [2] 144/21
269/11
June 2007 [1] 269/10
June 2010 [1] 144/21
juridical [1] 121/21
109/25
juris [100] 7/5 7/7 7/12
8/9 8/13 9/19 10/8
12/15 13/16 16/2
17/15 17/19 19/9
21/20 22/13 23/18
24/14 25/7 27/5 27/15
28/1 34/9 37/1 43/19
47/24 47/18 49/19
50/18 51/1 53/19
54/16 57/1 64/3 69/16
72/8 76/7 76/19 79/10
79/15 82/13 93/15
95/19 95/19 95/23
96/6 97/14 103/16
105/19 105/21 107/7
119/1 119/18 121/3
119/1 128/19 133/19
134/1 134/18 136/23
143/17 148/8 149/25
162/1 165/25 183/23
184/6 186/12 186/14
186/19 188/13 188/18
188/22 190/13 190/21
190/21 204/11 205/17
207/3 225/17 225/21
226/15 227/25 228/2
242/22 257/20 261/12
263/1 264/2 266/22
266/24 267/1 272/19
272/21 274/12 279/23
280/20 281/4 281/19
283/3 285/3
justice [3] 177/18
260/5 260/10
justification [6]
120/24 128/14 128/17
142/21 171/19 171/22
justifications [1]
128/15
justified [1] 134/8
justify [2] 119/22
127/20
keep [4] 14/19 62/22
74/1 215/5 231/9
keeping [1] 209/11
kept [1] 255/14
key [5] 70/14 70/25
70/12 70/15 70/16
kill [4] 255/5 255/9
255/8 255/8
killed [3] 233/8 249/5
270/12
kilo [5] 205/20 205/20
205/21 205/23 206/1
kilometres [1] 220/18
kind [18] 19/8 19/8 198/2
205/23 206/10 206/13
237/22 240/6 248/10
248/24 249/11
249/14 249/15 251/13
263/22
kinds [1] 249/13
king [3] 32/10 69/13
219/12
Kingdom [1] 2/6
KLINGST [2] 2/20
11/22
Klinger [1] 112/22
knew [7] 22/6 27/11
27/12 28/7 28/13
63/22 213/3
Knieper [1] 1/16
knock [1] 17/24
know [139] 7/3 7/9
9/19 14/2 14/17 17/5
15/1 20/12 62/24
66/16 66/18 71/11
67/16 68/23 73/10
73/8 73/10 74/7 74/9
76/11 76/16 85/5 83/6
88/14 89/18 91/8
93/19 101/18 114/2
138/24 142/14 157/1
166/15 166/20 169/1
169/3 173/23 189/17
192/9 193/18 194/14
195/16 197/9 198/4
198/20 201/15 201/13
202/1 202/1 202/10
205/16 206/10 206/11
206/13 208/7 217/19
217/21 218/3 218/3
218/24 220/17 221/11
223/6 224/13 224/17
224/7 224/10 224/12
224/9 225/12 225/18
227/21 231/7 231/14
231/20 234/16 234/18
237/16 239/14 239/1
240/18 240/15 241/6
241/7 242/12 245/18
246/2 246/3 246/22
247/2 248/3 248/4
248/9 249/1 249/9
252/14 253/8 254/14
255/14 255/6 258/4
258/13 258/14 259/19
259/12 260/4 261/2
263/11 264/19 267/1
269/24 269/14 269/13
269/22 271/24 272/1
272/22 272/23 273/12
274/20 275/2 275/9
275/12 278/10 278/1
278/7 278/9 278/10
278/11 278/17 279/1
281/1 281/17 282/16
285/12
know that [1] 237/16
knowledge [14]
109/17 209/25 221/6
221/10 221/9 221/9
242/12 247/14 252/5
269/1 272/15 275/25
275/8 276/17
known [12] 120/17
141/8 214/20 214/21
[Page 96]
known [8] 269/16
275/7 275/18 276/3
277/10 277/13 277/20
278/2
knows [43] 4/3
Kopecky [43] 4/3
9/5 9/17 12/13 133/13
186/8 202/9 202/10
204/17 208/4 208/4
208/17 209/12 210/10
220/18 220/19 220/21
220/9 223/13 222/16
224/7 225/2 229/17
231/3 233/4 233/11
233/5 233/4
234/11 234/12 235/9
236/14 236/15 236/24
242/4 244/24 247/7
248/10 256/1 258/6
268/10 272/12
Kozak [8] 2/24 3/8
9/19 160/11 211/16
211/17 214/12 238/8
242/14
KPMG [5] 4/17 4/17
4/18 64/25 95/1
Kraven [1] 11/12
L.Kopecky [1] 4/8
133/13
la [5] 96/8 109/6
111/5 119/21 120/5
120/18 122/1 122/2
123/13
lack [2] 62/9 62/10
153/16
lacking [1] 153/16
Laguardia [1] 153/16
land [78] 38/6
39/14 39/20 45/1
47/17 48/20 55/8
55/23 56/10 57/14
57/15 57/17 62/1
63/18 63/23 72/19
74/18 74/19 74/19
83/11 83/14 86/15
86/24 87/20 88/12
88/13 88/22 89/20
90/4 91/14 92/16
92/17 93/15 93/16
94/2 97/10 106/2
113/17 114/8 117/8
118/1 122/16 122/16
129/6 129/18 130/3
130/5 130/11 130/25
130/25 131/9 131/10
135/17 136/3 137/2
137/20 141/9 141/21
142/20 143/10 145/12
145/4 145/5 146/10
146/10 146/20 146/24
147/19 147/21 149/7
155/15 157/15 157/16
158/2 158/14 158/15
159/25 160/11 160/20
164/16 169/17 169/17
169/18 169/19 171/1
174/1 174/21 179/9
179/20 180/2 190/23
194/6 198/10 198/12
199/9 199/18 201/21
206/11 206/22 209/20
210/8 210/10 211/25
211/22 211/25 212/1
212/4 213/4 213/5
215/15 215/16 217/13
219/10 220/25 225/12
230/5 237/8 238/1
238/3 238/10 242/5
242/6 242/9 242/14
254/8 269/12 269/13
270/2 270/16 271/21
272/4 272/11 272/16
272/2 280/2 282/1
284/11
Laguardia's [29]
47/18 64/25 92/5 88/4
89/23 91/1 94/17
94/20 105/11 105/20
115/24 120/15 130/6
130/12 136/18 137/14
138/18 140/14 161/9
169/18 195/1 196/17
199/25 199/13 220/2
221/7
land [78] 39/11 58/9
land [78] 88/13 91/9 91/15
91/17 91/19 91/21 92/3
92/5 92/12 126/2
126/4 130/13 144/17
157/21 162/18 163/12
164/8 164/12 164/17
165/11 166/13 175/6
175/12 175/19 187/13
188/8 196/18 201/11
196/1 197/24 201/1
201/12 201/15 201/20
202/1 202/25 203/2
203/4 204/22 204/25
205/1 205/11 205/13
208/1 218/1 222/18
222/19 224/13 225/5
226/10 226/16 231/8
234/17 234/19 234/9
235/1 235/8 238/7
247/21 249/13 251/25
249/24 250/13 251/25
252/14 253/9 269/1
269/18 270/1 270/5
271/10 272/4 274/2
280/25 283/2
landowner [18] 49/11
62/7 76/13 76/22 77/2
77/1 77/1 77/1 78/4
160/24 161/1 161/23
201/5 201/6 201/22
landowner's [75] 49/13
49/15 49/17 49/20
49/4 50/21 51/12
55/15 55/17 56/15
56/18 57/1 56/20
57/11 72/1 77/18
78/13 78/17 77/18
78/13 78/19 78/24
84/21 85/16 85/16
85/16 91/11 91/13
91/24 92/2 92/15
157/18 158/15 159/24
160/16 161/7 162/13
203/3 28/19 69/7
89/13 91/12 113/13
118/22 179/15 179/18
182/9 182/20 220/17
134/11 134/11 134/11
138/3 142/8 150/7
250/4 250/17 255/17
250/4 250/17 256/10
landowners' [2] 39/8
89/9 114/14 272/11
landownership [1]
47/16
lands [39] 39/6 164/20
164/25 165/5 91/24
92/10 92/18 93/1
131/17 164/6 165/10
165/11 230/16 245/14
230/16 245/14 249/21
249/23 251/6 271/23
272/3 272/11 282/12
language [21] 62/5
109/8 109/9 109/15
109/16 109/16 110/5
127/23 128/15 128/19
128/24 218/19 222/15
218/24 219/22 242/1
242/23 257/15
land-use [7] 102/5
118/21 144/1 167/13
167/21 203/15
large [2] 154/18
154/20 205/21
LARS [2] 3/18 137/8
last [24] 5/3 13/18
13/19 24/6 30/19
37/10 53/1 53/15
117/6 117/6 163/19
164/20 184/1 189/1
190/1 211/23 211/25
237/18 238/15 256/15
285/15
lastly [1] 65/24
late [11] 12/11 13/12
14/10 14/11 45/24
45/25 90/14
late December 2011
[1] 90/14
late February [1]
89/14
late March 2011 [1]
90/14
later [29] 14/11 46/15
52/11 58/1 66/21
67/2 68/5 68/6 74/5
75/7 82/15 83/3 83/11
92/11 100/21 104/12
136/6 156/2 156/8
201/15 214/11 214/23
238/8 239/4 272/4
280/2 280/19
latest [1] 89/13
laughed [1] 246/3
law [1] 285/13
law [88] 39/11 51/14
39/21 51/3 51/13 52/6
52/19 53/3 54/19
58/20 59/14 59/15
59/16 60/13 62/2
63/19 63/15 63/15
63/19 71/8 75/12 76/2
77/1 78/5 78/14
86/10 86/24 92/18
99/16 99/22 99/23
99/24 100/1 100/24
101/23 102/2 108/19
109/3 111/7 111/14
112/4 113/13 120/14
121/21 122/24 124/24
124/25 125/7 125/12
125/17 126/10 126/22
128/10 128/13 128/21
129/14 129/15 129/17
131/22 132/2 155/23
155/20 155/21 156/2
161/10 161/11 162/2
169/6 172/6 173/17
174/8 176/11 176/13
180/6 180/10 180/15
180/9 181/19 202/11
207/7 208/1 208/14
208/14 218/8 241/2
241/7 254/11 274/13
law [1] 105/16
lawyer [23] 167/9
167/17 167/19 211/5
211/11 222/23 225/1
236/17 247/23 258/11
258/12 258/13 258/15
258/16 258/21 259/13
259/15
lawyers [12] 12/25
187/10 216/12 220/10
220/2 248/7 249/1
259/2 259/6 259/11
259/13 260/11
lead [2] 11/1 52/3
120/11 120/14 121/1
122/23 123/13 123/15
123/17 123/19 131/24
101/24 140/1
leader [2] 43/17
124/1 124/4 245/19
lease [159] 43/12
45/20 47/19 47/20
48/11 48/11 48/17
48/25 49/2 50/16
50/24 50/20 51/1
50/8 56/18 63/13 58/6
58/6 60/12 60/17 62/6
62/24 62/25 66/10
69/1 71/24 72/1 72/12
69/1 75/23 75/25 76/8
75/23 75/25 76/8 77/3
77/12 77/19 78/18
78/20 79/21 81/17
83/10 84/7 85/25 86/7
88/19 89/3 90/1 90/7
105/18 112/3 112/15
112/16 112/18 113/9
113/22 113/25 117/15
117/16 117/19 118/1
118/12 119/14 119/18
124/19 124/21 124/21
125/19 126/15 127/2
127/10 130/1 131/14
155/22 155/23 159/9
160/12 160/14 161/24
161/9 161/17 162/4
162/14 162/25 163/7
163/13 163/14 163/19
164/4 164/10 164/18
165/2 165/11 165/16
168/24 175/1 176/1
176/4 177/1 179/5
179/6 180/21 183/2
185/3 195/10 195/11
195/21 195/23 196/3
196/10 196/12 196/15
201/2 201/1 202/6
205/7 205/7 205/6
205/10 205/11 205/12
212/13 212/18 214/17
215/22 216/25 216/1
218/19 219/14 219/17
219/20 219/20 221/14
222/16 222/19 223/3
223/17 223/19 223/20
238/25 239/16 240/7
240/11 240/23 241/21
241/21 242/2 242/20
242/24 242/25 250/13
250/14 251/17 251/17
280/8 280/17 280/18
282/8
[Page 97]
lease execution [1]
47/11
leased [9] 55/20 88/16
88/23 89/5 91/5 92/3
106/16 130/13 249/25
leases [207] 35/20
35/25 38/14 48/10
48/14 48/18 49/17
50/3 50/3 51/11 51/24
52/5 52/8 54/19 54/23
55/8 55/9 55/16 55/23
56/3 56/10 56/13 57/2
57/5 57/8 57/15 57/17
57/19 57/20 57/22
57/23 58/2 58/8 59/8
62/1 62/4 62/8 62/10
62/10 62/17 62/20
63/10 63/18 64/1
64/25 65/2 65/8 68/21
71/5 71/6 71/20 72/18
72/22 73/12 73/14
73/20 82/5 85/14
86/13 88/4 89/18
89/24 90/3 93/5 94/17
94/22 96/8 96/9 96/24
96/25 97/10 97/11
106/2 113/16 113/17
113/24 114/8 114/13
117/7 117/10 121/18
125/21 126/5 127/15
130/7 130/11 130/17
130/20 130/21 131/10
131/13 132/1 154/18
154/20 157/15 157/25
158/2 158/14 158/15
158/20 159/3 159/18
159/20 159/23 159/24
160/9 160/16 160/19
161/5 161/7 161/11
161/13 161/21 161/24
162/2 162/3 162/11
162/20 163/8 163/17
163/21 165/10 165/21
166/2 166/10 166/21
167/1 167/2 168/3
168/11 169/17 169/23
175/1 176/21 178/24
179/3 179/16 185/2
195/8 195/8 195/8
200/22 203/6 203/13
207/5 207/25 209/19
209/22 210/4 210/8
210/10 210/24 210/24
211/9 211/14 211/24
211/25 212/11 212/22
213/8 213/17 214/10
215/23 216/18 217/5
217/7 217/9 217/23
218/18 219/2 219/5
219/11 221/15 221/21
222/4 222/15 223/8
223/12 224/1 224/6
224/16 224/20 224/22
224/23 225/3 225/4
226/15 237/7 237/12
241/2 242/5 242/6
242/9 242/14 251/24
252/4 255/16 255/18
256/24 257/1 261/10
261/22 262/15 271/8
274/23 274/24 280/4
leasing [2] 236/1
243/1
least [14] 8/17 10/24
61/1 61/16 61/24
104/2 133/1 133/8
143/8 146/16 155/2
167/18 185/1 252/17
leave [11] 13/25 90/7
115/14 152/7 247/6
248/12 248/16 248/17
248/19 258/4 260/21
leaves [1] 13/20
leaving [3] 156/19
251/22 252/3
led [1] 134/10
leeway [1] 276/12
left [24] 6/12 6/13
11/10 12/4 94/12
118/15 118/21 129/20
210/1 211/3 227/22
231/21 234/15 252/5
253/1 253/5 255/21
256/1 256/6 257/22
263/4 268/4 270/2
273/7
legal [66] 4/16 7/19
8/10 8/22 9/7 11/19
30/4 31/16 31/22
33/16 46/23 52/20
52/23 58/12 60/10
61/20 63/6 68/25
69/23 96/11 97/8
100/19 100/20 100/21
103/13 118/12 118/18
119/3 119/4 119/8
122/22 123/13 124/22
127/18 127/21 134/22
147/11 162/23 166/19
167/7 169/10 169/13
171/3 174/17 177/9
177/23 177/25 182/8
207/10 207/11 207/22
208/7 238/2 243/17
246/14 257/25 258/2
258/25 266/8 266/14
266/15 266/17 273/15
274/7 274/17 287/1
legality [4] 108/14
108/24 122/9 125/13
legally [2] 77/5 94/21
legislation [2] 64/13
99/18
legitimate [9] 40/6
43/15 43/20 44/13
46/18 46/19 52/19
53/3 61/9
lei [9] 222/24 223/2
223/16 223/20 232/22
240/21 241/7 256/18
256/24
LELIA [1] 2/25
lengths [1] 100/13
lengthy [1] 17/1
lens [1] 112/22
LEON [4] 4/3 9/5 9/17
202/10
Leon Kopecky [3] 9/5
9/17 202/10
less [4] 146/16 185/10
236/10 251/22
lessee [7] 39/9 175/3
175/4 179/16 282/9
282/11 282/24
lessees [1] 80/8
lessor [10] 76/12
76/20 79/10 80/2 80/9
80/11 81/20 162/6
179/1 283/8
lessors [6] 80/14
80/18 81/4 81/10
114/11 114/14
let [15] 8/9 20/18
20/23 20/24 26/25
120/21 130/1 130/9
155/5 219/14 231/10
237/16 246/23 248/3
277/25
let's [21] 28/1 28/21
33/1 61/21 65/22
133/12 142/22 151/9
168/3 183/7 186/3
204/18 206/8 210/11
210/15 210/17 212/12
213/14 231/23 266/13
281/22
letter [16] 13/4 83/16
110/5 190/21 190/23
191/5 191/25 192/1
192/5 192/6 192/11
193/11 193/14 251/12
251/16 254/7
letters [1] 41/5
level [38] 42/20 48/4
48/5 48/6 48/7 50/19
50/24 51/3 93/21
95/14 98/13 98/17
101/22 102/11 102/24
103/1 103/15 103/18
104/9 104/12 104/25
111/11 121/14 121/15
121/15 121/16 138/25
173/23 181/24 198/7
245/12 249/18 249/19
249/23 251/4 271/7
277/2 278/13
levels [4] 50/19
121/12 140/23 170/22
Levintsa [16] 161/23
161/24 169/20 169/21
169/22 207/20 218/11
218/17 219/5 219/9
219/16 219/19 219/25
220/3 220/16 242/23
Levintsa's [1] 161/25
liability [4] 144/19
147/19 147/21 162/10
life [5] 115/2 115/9
221/5 246/19 248/10
lifted [1] 254/2
light [6] 12/7 25/23
119/19 144/25 145/2
193/8
like [148] 6/22 8/2 8/6
11/9 12/10 14/9 14/11
14/14 14/16 17/4
20/13 21/10 21/15
21/21 22/6 22/24 25/9
30/25 42/1 43/11
43/12 43/25 46/17
47/3 49/20 49/22 52/3
52/14 53/2 53/9 53/10
53/16 54/15 54/18
54/22 55/6 55/22 56/1
56/8 57/7 62/13 63/14
67/22 68/2 69/1 70/10
71/2 80/16 81/2 82/1
82/2 86/3 86/21 88/18
92/20 95/19 96/6
96/10 96/23 97/12
97/13 98/8 99/5
100/25 101/15 105/9
105/13 112/7 114/24
114/24 116/1 116/6
117/16 133/11 134/3
134/20 136/20 137/19
143/16 151/21 154/21
160/1 160/1 160/4
166/1 174/18 189/11
189/13 189/15 190/17
194/6 196/10 196/16
197/21 197/21 197/23
198/2 201/7 201/21
202/16 205/16 206/10
208/7 208/19 212/13
213/8 213/9 213/13
213/15 213/18 217/23
218/14 223/3 229/21
231/9 236/5 237/3
237/6 237/13 237/16
239/8 239/10 239/25
245/7 246/23 247/4
248/3 248/8 254/10
254/13 255/6 255/10
255/22 255/25 257/13
262/17 268/17 275/4
275/11 276/17 276/18
282/8 283/13 283/20
284/2 284/2 284/11
285/25
likely [6] 74/3 74/6
74/7 89/13 109/4
113/14
Lilia [2] 94/15 94/18
Lilian [1] 192/10
limit [1] 173/13
limited [9] 16/11 45/7
78/21 93/19 111/10
123/7 133/2 133/9
281/6
LINDINGER [1] 4/4
line [15] 8/14 31/8
32/14 32/23 44/15
70/6 115/11 160/13
165/6 165/7 277/1
281/3 282/18 282/20
283/8
lines [2] 129/11
129/13
linguistic [1] 127/23
list [5] 2/1 3/1 4/1 9/12
9/21
listen [9] 187/10
222/18 222/22 225/4
227/22 248/25 249/4
253/4 259/22
listened [1] 286/11
listening [1] 286/17
literature [1] 140/3
litigation [7] 104/19
169/25 170/2 170/4
174/10 220/8 262/20
litigations [1] 172/1
little [19] 9/10 18/24
20/4 30/23 37/14 46/3
49/12 50/10 50/14
55/6 61/1 97/6 97/8
107/20 120/22 246/20
255/13 272/25 279/18
live [4] 85/19 166/12
234/21 279/22
lived [1] 168/1
lives [1] 226/12
living [1] 286/16
LLOYD [1] 2/22
loan [3] 234/10 234/20
235/1
local [81] 24/5 38/22
41/6 43/3 43/9 43/9
43/10 43/12 47/2
47/12 47/13 48/4 48/6
48/7 53/23 54/23 55/3
55/13 55/14 55/16
55/18 55/19 60/19
70/20 86/6 86/23 87/7
88/14 91/3 93/10
93/19 94/14 94/15
95/1 95/1 95/15 97/24
98/18 98/21 99/1 99/2
100/6 101/5 103/6
103/9 103/21 103/25
105/5 106/9 106/12
108/4 109/11 109/23
110/2 110/12 110/18
112/25 114/4 136/21
137/10 138/12 139/11
139/12 140/9 140/11
142/2 144/10 149/1
149/15 159/11 170/14
[Page 98]
local [10] 170/25
178/16 191/4 206/7
220/8 228/10 229/12
229/13 229/19 239/24
localised [2] 143/21
144/14
locate [4] 192/1 193/1
195/15 251/21
located [2] 141/13
141/15
logic [3] 67/9 115/24
117/23
London [2] 2/6 28/3
long [8] 17/1 21/17
66/1 71/21 145/18
156/19 156/19 199/7
214/13
long-term [1] 156/9
longer [1] 152/24
look [49] 12/16 22/3
27/25 28/2 28/21 31/2
32/22 33/21 48/19
54/13 56/11 68/12
76/14 78/14 84/11
84/16 86/17 86/20
88/2 88/24 129/21
131/25 134/16 131/5
135/25 160/1 160/4
163/13 179/11 183/7
186/3 204/18 210/11
191/14 204/8 210/1
212/12 213/14 215/4
216/6 216/19 221/24
223/13 265/11 268/15
272/25 277/8 282/15
284/25
looked [11] 26/24
45/1 195/21 208/8
looking [11] 27/18
45/4 45/14 84/1 118/6
134/6 134/25 135/11
148/25 149/9 190/25
191/1 205/1 205/1
222/17 231/18 241/9
looks [3] 169/8
170/3 207/17
losing [3] 145/20
145/22 259/21
loss [1] 116/8
losses [2] 116/8
213/24
lost [7] 115/13 135/5
135/11 184/13 194/14
241/4 247/24
lot [24] 17/3 17/24
20/4 24/2 46/3 61/5
62/24 129/23 165/5
166/18 187/1 199/21
220/18 220/23 225/6
228/7 231/2 237/11
246/16 247/7 247/9
249/4 256/7 275/22
285/11
lots [1] 285/22
love [1] 38/5
lovely [1] 93/9
low [7] 102/8 102/11
102/24 103/1 103/18
104/9 121/15 121/15
181/24 198/7
lower [3] 121/8
121/8 121/8 121/8
LUCIA [2] 3/5 8/16
lucky [1] 260/2
Lugu [7] 88/25 89/10
31/17 122/4 151/8
160/11 270/14
Luncheon [1] 153/11
machinery [1] 143/4
made [43] 8/15 14/4
16/25 23/1 29/1 41/8
46/18 53/18 53/21
77/25 79/12 81/24
93/3 99/1 103/8 112/2
114/9 118/14 124/17
138/11 141/1 156/17
157/1 187/8 213/24
221/1 221/8 238/11
248/16 248/19 249/11
251/3 250/9 271/20
magnificently [1] 17/14
magnitude [1] 236/10
mail [1] 254/18
main [5] 18/20 111/1
221/9 225/3 253/9
MAIN-KLINGST [2]
2/20 11/22
maintain [1] 12/23
25/19 26/11 45/8
majority [6] 46/6
55/19 56/9 57/10 71/7
2/7
make [27] 7/13 15/5
23/10 27/23 31/19
37/10 54/18 60/5 63/9
64/19 73/11 77/11
83/1 97/12 110/19
96/23 97/12 110/19
116/7 117/1 117/1
130/11 130/2 135/23
145/22 146/1 147/24
168/1 176/18 177/1
179/7 181/2 181/14
185/15 186/17 188/1
189/1 193/21 193/25
194/24 195/1 196/1
204/1 208/4 208/14
213/25 225/6 229/21
237/8 237/8 255/17
255/18 256/18 257/23
266/25 279/18
makes [1] 144/19
making [11] 18/25
23/25 27/23 34/11
52/22 52/24 97/21
98/12 103/11 104/9
129/23 197/25 214/2
maladministration [1]
101/10
man [8] 38/1 38/3
206/25 208/1 229/24
240/14 240/18 266/10
manage [2] 174/10
174/18
management [1]
157/3
managing [4] 155/11
185/18 185/20 248/6
mandatorily [2] 110/20
123/2 125/1 125/5
162/7 162/9 172/7
manner [7] 137/3
174/17
many [39] 38/10 39/18
40/13 45/13 74/13
75/13 101/4 111/3
79/17 101/4 111/3
111/22 112/1 117/17
119/9 121/12 124/7
127/16 163/16 163/17
164/11 164/2 167/10
167/18 167/19 168/24
182/8 182/9 203/11
207/4 210/7 235/12
246/3 265/9 271/12
271/14 277/1 280/3
March [19] 83/10
83/14 88/1 88/21
89/14 90/14 90/14
92/25 156/2 157/6
157/11 176/15 176/6
176/8 244/23 252/21
252/23 253/19 253/3
Marea [1] 2/18
margin [1] 137/14
mark [1] 2/10
market [1] 26/12
market [1] 157/3
marketing [1] 124/19
marriage [1] 128/5
married [1] 64/13
MARTIN [2] 4/17 9/9
9/19
Martin Kozak [1] 9/19
matter [1] 174/18
matters [10] 8/1
129/24 129/25 132/15
133/24 152/4 152/5
188/1 188/1 188/1
maturitate [1] 25/2
25/2
matrix [1] 2/5
matrixlaw.co.uk [1]
2/7
matter [27] 13/23 14/1
15/4 16/20 26/17 40/1
77/15 91/1 91/25
102/17 106/17 112/17
128/18 134/6 134/9
135/14 137/24 138/9
138/12 138/19 139/13
143/1 149/11 149/14
248/1 271/8 285/15
matters [18] 7/13 8/18
20/2 20/2 20/21 58/2
118/18 119/3 121/18
187/6 187/2 219/20
266/15 275/20 277/12
max [1] 132/17
may [66] 6/25 13/25
14/13 15/1 16/20
10/21 19/1 22/12 36/6
37/4 37/5 40/10 47/22
50/8 53/10 58/22
62/15 63/8 64/11
67/24 68/2 70/20 72/3
75/22 77/20 78/19
81/8 82/1 90/17 95/13
96/20 101/1 106/23
107/14 111/24 111/24
112/18 115/18 120/14
121/16 125/10 133/23
150/14 153/7 155/3
158/24 167/11 167/14
167/9 167/18 168/4
199/20 201/4 201/12
202/11 205/25 209/10
216/17 232/13 244/4
253/2 254/13 265/12
265/19 268/10 286/15
maybe [22] 9/15 10/21
26/2 27/1 27/1 27/1
217/20 218/25 219/1
219/22 224/11 224/13
224/7 228/5 250/11
257/13 277/16 275/23
277/2 282/11 283/12
284/23 284/24
Mayor [85] 66/25
67/13 67/15 70/18
72/1 72/15 72/23 73/5
73/9 74/3 76/8 76/11
76/22 76/24 77/2 77/8
77/9 78/1 78/5 78/9
79/13 79/24 80/3 80/4
80/10 80/12 81/22
81/23 82/20 82/24
91/16 91/19 91/2 91/13
Mayor [85] 91/18
92/13 92/14 92/2 92/5
92/11 92/14 93/1
93/13 94/1 100/6
100/2 102/18 114/6
123/4 125/7 127/8
127/9 130/15 130/18
162/22 166/8 166/9
186/20 187/2 196/8
200/21 211/19 211/21
212/21 212/24 213/16
213/16 222/3 223/7
224/9 225/1 227/11
231/5 243/18 281/1
283/9 283/11 283/14
283/19 283/25 284/1
284/7 284/25
Mayor Ivanes [1] 72/1
mayor's [26] 68/5
69/19 76/20 81/5
82/16 82/22 83/1
94/19 120/19 123/1
123/5 124/4 124/15
131/6 131/12 162/19
162/24 166/17 170/10
170/22 174/7 174/15
201/17 202/2 242/11
mayoral [6] 63/12
64/16 65/14 81/18
85/4 105/18 106/4
107/16 108/18
mayorally [1] 81/21
mayors [61] 43/9
43/10 48/4 51/11
53/14 53/21 54/24
64/24 66/4 66/7 66/11
66/21 67/5 67/6 67/11
67/19 72/9 73/18 74/8
75/9 75/13 75/24 85/2
88/11 94/15 95/2 99/8
99/9 99/11 100/17
100/2 100/9 100/14
100/25 101/5 101/7
101/16 101/19 101/21
102/2 103/17 103/21
103/20 105/19 106/5
106/12 111/14 111/18
120/11 120/21 123/3
128/16 128/23 130/14
131/16 131/18 131/14
131/16 131/19 213/2
232/11
mayors' [1] 132/5
MDL [1] 175/20
me [116] 8/9 8/11
12/16 13/24 30/11
43/16 46/8 52/15
74/13 74/24 74/24
74/17 101/24 120/21
130/1 130/9 133/14
134/1 141/17 144/8
145/12 150/13 155/5
155/22 157/11 157/12
158/8 159/8 164/9
168/3 187/8 191/19
192/2 197/12 197/6
199/8 204/18 205/16
205/25 206/8 206/23
207/2 207/12 207/12
208/20 209/23 209/23
210/1 210/15 210/17
210/15 210/17 212/12
213/14 215/19 215/19
220/1 220/1 221/6
222/11 224/9 224/9
225/1 228/4 228/4
228/6 228/10 228/12
229/4 231/4 231/6
231/6 231/12 231/20
[Page 99]
me [42] 231/20
233/11 234/23 236/7
237/16 239/2 239/2
240/16 244/25 245/21
246/24 247/1 247/3
247/7 247/11 247/24
247/25 248/23 249/11
250/10 252/10 253/21
254/11 254/2 254/6
254/12 255/6 255/10
255/22 255/25 257/13
259/11 259/11 259/13
259/14 262/17 267/17
273/2 274/1 274/1
277/4 279/7
me.com [1] 2/6
mean [11] 34/4 34/6
83/6 123/1 145/19
162/14 196/24 199/6
200/16 200/17 207/19
210/5 223/23 219/24
224/18 237/3 237/6
mean December 2010
[1] 200/17
meaning [3] 128/3
128/24 162/24
meaningful [1] 34/2
meaningless [1]
110/16
means [23] 26/21
76/13 123/15 123/23
131/20 131/24 134/4
137/3 145/9 145/11
145/15 145/11 146/19
167/3 168/14 184/9
197/24 207/3 223/18
228/1 254/9 265/24
284/7
meant [2] 200/25
219/11
measure [3] 179/13
180/1 180/6
measures [2] 130/6
179/22
medication [1] 237/19
meet [5] 159/1 168/4
168/17 188/11 273/18
meeting [11] 90/12
92/16 92/19 92/22
92/20 204/16 204/19
208/21 213/6 222/5
235/10 244/24 248/22
250/4 274/14
meetings [9] 45/19
45/4 45/4 47/12 47/10
65/22 84/13 85/4
250/25
meets [1] 52/21
member [1] 231/15
members [5] 153/15
155/12 268/11
memorial [9] 59/5
107/24 160/7 160/19
164/20 169/2 170/7
175/25 179/14
memorials [2] 87/20
252/5 275/8
memory [2] 36/24
136/20 136/25 137/1
170/11 179/23 233/23
men [1] 240/17
mentioned [4] 76/7
merely [4] 23/10 24/2
114/6 238/10 271/10
102/4 108/4
met [4] 65/1 108/2
177/19 177/22 178/5
met [1] 177/19
108/1 108/2
met [11] 45/14 107/16
153/1 157/7 203/24
204/14 204/19 222/8
246/9 248/8 285/4
methodology [6]
134/25 137/21 142/5
143/20 143/2 157/4
methods [2] 137/21
157/4 128/3 143/21
158/10
MICHAEL [7] 4/17 9/9
9/19 22/7 25/4 42/22
104/1
Michael Peer [3] 9/19
22/7 42/22
Michael Peer's [1]
44/1
mid [2] 44/19 44/23
middle [2] 150/19
151/1
might [6] 15/9 54/11
77/5 77/6 148/9 276/3
MIHAIL [2] 3/17
176/23
milk [1] 205/22
million [2] 235/21
236/11
mind [6] 12/21 27/11
27/12 123/7 135/2
150/18
minds [1] 68/20
mine [1] 217/6
minimum [2] 52/21
148/1
Minister [30] 93/22
171/1 258/1 267/17
268/1 273/1 273/2
273/4 273/6 273/12
276/24 276/4 277/9
277/10 277/19 277/21
277/24 278/2 278/3
278/12 278/18 278/19
278/22 278/23 279/4
Minister's [1] 279/7
279/15 279/17
Minister of [1] 93/22
Minister in [2] 273/1
273/2
Minister to [1] 273/12
Ministers [1] 274/20
Ministry [2] 275/8
276/20
ministry [7] 258/13
ministry [7] 273/8
273/18 274/8 274/9
minor [2] 148/14
minority [2] 96/25
137/10
minus [2] 137/17
minute [1] 108/2
minute [8] 27/12
45/24 118/22 138/2
151/14 186/4 193/20
242/11
minutes [38] 14/25
15/3 15/4 15/8 15/24
16/1 16/14 16/20
20/23 28/19 69/7
89/13 91/12 113/13
118/20 118/23 129/20
131/17 132/16 132/20
132/17 132/2 134/11
138/3 143/18 150/7
153/9 153/10 153/12
153/1 153/1 153/6
156/8 186/6 190/1
194/1 211/23 272/11
Mirhot [1] 269/17
misapplication [1]
147/17
misguided [3] 62/16
62/18 115/24
mislead [2] 217/21
217/22
misleading [1] 61/17
misquoting [1] 178/2
missing [1] 13/2
13/22 122/4 146/14
163/5 196/5 202/19
mistake [4] 90/9
109/25 109/25
mistake [4] 91/15 46/14
120/17 217/20
mistakes [12] 21/7
28/13 181/1 212/9
212/24 213/2 214/2
223/18 224/13 238/13
242/6 242/11
misunderstanding [2]
218/15 257/11
misunderstood [2]
15/21 94/11
mitigate [5] 94/11
101/20 115/15 116/13
117/3
Mitu [2] 94/15 94/18
mix [2] 221/10 232/23
mode [1] 184/11
model [1] 137/5
modern [11] 40/22
135/10 135/17 135/24
136/11 137/1 139/25
141/14 143/3 196/21
222/3
modification [1] 22/5
modifications [2]
22/2 23/1
modified [2] 19/21
19/22
MOLDOVA [141] 1/11
Moldova [141] 4/11
4/12 4/13 39/1 40/7
41/1 41/13 45/21
47/14 48/2 56/21
57/25 58/13 68/21
76/1 94/13 97/19
100/4 102/21 101/12
101/15 103/19 115/15
117/3 121/11 121/23
123/8 124/18 125/2
134/16 136/10 139/1
140/15 141/8 141/11
144/16 146/2 146/17
148/5 156/17 157/1
161/24 167/11 168/13
169/22 170/24 173/1
182/23 184/19 185/9
194/10 194/12 195/21
196/21 197/2 197/16
200/24 202/11 202/23
205/2 206/1 207/10
207/14 211/25 213/25
224/16 225/16 221/22
225/17 225/18 231/21
232/1 232/2 232/10
235/4 235/20 238/22
238/23 239/2 240/14
241/2 243/18 244/1
246/9 246/15 246/18
247/8 247/10 248/5
248/7 248/14 248/16
248/17 250/3 251/19
252/15 252/18 252/21
253/20 253/21 253/24
253/25 255/23 256/3
257/20 257/24 258/4
258/3 258/16 259/4
259/15 259/21 259/24
260/2 260/3 260/18
260/8 260/10 262/18
263/2 264/1 265/18
265/18 266/3 270/17
270/25 271/19 272/16
272/24 273/11 275/13
277/23 279/21 280/13
281/8 281/15 282/15
Moldova's [5] 226/5
238/22 238/24 239/2
241/2 241/11
Moldovan [59] 8/22
9/8 38/20 39/2 45/3
50/13 58/19 58/21
58/19 62/21 63/5 63/6
63/13 63/19 71/8
75/12 96/9 99/18
Moldovan [59] 99/22
99/24 100/1 100/19
101/23 108/19 109/3
111/14 113/13 118/13
118/14 119/4 119/8
120/11 120/24 121/21
124/25 125/7 125/13
125/17 127/13 127/22
127/24 128/10 129/13
131/2 132/2 144/24
169/6 172/23 173/17
176/19 177/1 196/18
218/19 219/15 230/4
moment [16] 14/3
22/18 27/15 34/1 47/1
50/8 58/16 63/15 82/3
119/12 126/17 171/21
172/22 248/16 266/10
281/13 282/15
moments [2] 36/25
Monday [2] 1/21 6/1
money [30] 14/9
144/18 145/24 145/24
201/13 202/20 223/9
223/9 223/20 233/18
234/16 234/18 239/24
240/1 246/19 247/24
248/24 257/5 263/22
264/19 272/15 275/9
monitor [1] 232/8
monitored [1] 269/20
month [5] 88/1 88/11
89/2 89/12 215/12
months [9] 45/25
80/12 81/1 215/13
233/3 250/5 250/5
280/9
Montreal [1] 2/11
more [68] 9/19 16/16
27/13 32/24 40/11
42/15 44/7 46/3 50/10
55/6 70/19 72/6 85/6
87/11 87/13 87/4
90/19 94/22 95/7
96/18 97/1 97/2 97/5
97/6 118/10 119/1
119/4 119/4 119/11
135/13 140/1 143/1
144/10 145/20 146/18
147/3 149/3 163/1
184/1 184/2 185/15
185/7 197/20 203/2
205/10 205/13 219/25
226/12 229/16 229/14
234/21 242/1 248/21
242/1 242/5 248/21
251/19 251/22 256/4
262/17 268/17 269/11
270/9 278/12 279/15
279/11 284/5 287/2
moreover [6] 128/8
[Page 100]
M |
||
| moreover... [5] 129/16 136/5 138/14 140/11 141/17 |
Mr Darek Kozak [1] 214/12 |
8/22 96/11 |
| morning [14] 6/2 7/24 8/25 15/16 126/22 134/4 145/12 147/15 150/2 150/22 151/25 165/24 287/1 287/5 |
Mr Dariusz Kozak [1] 160/11 |
Mr Hinkle [2] 39/20 118/12 |
| most [9] 21/13 119/5 120/21 137/12 139/16 153/20 159/23 166/12 217/7 |
Mr Filat [1] 247/13 | Mr Igor Bugai [2] 204/1 206/19 |
| mostly [2] 154/7 286/23 |
Mr Fortier [4] 7/25 27/4 93/18 103/16 |
Mr lon Tugui [2] 160/11 214/11 |
| motive [7] 120/4 120/6 120/15 120/19 123/1 124/4 132/5 |
Mr Garmas [10] 170/4 170/5 216/2 217/25 220/5 220/11 220/22 221/6 259/9 259/15 |
Mr Knieper [1] 63/22 |
| move [23] 7/10 7/19 11/4 11/18 33/25 34/4 34/8 36/3 45/21 53/15 55/22 61/21 63/14 64/9 69/1 70/10 95/19 97/13 157/12 186/3 188/19 206/11 216/22 |
Mr Garmas' [1] 216/9 | Mr Kopecky [39] 12/13 133/13 186/8 202/6 205/3 206/4 208/4 208/17 209/12 210/24 213/25 216/5 218/23 220/9 221/3 222/16 224/7 224/21 225/1 227/21 228/5 231/9 232/5 233/6 234/1 234/11 235/3 235/9 236/12 236/21 236/24 242/4 244/24 247/7 249/8 267/3 268/8 268/10 272/12 |
| moved [2] 38/11 270/9 |
Mr Gladei [5] 125/3 125/21 158/5 162/3 239/19 |
Mr Kopecky's [1] 231/24 |
| moving [10] 52/12 52/17 55/10 61/9 62/14 63/16 105/9 196/12 214/5 221/13 |
Mr Gladei's [7] 59/16 64/2 75/18 100/4 107/16 108/16 126/7 |
Mr Kozak [2] 211/16 242/14 |
| Mr [434] | Mr Gleason [7] 39/17 39/23 119/9 120/21 121/9 124/2 129/7 |
Mr Kraven [1] 11/12 |
| Mr Administrator [1] 211/18 |
Mr Grot [122] 7/15 8/17 10/14 11/3 14/11 14/15 15/14 15/19 38/4 38/5 39/14 40/4 40/21 41/4 41/11 41/15 41/18 41/24 42/23 43/2 43/12 44/20 44/22 45/18 47/9 48/20 49/5 49/11 49/17 49/19 51/11 51/15 60/24 80/25 84/3 92/21 94/12 114/25 115/14 115/21 134/10 135/7 136/8 145/18 146/2 149/7 149/12 149/16 149/20 150/2 150/15 152/19 153/1 156/24 157/7 157/11 157/24 159/8 159/10 159/15 159/17 160/1 160/5 160/8 160/20 160/23 161/2 170/21 171/3 186/5 186/11 188/6 188/21 189/9 189/18 190/13 193/7 194/4 199/4 199/6 202/8 202/21 203/23 206/25 212/16 214/5 218/4 218/21 234/19 235/19 236/18 236/22 237/2 241/14 244/14 245/9 248/23 257/21 261/8 266/19 266/21 266/23 266/23 269/16 271/10 273/4 273/25 275/13 276/7 276/10 276/12 277/8 277/18 278/13 279/9 280/2 283/5 284/9 285/7 285/18 285/20 286/1 |
Mr Lars Wiechen [1] 137/8 |
| Mr Alexei Bugai [5] 93/4 158/17 160/10 206/18 214/11 |
Mr Levintsa [10] 161/23 169/21 169/22 207/20 218/17 219/5 219/9 219/16 219/25 242/23 |
|
| Mr Andrew Astuno [1] 8/15 |
Mr Levintsa's [1] 161/25 |
|
| Mr Astuno [1] 39/21 | Mr Lilian [1] 192/10 | |
| Mr Beril [15] 7/15 11/4 136/5 150/16 152/19 153/2 240/12 267/12 267/16 268/2 268/15 269/4 270/6 285/4 286/7 |
Mr Michael [1] 9/9 | |
| Mr Bugai [27] 157/17 158/13 158/19 159/3 159/8 159/18 159/19 160/5 160/12 160/14 160/20 204/3 204/5 204/14 205/14 206/17 207/8 207/18 208/14 209/14 209/15 210/4 211/15 213/20 224/17 242/14 284/9 |
Mr Michael Peer [1] 194/7 |
|
| Mr Bugai's [4] 157/9 159/21 160/1 208/2 |
Mr Mirhot [1] 269/17 | |
| Mr Chitoroaga [2] 278/20 279/3 |
Mr Nagacevschi [3] 220/12 258/10 258/19 |
|
| Mr Coren Hinkle [1] 8/13 |
Mr Peer [12] 28/14 96/18 118/24 132/17 132/22 138/2 138/10 139/2 142/21 144/9 145/1 147/3 |
|
| Mr Craven [1] 151/13 | Mr Peer's [9] 24/22 133/14 143/20 150/25 194/8 196/13 198/11 198/24 199/10 |
|
| Mr Dan [1] 8/23 | Mr Grot's [7] 156/16 157/9 157/18 159/14 |
|
| Mr Platon [2] 225/20 247/13 |
||
| Mr President [21] 17/7 19/8 20/10 21/2 21/3 24/4 26/20 27/11 153/14 153/15 166/7 167/14 185/16 188/20 194/3 237/1 244/4 268/14 272/14 285/3 286/6 |
||
| Mr Rod [1] 119/6 | ||
| Mr Roger Gladei [2] 164/4 193/3 276/25 |
[Page 101]
M |
||
| my... [69] 202/20 204/20 207/17 209/7 209/25 211/6 216/4 216/8 217/17 218/3 218/24 219/22 221/5 222/16 223/22 225/15 226/8 231/10 233/8 233/9 233/9 234/3 234/6 234/16 236/7 237/9 244/3 244/10 245/6 245/23 245/24 246/2 246/19 246/19 246/25 247/9 247/11 247/14 248/5 248/14 248/14 249/12 249/13 249/13 250/19 250/19 250/24 252/2 255/20 256/23 257/13 257/14 257/15 259/7 263/20 263/20 263/20 264/4 267/23 268/2 268/3 268/4 269/18 269/19 272/17 279/2 279/3 280/16 286/22 |
147/5 172/3 | 214/7 225/11 |
| myriad [1] 111/21 | necessity [1] 174/4 | nicer [1] 225/14 |
| myself [9] 31/15 46/15 53/5 58/22 156/21 160/11 214/11 237/22 253/8 |
need [35] 11/14 22/2 25/21 29/21 32/10 32/13 33/5 33/19 53/7 70/5 70/8 70/19 70/20 86/17 93/24 108/13 112/21 122/3 129/23 131/5 150/15 165/1 187/19 191/24 199/7 206/8 215/5 222/11 224/10 224/21 228/11 240/15 243/22 259/3 269/23 |
NICOARA [2] 3/17 8/23 |
| mysterious [4] 80/22 80/23 85/25 154/21 |
needed [7] 109/23 170/2 221/11 221/15 221/22 254/11 271/23 |
Nicolae [1] 162/16 |
| mystery [1] 68/24 | needs [5] 58/18 58/25 140/20 152/17 189/20 |
Nicolai [1] 162/19 |
N |
negative [7] 145/10 147/19 147/22 194/24 198/13 198/16 256/23 |
nil [1] 185/15 |
| Nagacevschi [4] 220/12 220/13 258/10 258/19 |
negotiating [1] 157/25 |
Nina [8] 66/25 72/15 72/24 73/7 79/24 93/1 93/13 114/6 |
| naive [1] 228/6 | negotiation [1] 59/11 | Nina Ivanes [6] 72/15 72/24 73/7 79/24 93/1 114/6 |
| name [13] 6/9 8/10 9/4 78/10 119/2 157/1 162/15 202/10 220/13 259/8 268/2 270/13 274/24 |
negotiations [2] 117/1 117/2 |
nine [2] 225/19 247/16 |
| named [1] 156/22 | neighbours [1] 166/12 |
Nistria [2] 201/19 201/22 |
| namely [3] 141/19 146/2 171/25 |
neither [6] 70/24 109/10 109/20 160/1 161/15 180/11 |
NITSCHKE [10] 2/18 6/13 8/3 15/5 15/11 32/4 69/5 132/15 151/11 186/12 |
| names [2] 56/23 126/1 | networking [1] 147/2 | no [176] 1/5 7/5 11/1 11/25 12/8 12/23 13/18 13/24 14/8 14/24 15/15 17/17 18/19 21/25 23/7 24/18 26/5 29/10 29/23 33/21 35/1 39/3 42/9 53/12 57/24 58/7 58/16 58/25 61/19 62/25 71/9 75/24 76/4 78/10 78/13 80/7 82/4 82/22 82/23 84/6 85/3 85/6 85/13 87/3 87/4 88/11 89/14 89/25 93/20 99/14 102/17 107/8 112/6 113/2 113/19 116/25 119/17 122/5 123/8 125/25 126/1 127/21 128/8 130/7 136/4 137/3 139/2 142/9 142/9 143/25 146/18 151/5 156/12 156/13 158/10 158/24 162/14 168/18 180/13 181/10 181/18 184/9 187/19 188/2 189/2 191/20 192/16 193/2 193/25 196/2 197/17 197/17 197/22 197/24 198/16 198/22 199/12 199/23 199/24 200/18 201/17 201/24 204/4 204/9 206/6 206/14 210/14 210/14 210/16 210/24 211/2 213/2 216/21 216/25 217/6 217/11 218/6 218/9 218/20 219/4 221/6 222/22 224/4 224/21 227/8 228/14 228/25 229/3 231/4 232/15 234/4 234/5 236/19 237/17 237/17 238/4 238/14 240/15 |
| national [5] 93/21 97/24 103/21 103/25 143/6 |
never [25] 57/17 57/21 70/6 82/6 83/24 83/25 85/15 85/24 116/24 121/21 156/11 163/12 170/11 173/16 177/13 178/13 182/12 191/6 192/3 222/21 239/5 246/20 281/14 283/5 284/1 |
|
| nationals [1] 109/19 | Nevertheless [1] 185/9 |
|
| naturally [1] 139/22 | new [19] 25/4 25/6 25/9 25/25 26/1 27/14 28/18 29/25 41/11 69/23 96/14 116/20 117/1 150/22 179/18 240/13 254/13 270/8 271/5 |
|
| nature [9] 17/14 110/1 132/24 134/20 134/21 149/4 166/17 167/8 262/8 |
next [33] 6/5 6/18 8/11 8/13 13/2 20/9 33/25 34/4 52/4 62/14 85/19 86/9 95/19 97/13 101/24 105/10 118/16 118/21 120/9 121/13 142/9 183/20 185/5 185/7 196/12 205/25 217/2 226/8 231/7 240/11 255/9 267/9 273/23 |
|
| near [1] 246/8 | NF [1] 79/17 | |
| nearly [1] 134/11 | nice [4] 6/16 194/19 | |
| necessarily [2] 25/25 120/12 |
||
| necessary [9] 18/20 18/22 23/13 23/15 34/2 55/2 125/24 |
[Page 102]
O |
||
| oath [4] 67/14 72/19 74/23 267/20 |
212/18 | one [140] 8/13 9/20 14/8 16/14 16/16 19/9 21/12 25/22 27/4 27/5 28/10 29/14 30/3 30/4 30/23 30/24 32/14 34/4 35/14 35/22 36/15 36/18 37/10 39/11 41/1 49/21 53/10 59/13 59/19 60/1 60/11 63/8 75/20 81/11 81/13 81/18 94/22 96/23 101/1 107/24 110/16 111/25 116/1 117/18 117/20 118/4 118/17 118/19 120/22 120/24 121/10 127/8 128/3 128/5 130/1 130/12 130/22 139/15 140/20 144/17 150/21 152/2 152/15 154/7 154/23 156/19 157/6 157/10 161/9 173/25 177/5 191/18 191/19 193/20 195/6 195/10 195/12 195/19 196/9 196/11 198/8 198/8 198/8 200/1 201/5 201/7 201/10 201/11 203/20 204/17 205/6 205/11 205/12 208/20 211/14 211/16 211/17 213/10 213/19 215/24 218/17 220/4 225/7 225/22 227/9 228/15 231/7 231/25 232/3 233/12 234/15 235/25 237/4 237/24 238/18 240/16 240/16 242/23 245/22 246/17 247/16 247/17 254/24 257/17 257/17 257/20 258/10 258/18 259/9 271/16 274/10 279/15 280/13 280/13 280/20 280/21 280/21 282/14 284/13 287/5 |
| object [3] 25/2 25/6 129/15 |
offensive [3] 213/13 225/2 260/4 |
one o'clock [1] 152/15 |
| objected [1] 12/25 | offer [2] 233/5 234/9 | one's [2] 144/12 144/18 |
| objection [4] 13/15 13/18 30/4 30/6 |
offered [8] 140/25 233/2 233/17 233/18 233/22 234/8 234/17 270/1 |
one-time [1] 257/17 |
| objective [5] 135/20 142/4 142/15 142/17 148/16 |
office [27] 9/3 64/6 81/5 82/16 94/20 161/7 162/24 170/10 191/7 191/8 195/23 195/24 201/15 202/9 207/13 222/13 222/21 241/4 241/5 243/12 243/16 250/7 257/4 257/6 257/18 259/13 260/1 |
ones [1] 203/21 |
| obligated [1] 131/19 | offices [3] 65/4 158/20 159/20 |
ongoing [4] 85/17 86/10 86/15 114/21 |
| obligation [6] 50/6 84/15 100/7 101/13 101/14 282/12 |
official [12] 48/16 49/25 51/9 62/9 79/16 98/18 99/13 100/17 103/16 171/12 256/20 284/3 |
only [68] 16/12 17/13 21/11 22/21 30/7 30/11 30/13 31/15 36/22 57/8 57/9 71/11 81/8 96/24 97/10 98/9 98/10 102/9 102/16 102/20 103/3 103/20 119/24 120/25 121/7 121/14 123/5 128/2 128/10 128/20 129/8 |
| obligations [17] 40/13 80/20 97/18 98/4 98/14 101/11 101/22 103/2 104/10 120/18 121/8 121/9 131/18 165/21 174/25 176/11 235/2 |
officials [26] 38/20 39/12 41/6 43/3 43/12 47/2 52/15 55/18 60/19 70/20 92/22 93/19 98/20 102/11 102/25 103/22 105/1 106/9 111/11 120/2 121/12 128/20 131/14 157/22 158/3 158/10 |
|
| obliged [2] 64/6 278/9 | offshore [3] 246/18 246/21 246/21 |
|
| observations [1] 17/9 | offtake [1] 156/13 | |
| observer [1] 11/11 | often [1] 276/21 | |
| obtain [7] 18/22 87/8 88/6 88/15 165/1 230/17 243/10 |
Oh [1] 222/10 | |
| obtained [4] 87/11 106/15 163/12 194/9 |
okay [14] 29/7 36/18 52/13 52/16 53/14 189/8 205/9 215/24 216/8 221/20 225/10 253/6 254/25 255/18 |
|
| obtaining [3] 38/9 38/14 158/1 |
old [7] 196/23 196/25 198/7 205/5 205/5 205/6 274/10 |
|
| obvious [3] 140/15 145/1 145/2 |
Oleg [1] 88/2 | |
| obviously [5] 10/9 22/3 32/8 36/8 83/23 |
omission [1] 105/16 | |
| occasion [1] 209/11 | omissions [12] 38/19 40/11 40/13 70/13 70/20 97/15 97/18 97/20 97/24 101/10 102/20 103/24 |
|
| occasions [3] 56/5 91/13 100/10 |
omitted [1] 131/23 | |
| occupied [1] 206/3 | on December 6 [2] 11/22 13/12 |
|
| occur [3] 105/23 127/14 147/13 |
on to [1] 95/19 | |
| occurred [4] 71/3 153/22 154/23 214/14 |
once [16] 23/9 57/17 95/7 95/18 114/5 127/5 127/7 128/6 135/15 158/13 158/15 168/11 257/3 257/3 271/10 285/17 |
|
| occurring [2] 55/11 72/3 |
||
| October [3] 82/10 231/3 250/8 |
||
| odd [4] 167/20 167/25 168/9 168/9 |
||
| of December [1] 200/19 |
||
| of December 2012 [1] 234/2 |
||
| of December 8 [1] 16/10 |
||
| of February [1] 252/16 |
||
| of March [1] 252/21 | ||
| of March 2011 [1] 170/25 |
||
| of Mayor [1] 114/6 | ||
| off [6] 167/6 182/11 184/15 193/22 212/17 |
[Page 103]
O |
||
| other... [10] 274/3 274/5 274/24 275/10 275/22 279/15 281/3 281/9 281/11 285/17 |
185/17 | 83/22 86/11 88/19 100/13 120/23 122/13 126/14 154/8 159/16 159/22 164/20 169/8 188/25 195/2 199/2 202/18 215/17 215/18 216/19 216/22 216/23 217/4 241/15 241/16 244/11 264/22 281/13 |
| others [9] 1/8 7/6 18/19 160/17 161/15 162/12 183/8 211/9 224/11 |
outlining [1] 119/14 | page 10 [2] 55/25 65/16 |
| otherwise [1] 209/2 | output [2] 140/2 141/6 | page 12 [1] 62/15 |
| our [92] 6/13 6/22 7/13 7/19 7/20 8/6 8/14 8/17 9/2 9/4 9/6 9/7 9/8 9/12 9/13 11/16 11/16 11/17 13/4 13/22 14/4 17/2 18/6 18/7 19/2 19/14 20/4 20/13 24/5 28/5 28/17 29/4 29/12 31/22 32/2 35/6 37/15 38/2 56/20 57/3 62/12 69/24 73/2 89/5 89/6 96/11 97/3 97/7 122/2 137/7 137/9 138/20 140/2 140/6 140/11 141/23 142/3 142/7 142/12 144/2 146/23 147/6 148/22 149/8 149/9 151/15 152/23 154/12 172/16 177/23 177/25 186/3 186/6 193/12 197/22 198/6 202/9 204/16 206/14 222/12 229/18 236/13 238/24 248/10 266/8 266/14 266/22 273/8 276/19 279/21 286/22 287/1 |
outset [2] 44/4 153/17 | page 13 [1] 63/16 |
| ours [2] 150/7 150/8 | outside [2] 132/9 254/21 |
page 15 [1] 54/2 |
| ourselves [2] 27/1 113/12 |
outsource [1] 158/12 | page 18 [1] 70/11 |
| out [55] 6/20 7/8 15/1 24/20 34/17 36/23 44/22 56/8 57/7 59/7 60/16 63/10 64/5 78/17 78/17 82/2 83/1 92/3 99/17 99/23 101/1 112/8 142/11 144/4 158/1 158/15 160/19 160/21 160/24 161/5 167/5 167/11 167/12 167/15 167/16 168/21 183/8 199/5 221/21 222/4 223/25 224/16 224/19 234/20 235/1 235/24 247/24 256/19 267/20 273/14 275/20 276/3 279/10 286/19 287/2 |
outsourced [3] 157/21 157/24 159/1 |
page 2 [2] 79/9 244/11 |
| outcome [1] 120/13 | outsourcing [1] 161/8 | page 22 [1] 159/16 |
| outlays [1] 143/2 | outstanding [5] 11/20 16/7 18/15 19/14 232/20 |
page 23 [1] 78/7 |
| outline [4] 40/3 44/16 119/12 119/13 |
over [39] 6/4 10/19 20/9 31/3 31/10 31/17 38/14 39/10 41/8 41/17 45/23 52/8 56/13 57/4 70/5 83/11 97/11 116/10 124/5 126/10 133/25 139/6 147/15 160/15 168/10 168/13 186/7 190/11 195/8 205/12 224/1 237/12 245/13 249/21 249/25 251/5 267/9 272/11 285/17 |
page 26 [1] 86/11 |
| outlined [2] 105/7 | overall [8] 46/18 97/21 98/12 103/10 104/7 135/9 143/24 149/2 |
page 3 [4] 83/14 120/23 169/8 215/17 |
P |
overlook [1] 22/23 | page 30 [1] 88/19 |
| page [46] 34/20 54/2 54/5 54/9 54/12 55/25 62/15 63/16 65/16 65/16 70/11 78/7 79/6 79/9 79/10 79/17 81/18 83/14 83/20 |
overlooking [1] 120/17 |
page 31 [1] 195/2 |
| overreach [1] 128/18 | page 4 [3] 83/20 83/22 216/22 |
|
| overview [1] 141/11 | page 5 [2] 79/17 281/13 |
|
| overwhelmingly [1] 153/19 |
page 7 [3] 65/16 122/13 215/18 |
|
| owe [1] 187/9 | page 8 [3] 54/12 126/14 159/22 |
|
| owed [2] 226/18 233/18 |
page 9 [1] 199/2 | |
| own [16] 39/11 59/6 69/6 101/6 121/7 121/8 126/3 127/23 154/17 159/1 226/7 267/2 267/17 273/22 275/15 286/2 |
page 90 [1] 164/20 | |
| owned [2] 141/7 205/8 |
pages [15] 1/1 21/11 21/12 30/16 69/10 70/7 79/8 81/1 81/2 81/20 122/12 133/25 182/11 202/18 241/18 |
|
| owner [5] 162/18 201/7 238/3 245/23 255/10 |
paid [29] 59/20 61/1 61/2 149/12 149/20 168/6 201/24 222/23 223/9 223/15 223/17 223/20 223/23 224/12 226/16 228/18 232/8 238/16 238/20 239/12 256/18 256/20 256/24 256/25 257/2 257/3 257/10 257/17 274/19 |
|
| owners [5] 126/3 158/1 179/20 180/4 205/10 |
pants [1] 259/18 | |
| ownership [1] 162/8 | paper [7] 36/8 81/24 205/9 207/12 228/13 240/18 280/7 |
|
| owns [1] 165/2 | papers [2] 118/17 259/25 |
[Page 104]
P |
||
| partially [1] 185/1 | pattern [24] 70/22 70/25 71/1 71/3 71/4 72/5 72/5 89/15 90/12 90/19 93/18 93/19 93/20 94/4 94/7 95/9 95/21 97/16 98/18 104/6 105/2 111/12 131/8 132/4 |
245/25 246/22 247/12 247/14 247/15 247/20 248/2 249/5 251/1 252/13 253/3 254/6 254/15 254/23 255/7 259/10 259/11 259/19 273/18 275/17 275/23 275/23 284/8 284/22 285/22 285/25 287/4 |
| PARTICIPANTS [3] 2/1 3/1 4/1 |
Pause [2] 122/6 272/19 |
per [17] 41/8 56/13 57/5 97/1 154/8 183/25 197/10 222/24 223/16 223/20 232/25 240/21 241/7 254/24 256/19 279/20 279/21 |
| participation [1] 174/11 |
pay [28] 18/16 139/20 143/2 175/18 196/10 212/14 212/14 231/4 231/7 232/1 232/12 232/14 233/25 234/8 234/8 234/20 235/6 236/4 236/7 239/16 240/17 241/3 241/4 246/25 256/17 260/5 282/11 282/11 |
perceived [1] 53/19 |
| particular [34] 8/3 8/7 33/18 34/3 34/5 34/6 36/25 37/1 37/5 37/20 37/23 41/3 41/25 56/6 71/17 78/16 93/25 110/6 110/9 118/13 136/12 136/18 148/14 165/16 179/24 190/16 193/18 202/23 240/9 270/5 272/2 277/14 283/16 286/20 |
paying [3] 18/21 196/9 235/2 |
percent [1] 227/9 |
| particularly [3] 94/24 168/9 181/24 |
payment [18] 18/15 49/12 49/13 80/20 175/11 175/19 175/20 205/19 205/23 227/2 232/10 232/20 233/22 233/23 235/18 239/20 240/21 241/7 |
perfect [4] 211/5 216/4 218/25 219/22 |
| parties [50] 3/11 6/7 6/23 7/3 10/25 16/19 17/5 20/25 25/13 29/17 29/20 34/15 41/18 43/3 45/21 50/20 54/17 56/19 58/12 59/20 75/14 75/21 84/11 84/16 99/8 110/12 112/7 112/15 112/17 114/11 114/12 114/21 121/3 126/11 126/12 126/13 134/5 135/2 136/15 137/13 154/2 154/13 162/10 172/22 173/10 173/17 173/20 179/5 179/8 187/16 |
payments [3] 233/3 238/16 238/20 |
perform [2] 89/6 195/4 |
| parties' [1] 7/14 | PEER [19] 4/17 9/9 9/19 22/7 28/14 42/22 96/18 118/24 132/17 132/22 138/2 138/10 139/2 141/10 142/21 144/9 145/1 147/3 194/7 |
performance [1] 185/4 |
| partly [1] 10/24 | Peer's [10] 24/22 25/4 133/14 143/20 150/25 194/8 196/13 198/11 198/24 199/10 |
performed [1] 50/2 |
| partner [1] 8/12 | pencil [2] 62/8 164/16 | perhaps [23] 14/9 17/5 19/4 22/17 23/1 23/18 31/2 31/11 42/15 59/24 60/10 62/1 63/21 68/16 73/15 84/4 92/14 94/9 95/16 97/4 97/5 251/21 262/1 |
| partners [1] 8/14 | pensioners [3] 232/15 233/17 235/11 |
period [11] 72/21 72/21 157/5 219/19 223/24 233/9 235/4 252/15 252/17 269/7 280/23 |
| parts [3] 32/6 37/13 39/16 |
people [82] 59/24 68/21 85/18 85/19 85/19 92/8 96/1 117/23 117/23 118/5 160/18 165/3 166/11 167/21 192/24 197/23 205/18 205/21 206/2 206/7 207/16 208/20 208/21 210/19 211/17 213/11 213/11 213/12 217/21 217/24 217/25 218/2 220/19 222/13 224/11 224/13 225/3 225/16 226/13 229/12 229/17 229/19 232/7 232/8 232/10 232/14 233/11 233/18 235/13 235/15 236/6 236/6 238/17 240/1 242/13 |
permission [1] 171/12 |
| party [38] 16/9 16/12 16/14 16/17 17/2 17/9 17/14 18/11 18/12 18/19 29/15 33/17 50/7 50/24 55/13 55/19 57/1 60/1 78/1 86/6 86/15 87/7 91/14 95/15 98/22 100/9 106/23 109/20 112/20 113/20 115/8 116/20 117/1 121/18 231/15 231/16 250/15 250/23 |
permit [1] 181/20 | |
| pass [1] 118/11 | permits [1] 130/7 | |
| passage [1] 31/5 | permitted [5] 47/5 53/23 63/15 72/23 261/5 |
|
| passages [1] 64/2 | permitting [1] 40/17 | |
| passed [2] 42/14 249/13 |
PERNT [3] 4/4 9/5 9/17 |
|
| passing [1] 37/12 | persists [1] 276/22 | |
| passport [1] 282/23 | person [25] 7/4 45/15 64/4 64/12 75/3 162/20 174/16 195/18 207/14 211/19 212/12 212/20 213/10 218/1 220/14 233/12 245/22 254/24 278/13 281/25 281/25 282/21 283/9 285/21 287/5 |
|
| patchwork [1] 110/25 | personal [5] 115/16 142/8 142/12 142/14 273/23 |
|
| path [1] 102/16 | personally [5] 149/21 215/23 229/7 237/7 237/13 |
|
| pathway [1] 260/2 | persons [5] 117/19 162/13 208/5 211/15 |
[Page 105]
P |
||
| point... [97] 46/14 46/18 52/4 52/5 52/14 52/18 53/10 53/11 53/12 54/17 56/8 57/7 57/12 58/22 59/3 59/17 61/18 62/12 63/8 68/7 68/8 71/1 71/17 73/16 75/17 78/16 78/17 78/17 80/8 80/23 82/2 84/6 88/8 88/18 89/17 90/7 90/9 90/20 92/14 94/24 95/13 95/19 96/7 96/16 96/23 97/12 97/13 100/25 101/1 102/14 105/10 106/19 106/20 107/8 109/22 111/23 112/8 115/15 116/1 116/11 116/12 117/6 118/19 130/1 134/23 139/2 142/11 150/21 154/1 154/1 154/5 154/12 154/21 163/3 168/20 168/20 177/3 188/7 189/19 199/6 206/9 210/23 211/1 217/12 227/25 228/20 234/6 237/4 237/20 247/8 257/24 260/13 263/8 263/15 265/4 266/15 266/19 |
positive [2] 184/5 184/8 |
preparation [1] 213/7 |
| pointed [3] 250/14 250/16 255/10 |
Poslaro [1] 282/22 | preparatory [1] 80/19 |
| pointing [1] 167/5 | possession [3] 39/8 211/21 244/25 |
prepare [5] 10/19 29/13 152/8 154/13 222/20 |
| points [15] 34/15 40/1 53/17 54/18 55/7 71/18 87/12 90/19 94/5 94/7 113/10 116/6 129/22 237/25 261/6 |
possessor [1] 130/13 | prepared [8] 6/14 21/9 24/6 68/14 137/8 140/7 140/12 284/15 |
| Poland [14] 38/2 41/5 41/6 41/7 41/8 197/5 218/16 226/8 226/9 226/9 227/23 238/5 285/23 285/24 |
possibility [4] 19/15 26/5 27/5 257/24 |
preparing [4] 28/17 154/15 253/7 257/15 |
| Polish [3] 156/21 197/6 204/5 |
possible [10] 27/7 151/22 191/25 209/2 230/7 230/16 231/2 253/12 274/9 280/22 |
presence [3] 10/14 10/22 12/13 |
| political [1] 171/4 | possibly [4] 16/16 26/7 36/20 80/17 |
present [11] 3/11 70/1 71/15 91/12 91/14 91/15 92/11 266/20 273/13 280/15 282/9 |
| politicians [3] 165/18 168/24 228/16 |
post [2] 128/9 128/21 | presentation [10] 35/7 36/12 37/15 68/13 69/17 70/12 78/7 90/12 133/1 138/2 |
| politics [1] 206/7 | potential [2] 27/7 146/20 |
presented [1] 124/15 |
| poor [3] 166/14 166/14 213/12 |
potentially [2] 28/19 123/21 |
president [55] 1/17 2/3 2/19 7/24 17/7 19/8 20/10 21/2 21/3 24/4 26/20 27/11 37/8 43/7 43/8 45/13 45/16 47/6 47/12 47/25 48/1 52/10 52/10 53/13 53/13 72/16 74/16 75/4 136/6 153/14 153/15 166/7 167/14 171/1 185/16 188/20 194/3 204/24 227/17 227/17 228/4 231/6 231/14 237/1 244/4 268/14 269/5 269/7 269/9 269/11 269/21 272/14 279/17 285/3 286/6 |
| portion [1] 22/23 | power [15] 123/7 127/10 127/16 128/14 128/23 129/10 129/12 130/8 130/22 132/9 211/21 238/8 246/4 255/21 256/6 |
|
| position [16] 10/21 11/1 12/12 14/15 65/8 78/16 79/25 97/1 101/7 113/12 152/7 193/23 262/25 271/5 277/3 278/14 |
powerful [8] 146/6 233/11 247/20 248/2 254/23 255/7 275/14 275/24 |
|
| positions [2] 10/15 181/7 |
PowerPoint [6] 36/5 69/10 69/17 69/22 70/12 133/24 |
|
| powers [1] 275/17 | ||
| PR [1] 157/24 | ||
| practical [1] 54/25 | ||
| practice [3] 136/4 137/4 140/17 |
||
| practices [5] 89/6 134/15 135/10 135/24 137/3 |
||
| pre [5] 32/25 33/12 69/25 172/23 184/21 |
||
| pre-award [1] 184/21 | ||
| pre-empt [1] 32/25 | ||
| pre-hearing [2] 33/12 69/25 |
||
| pre-trial [1] 172/23 | ||
| precious [1] 126/19 | ||
| precise [2] 46/4 182/13 |
||
| precisely [3] 26/15 135/2 140/25 |
||
| precondition [2] 110/13 110/20 |
||
| predictable [3] 46/23 52/20 52/23 |
||
| preferred [1] 97/5 | ||
| prejudgment [1] 147/25 |
||
| prejudice [3] 115/6 172/9 180/3 |
||
| preliminary [1] 273/3 | ||
| premise [2] 70/3 105/2 |
[Page 106]
P |
||
| proceed... [2] 244/8 258/2 |
268/4 | prosecutor [5] 94/15 117/14 117/21 117/24 175/17 |
| proceeded [1] 6/25 | professor at [1] 268/3 | protectants [7] 137/6 139/21 139/25 140/14 140/22 141/20 143/3 |
| proceeding [5] 35/17 66/23 74/23 114/17 124/8 |
Professor Dolzer [3] 12/18 12/22 12/23 |
protecting [1] 99/19 |
| proceedings [20] 6/10 6/14 17/12 30/20 31/21 33/21 33/22 38/4 38/16 50/18 71/14 87/8 114/22 120/14 186/14 202/11 202/22 257/25 258/3 267/8 |
professor from [1] 197/5 |
prove [9] 70/24 164/9 164/12 164/13 180/19 180/21 206/2 209/24 272/4 |
| process [44] 43/15 45/22 47/18 51/3 51/23 52/5 52/7 52/11 52/17 52/24 53/20 53/21 53/24 57/16 60/2 63/23 63/24 65/23 72/2 74/1 85/13 86/12 97/21 98/12 103/11 104/7 123/25 151/23 157/20 158/21 159/5 159/6 169/19 212/8 212/12 213/7 220/1 220/2 233/10 256/10 258/20 259/23 269/18 274/2 |
Professor Knieper [4] 7/25 177/7 240/5 268/4 |
proved [1] 272/4 |
| processed [2] 136/2 272/5 |
Professor Philippe [1] 268/2 |
proven [4] 135/7 180/12 180/18 184/20 |
| processing [3] 230/6 230/16 283/2 |
Professor Rolf Knieper [1] 6/12 |
proves [1] 244/17 |
| Procopi [1] 162/19 | Professor Rusu [3] 107/7 119/5 239/19 |
provide [11] 18/17 21/5 30/15 57/19 131/2 131/19 141/11 152/3 152/9 169/5 191/20 |
| produce [8] 24/6 24/10 42/4 166/19 218/2 222/19 224/13 261/14 |
Professor Rusu's [2] 101/2 108/20 |
provided [19] 15/24 27/23 57/25 82/5 86/22 126/23 126/25 127/6 128/12 128/22 133/24 137/9 138/12 139/8 144/9 145/12 147/6 176/20 239/6 |
| produced [3] 21/6 140/8 227/8 |
Professor Sands [1] 69/1 |
provides [6] 12/8 123/8 125/20 128/21 152/5 287/2 |
| producer [10] 138/24 139/1 140/9 140/21 143/1 143/13 143/14 143/25 145/6 146/8 |
Professor Viorel [1] 9/18 |
provision [1] 129/15 |
| producers [2] 140/13 149/5 |
profit [3] 42/23 194/19 195/1 |
provisions [3] 169/10 169/13 172/6 |
| producing [1] 143/15 | profitability [1] 135/8 | proximity [1] 141/14 |
| product [2] 176/19 176/25 |
profitable [6] 38/9 134/14 134/19 146/1 183/1 203/16 |
public [24] 38/20 39/12 49/18 51/3 51/8 51/13 51/23 52/6 52/12 52/15 54/24 59/14 60/1 61/3 61/14 63/14 77/11 98/20 100/6 128/20 156/8 158/6 260/5 280/19 |
| production [2] 21/7 191/15 |
profits [11] 135/5 135/11 146/25 149/14 184/20 194/8 198/13 198/16 198/16 198/22 271/20 |
publicly [1] 145/9 |
| products [1] 279/21 | Progress [1] 226/11 | pull [2] 244/11 264/18 |
| professional [1] 39/5 | prohibit [1] 125/1 | pulled [1] 184/14 |
| professionals [1] 41/16 |
prohibition [2] 76/2 78/8 |
purchased [2] 41/19 44/25 |
| professor [25] 1/16 1/17 2/4 2/13 4/16 6/12 7/25 9/8 9/18 12/18 12/22 12/23 69/1 75/19 101/2 107/7 108/20 119/5 177/7 197/5 239/19 240/5 268/2 268/3 |
prohibitive [1] 30/17 | pure [1] 123/10 |
| project [8] 45/22 155/19 155/20 156/4 156/15 157/25 164/4 229/23 |
purely [1] 18/13 | |
| projects [2] 40/23 156/7 |
purporting [1] 280/4 | |
| promised [1] 153/17 | purpose [2] 39/7 243/3 |
|
| pronouncing [1] 254/20 |
purposes [3] 32/5 152/22 243/1 |
|
| proof [1] 42/9 | pursuant [4] 11/24 13/4 97/25 103/25 |
|
| propels [1] 81/10 | pursue [2] 105/4 109/11 |
|
| proper [8] 24/24 41/13 86/24 197/9 212/23 219/20 230/17 256/1 |
pursuit [1] 110/12 | |
| properly [11] 24/21 40/8 43/2 44/14 54/16 57/21 65/9 117/7 117/10 132/2 254/21 |
put [16] 8/5 28/1 32/7 48/15 59/10 91/11 113/12 150/1 154/14 164/20 170/9 209/15 230/10 253/22 276/24 |
|
| proposal [2] 20/16 229/2 |
||
| propose [3] 6/5 18/4 133/6 |
||
| proposed [2] 27/7 28/8 |
||
| proposition [6] 99/12 99/25 99/25 140/5 140/19 140/21 |
[Page 107]
R |
||
| ready... [3] 238/25 239/1 252/4 |
Recommande [1] 83/15 |
reflects [1] 149/5 |
| real [3] 70/12 107/8 144/8 |
recommendation [1] 41/6 |
refresh [1] 264/17 |
| realise [1] 29/15 | recommended [4] 43/11 140/23 218/15 220/14 |
refunded [1] 149/12 |
| reality [1] 138/14 | record [69] 11/24 12/4 13/8 13/16 17/9 17/16 21/11 29/12 30/15 40/23 40/25 42/6 42/9 42/16 46/9 46/14 54/21 63/17 63/25 64/16 64/22 64/24 65/1 66/22 68/23 70/25 71/10 71/18 72/8 73/18 82/7 87/13 88/6 98/20 102/13 104/2 105/22 106/19 113/22 116/18 117/12 127/21 129/9 130/4 134/9 135/8 135/16 135/23 136/1 154/4 154/15 155/1 156/13 159/14 159/21 160/14 170/9 172/19 184/21 186/19 188/13 193/22 203/24 223/1 244/22 246/15 263/3 263/8 264/19 |
refusal [12] 57/19 63/2 63/11 113/23 124/14 128/3 128/9 128/21 130/12 130/15 130/25 176/20 |
| really [25] 8/4 18/3 33/13 39/19 53/6 59/22 68/7 68/24 69/12 90/20 96/24 97/10 110/23 120/3 138/3 143/25 145/2 146/14 213/24 252/16 273/6 273/7 277/13 277/15 286/2 |
records [4] 42/12 42/17 63/3 269/24 |
refuse [19] 62/19 62/23 119/24 123/4 127/8 127/9 127/16 127/19 128/2 128/6 128/23 130/6 130/11 130/21 130/23 132/7 162/22 162/25 176/16 |
| reason [13] 39/3 60/5 62/19 66/4 80/7 116/25 130/23 172/2 172/5 179/24 181/10 191/13 207/17 |
recoup [1] 39/14 | refused [5] 66/11 68/22 124/13 124/16 145/21 |
| reasonability [1] 184/25 |
recourse [1] 110/17 | refuses [1] 89/3 |
| reasonable [18] 53/3 53/17 81/15 108/18 109/2 111/7 119/19 120/6 122/24 123/15 123/18 132/6 132/10 143/24 176/13 176/19 176/25 181/25 |
red [3] 21/13 160/13 165/1 |
refusing [2] 89/23 131/1 |
| reasonableness [3] 119/17 120/1 120/5 |
redefine [3] 119/23 123/4 132/7 |
regain [1] 157/15 |
| reasonably [2] 73/8 133/16 |
redefined [1] 131/9 | regard [6] 13/11 16/22 21/8 30/24 130/4 202/12 |
| reasoned [1] 177/17 | Redefining [1] 128/13 | regarding [8] 17/8 124/8 138/21 149/8 172/6 194/25 237/3 277/25 |
| reasoning [4] 95/12 103/8 115/11 179/10 |
refer [5] 15/13 22/7 140/23 143/22 144/14 |
regardless [5] 178/22 179/4 182/20 182/22 226/19 |
| reasons [7] 9/22 94/12 103/13 122/25 171/24 218/17 282/10 |
reference [15] 12/3 13/24 16/16 16/17 18/8 18/25 27/17 91/8 126/4 154/8 162/5 162/7 162/10 198/24 229/22 |
regards [2] 14/7 182/25 |
| reassure [1] 137/20 | references [5] 40/25 43/18 65/12 71/12 198/12 |
region [15] 134/16 134/18 164/23 204/24 206/3 213/4 222/7 222/8 222/10 222/18 231/14 232/22 240/12 250/4 250/20 |
| recall [3] 26/4 26/10 276/5 |
referencing [2] 106/4 157/22 |
regional [9] 48/5 99/13 100/16 103/21 103/25 121/15 136/4 143/6 143/9 |
| receipt [1] 166/18 | referred [1] 196/3 | register [20] 50/3 66/2 66/5 66/11 66/20 67/4 67/8 67/17 67/21 74/2 94/21 162/17 162/25 163/17 212/13 212/15 212/22 223/3 223/4 241/3 |
| receive [7] 73/7 173/13 227/1 228/2 236/1 236/3 252/10 |
referring [9] 15/14 43/22 50/4 51/20 54/2 72/20 91/9 159/24 237/7 |
registered [31] 52/6 52/8 54/24 65/11 68/22 73/14 83/16 106/3 113/17 113/18 124/11 126/3 127/15 130/20 131/10 132/2 162/18 163/22 201/15 202/1 210/25 212/11 212/13 240/8 240/9 251/25 269/23 271/24 274/5 274/7 280/18 |
| received [17] 11/21 66/25 67/4 73/24 74/8 74/9 74/11 75/2 86/24 207/21 223/6 227/3 227/7 253/13 257/3 259/3 265/21 |
refers [2] 194/8 199/10 |
registering [9] 51/24 59/8 61/14 64/18 66/9 |
| receiver [1] 246/17 | refile [1] 172/11 | |
| receives [1] 81/23 | refiled [1] 115/9 | |
| receiving [2] 72/24 170/17 |
reflect [5] 27/6 146/20 189/21 190/8 257/24 |
|
| recently [1] 270/10 | ||
| RECHTSANWÄLTE [1] 4/6 |
||
| recognise [4] 33/19 68/15 146/8 147/4 |
||
| recollection [1] 264/18 |
[Page 108]
R |
||
| render [1] 110/5 | 174/15 215/4 215/8 215/15 217/13 234/4 237/5 238/1 244/13 250/22 |
resolution [2] 114/16 115/8 |
| rendered [1] 254/3 | representatives [3] 60/1 91/14 274/17 |
resolve [3] 31/18 103/7 192/13 |
| rent [4] 233/22 233/23 238/15 238/19 |
represented [3] 56/7 220/4 244/14 |
resolved [5] 75/21 126/11 139/10 155/2 284/10 |
| rental [1] 175/19 | representing [2] 99/13 238/9 |
resorting [2] 109/21 110/4 |
| rented [1] 249/25 | represents [1] 50/1 | respect [2] 171/11 251/11 |
| repeat [2] 160/25 202/10 |
REPUBLIC [16] 1/11 4/8 4/13 7/6 100/8 100/22 103/19 202/11 235/20 270/25 275/19 275/21 277/12 277/23 279/20 285/10 |
respected [2] 58/11 100/14 |
| repeatedly [4] 98/20 112/24 174/16 174/20 |
reputable [1] 141/7 | respectfully [1] 154/4 |
| replace [1] 274/9 | request [36] 13/5 16/7 16/10 16/11 17/8 17/18 18/7 19/11 19/17 19/20 20/2 21/4 24/9 24/24 27/22 36/6 37/11 42/2 80/1 94/3 106/24 107/14 111/3 122/14 126/23 149/10 171/19 173/10 179/14 184/21 191/16 193/4 193/17 222/16 236/8 262/4 |
respecting [1] 6/6 |
| replaced [3] 274/3 274/12 274/23 |
requested [7] 34/24 42/5 66/24 107/11 179/19 179/21 194/23 |
respective [1] 217/4 |
| reply [11] 68/11 73/22 91/1 100/10 105/6 107/1 107/4 163/18 170/12 175/24 181/1 |
requests [5] 16/7 19/24 77/15 172/4 258/13 |
respond [8] 24/21 26/2 28/17 82/20 94/1 96/20 138/2 268/9 |
| report [86] 21/5 21/8 22/15 22/18 22/22 24/19 24/22 25/4 25/24 26/13 27/13 28/12 28/17 28/18 29/5 29/7 42/19 42/23 63/21 64/3 75/15 75/18 76/4 76/4 96/18 99/20 99/21 100/4 100/17 101/2 107/16 108/16 108/20 124/3 125/3 126/7 128/22 133/3 133/5 133/14 136/16 137/1 137/4 137/8 137/10 137/11 138/1 139/8 140/24 142/2 143/8 143/17 144/10 144/15 145/12 147/20 150/25 151/12 158/5 162/4 162/23 176/14 177/14 178/23 179/3 182/1 182/3 182/4 182/20 182/23 183/7 184/24 194/7 194/8 196/13 196/13 198/12 198/14 198/24 199/1 199/10 218/1 271/14 278/21 279/1 279/8 |
require [1] 110/12 | responded [1] 217/19 |
| reported [3] 144/7 145/9 146/16 |
required [7] 109/7 109/10 114/15 163/4 240/9 240/13 241/7 |
Respondent [124] 1/12 4/2 5/3 5/6 5/8 5/14 8/24 10/9 11/7 11/21 12/11 13/13 13/16 14/13 16/8 17/5 17/8 17/12 17/17 18/14 18/21 19/15 19/16 19/18 23/23 24/1 24/9 24/25 26/22 29/9 30/12 30/19 31/19 35/1 40/11 42/15 56/3 56/19 57/11 57/18 62/4 62/14 63/16 67/6 69/21 70/14 70/17 70/21 70/23 71/9 71/12 71/17 83/23 84/9 87/10 87/22 96/20 97/6 97/15 97/22 97/23 99/8 100/12 102/15 102/20 103/9 103/23 104/14 105/17 106/23 107/3 108/17 110/16 110/23 111/20 112/2 114/9 115/18 117/8 121/22 122/8 122/23 123/8 124/8 124/17 128/2 128/8 130/15 135/4 136/16 137/24 138/8 142/24 148/10 150/9 150/14 152/7 153/13 155/3 155/13 155/14 160/6 169/5 175/24 176/9 176/10 180/17 180/20 181/12 182/14 184/16 185/17 185/22 185/22 187/3 187/6 191/17 194/23 202/7 209/4 244/9 247/19 271/15 272/13 |
| reporters [5] 2/21 11/16 95/24 151/15 152/18 |
requirement [10] 109/11 109/12 109/24 110/2 110/14 110/22 111/5 111/5 126/6 175/11 |
|
| reports [7] 24/7 27/7 28/8 34/12 100/13 140/3 151/9 |
requirements [4] 115/7 120/11 175/5 191/20 |
|
| represent [3] 103/10 211/22 259/6 |
requires [5] 99/17 99/22 127/22 129/16 143/1 |
|
| representation [3] 182/8 244/19 259/18 |
resembling [1] 217/2 | |
| representations [2] 47/1 47/5 |
reserve [6] 13/3 14/10 14/14 22/24 28/1 96/10 |
|
| representative [16] 88/2 94/19 170/9 171/25 174/12 174/13 |
reserved [6] 13/9 19/18 19/23 19/25 20/3 26/5 |
|
| reserving [1] 11/1 | ||
| reside [1] 165/3 | ||
| residence [1] 162/6 | ||
| residency [1] 207/10 | ||
| resident [1] 38/5 | ||
| resilience [1] 282/8 |
[Page 109]
R |
||
| risk-free [1] 148/6 | 216/4 216/10 217/17 217/17 281/17 281/20 282/5 282/5 282/6 284/18 |
162/19 166/8 166/10 167/22 167/22 174/9 189/24 198/7 228/18 246/23 248/2 251/11 252/25 259/25 260/2 264/5 278/2 280/4 280/6 280/7 280/10 280/11 280/24 284/5 284/17 |
| risked [1] 134/21 | RUSU [42] 4/16 9/8 9/19 43/8 43/12 45/14 45/15 45/17 47/6 47/12 47/25 48/7 52/10 53/13 75/19 107/7 108/16 119/5 164/5 176/14 177/14 178/23 179/3 182/1 182/3 182/4 182/21 182/23 204/25 205/15 205/16 205/24 222/13 228/10 231/13 231/13 231/14 239/19 250/9 250/16 252/11 253/2 |
sanction [1] 129/3 |
| RL [2] 30/5 30/10 | Sands [6] 1/17 2/4 6/9 7/24 69/1 268/2 |
|
| RL-21 [2] 30/5 30/10 | satellite [1] 164/19 | |
| Rod [1] 119/6 | satisfaction [1] 31/13 | |
| ROGER [8] 3/16 8/22 63/7 63/20 75/16 76/5 96/11 99/21 |
satisfactory [2] 23/16 29/2 |
|
| Roger Gladei [4] 63/7 63/20 75/16 76/5 |
satisfied [4] 10/11 17/16 61/4 173/12 |
|
| Roger Gladei's [1] 99/21 |
satisfy [2] 120/11 126/5 |
|
| role [18] 33/17 45/16 49/6 49/10 49/15 49/18 50/9 63/23 64/17 99/6 99/9 99/11 100/21 100/23 100/25 103/17 111/13 208/2 |
Rusu's [4] 59/16 101/2 108/20 159/10 |
Saulieu [1] 2/15 |
| Rolf [3] 1/16 2/13 6/12 | République [1] 2/14 | save [4] 53/6 144/18 221/5 236/15 |
| rolf.knieper [1] 2/16 | S |
saw [9] 73/11 175/3 193/8 198/12 217/9 269/25 271/10 285/16 285/22 |
| Romania [3] 270/11 271/6 286/15 |
safe [1] 286/14 | say [113] 9/25 16/22 17/20 22/19 23/5 23/20 25/16 30/23 44/1 48/6 54/1 54/11 60/15 60/23 60/23 62/25 62/25 65/19 67/5 67/18 73/23 73/24 73/25 74/3 74/4 74/6 74/7 74/7 77/17 77/18 82/25 83/24 87/12 91/1 91/5 91/7 92/10 112/24 113/6 117/8 129/19 133/9 148/10 153/21 164/25 166/9 168/3 168/5 172/13 183/20 187/17 187/24 187/25 188/3 188/4 188/16 200/4 200/15 200/17 200/22 201/9 201/18 206/25 208/25 209/1 209/17 210/3 210/10 211/13 212/8 212/11 212/12 212/21 213/15 214/1 214/13 214/16 219/1 219/25 222/23 223/15 227/11 227/16 227/24 227/24 236/6 237/5 237/10 242/10 245/10 247/2 249/19 252/1 252/19 255/7 255/25 256/16 257/10 266/24 266/25 267/22 270/16 271/6 272/22 277/9 277/19 278/6 281/6 283/10 285/12 285/25 286/18 286/20 |
| Romanian [22] 76/19 83/19 190/19 191/2 191/5 192/1 192/6 192/7 192/15 192/20 192/22 192/23 193/9 193/15 216/3 216/6 221/8 251/13 268/21 268/22 270/16 270/18 |
safely [1] 258/7 | |
| room [4] 8/20 96/1 211/17 267/5 |
safety [1] 270/23 | |
| Rosietici [23] 35/4 39/1 40/18 90/11 94/17 95/12 116/5 116/8 116/14 117/7 117/10 176/7 182/25 183/1 184/3 184/11 184/14 232/1 232/1 232/20 238/15 238/19 262/15 |
said [76] 14/14 27/21 33/11 44/4 44/7 44/10 48/13 48/22 65/20 107/5 118/20 131/9 148/10 163/13 173/9 195/24 200/18 201/5 204/19 204/22 204/24 205/17 210/6 213/5 213/15 213/16 214/9 215/19 216/14 216/15 217/16 217/22 217/23 219/17 220/17 221/14 223/3 228/10 231/5 237/12 237/25 238/25 243/21 246/12 247/18 248/1 248/25 248/25 249/3 250/17 250/25 251/10 252/12 253/4 254/11 254/22 254/24 255/15 255/22 256/3 257/7 257/13 258/14 258/17 258/22 259/8 265/12 268/10 274/7 277/11 277/20 278/25 282/4 286/12 286/19 286/19 |
|
| rot [1] 270/2 | sake [2] 188/18 189/25 |
|
| roughly [1] 69/5 | same [55] 25/10 31/19 38/20 50/17 57/1 57/24 58/16 61/17 62/11 64/10 65/8 67/5 67/24 73/10 81/3 81/10 87/2 87/21 88/12 100/20 108/17 122/21 124/7 125/4 125/9 129/1 142/19 142/25 143/10 145/14 |
|
| round [1] 211/25 | ||
| rule [3] 10/22 104/2 110/24 |
||
| rules [2] 173/18 173/21 |
||
| rumours [1] 231/22 | ||
| run [3] 213/10 249/12 273/16 |
||
| running [7] 207/1 208/1 213/9 213/18 243/17 254/15 285/23 |
||
| RURAC [2] 3/17 136/23 |
||
| rural [1] 168/13 | ||
| rushed [1] 153/5 | ||
| Ruslan [4] 43/8 75/4 92/21 171/2 |
||
| Ruslan Zelenenco [2] 43/8 171/2 |
||
| Russian [11] 216/3 |
[Page 110]
| seem [2] 31/25 148/7 | setting [10] 41/14 43/17 43/19 43/22 44/1 44/11 169/19 173/25 220/1 220/3 | showing [4] 41/7 63/17 95/14 188/21 | sit [1] 267/7 |
| seemed [1] 51/21 | settle [1] 273/18 | shown [1] 162/11 | sitting [3] 6/11 31/6 187/11 |
| seems [5] 77/22 147/15 147/22 213/24 237/11 | settled [1] 273/21 | shows [7] 55/14 71/10 72/9 82/8 88/2 98/20 132/5 | situation [27] 40/17 112/10 112/21 113/6 116/5 117/4 123/17 145/14 168/2 168/3 168/4 170/3 171/10 178/8 194/20 208/18 221/12 238/4 263/23 264/1 271/12 273/25 276/22 277/11 278/2 278/4 279/24 |
| seen [7] 96/16 137/16 188/25 281/14 283/3 283/3 284/1 | settlement [2] 1/2 172/17 | shut [1] 183/2 | |
| sees [1] 17/17 | seven [6] 39/13 129/20 150/2 195/16 231/18 237/19 | side [13] 31/1 31/3 31/17 52/13 79/23 138/20 161/20 186/7 186/25 201/21 237/20 256/23 267/2 | |
| seized [3] 13/23 14/1 182/6 | several [7] 140/10 140/24 172/1 172/19 233/3 236/10 274/2 | side-effects [1] 237/20 | six [8] 222/24 223/2 223/16 223/20 240/21 241/7 256/18 256/24 |
| seizing [1] 104/11 | shall [8] 12/10 64/4 64/12 64/19 74/15 158/6 186/22 217/10 | sides [9] 6/21 7/9 10/15 10/19 14/21 29/15 33/13 70/2 287/11 | sixth [1] 14/22 |
| seizure [1] 180/1 | size [1] 154/6 | ||
| selling [2] 199/21 239/24 | shape [2] 7/18 263/16 | sign [36] 49/11 50/21 128/7 158/20 159/18 159/20 161/7 163/17 166/4 166/6 167/6 167/7 168/3 195/5 208/4 208/6 208/9 208/11 208/12 210/21 211/17 212/5 213/17 216/14 217/22 224/22 238/25 255/18 280/1 280/3 280/7 283/17 283/20 283/21 284/8 284/25 | skip [1] 124/5 |
| semi [1] 182/13 | share [4] 27/2 62/11 204/20 244/25 | slide [32] 53/11 53/17 54/1 54/4 54/7 54/12 55/8 55/24 56/5 56/7 56/9 62/14 62/15 63/16 70/11 74/15 78/6 86/11 87/14 88/19 88/19 88/20 90/6 100/11 120/23 122/5 122/5 122/11 124/5 138/7 160/3 183/20 | |
| semi-finally [1] 182/13 | shareholder [1] 149/17 | ||
| senator [2] 250/22 270/11 | she [16] 9/25 36/8 36/11 66/25 67/16 72/25 81/24 114/6 114/7 151/11 151/12 195/24 195/24 196/1 283/17 283/23 | ||
| send [7] 8/6 36/10 123/22 131/11 151/6 151/13 174/7 | sheet [1] 21/10 | signature [51] 48/16 49/3 49/22 49/25 50/4 51/20 51/21 51/23 52/4 55/23 56/14 56/24 57/3 58/15 59/4 76/20 76/21 76/23 78/10 79/9 79/22 82/21 96/8 96/22 97/2 97/7 97/9 154/23 159/14 159/21 160/4 166/17 166/19 167/8 188/16 189/6 189/9 190/6 202/19 202/20 216/19 216/20 216/23 216/24 217/4 225/7 241/15 241/17 241/17 268/24 283/7 | |
| sender [2] 83/21 246/18 | shooting [1] 249/7 | slides [10] 35/8 35/9 40/24 70/7 122/3 126/21 132/13 133/24 151/11 183/15 | |
| sense [9] 7/12 24/24 48/19 134/2 148/7 150/14 238/2 246/19 258/17 | shop [1] 219/18 | ||
| sent [5] 83/10 122/14 147/14 151/3 192/23 | short [14] 28/8 96/2 96/5 150/20 152/18 157/10 186/9 209/12 226/2 234/10 259/18 267/13 268/6 280/23 | slight [1] 10/23 | |
| sentence [3] 188/7 230/13 245/16 | slightly [3] 9/12 11/12 54/10 | ||
| sentences [1] 32/15 | shortfall [1] 234/7 | slippage [1] 37/22 | |
| separate [2] 60/11 91/11 | shortly [5] 72/6 83/13 156/17 209/5 209/5 | signatures [12] 48/23 56/24 58/3 65/23 80/14 96/7 159/23 163/4 202/15 217/2 217/4 225/7 | slow [1] 74/1 |
| separated [1] 59/11 | slowly [2] 9/11 45/3 | ||
| separately [2] 15/12 176/16 | should [53] 29/23 33/10 34/8 36/2 42/7 42/11 49/4 62/16 66/8 66/20 72/18 73/17 74/19 99/3 101/3 102/6 104/23 107/11 111/9 111/14 111/19 111/23 115/21 115/24 117/8 118/18 129/3 129/5 133/19 139/10 139/11 139/12 139/23 144/6 144/24 145/16 147/9 148/1 148/4 148/16 149/12 149/14 149/19 157/14 159/2 160/19 181/11 274/19 277/10 277/10 277/20 284/9 284/10 | small [13] 49/13 85/18 96/25 97/10 167/5 168/12 196/22 203/17 203/21 222/24 223/15 277/12 277/13 | |
| September [7] 39/2 46/4 46/8 65/23 162/14 231/3 250/8 | smaller [1] 45/4 | ||
| Sergiu [3] 43/8 45/14 45/15 | smelly [1] 220/21 | ||
| Sergiu Rusu [1] 45/15 | smoothly [1] 273/16 | ||
| series [2] 121/10 282/22 | so [232] 6/5 7/3 7/15 7/17 7/18 8/19 9/11 9/13 10/22 11/3 12/3 13/12 14/2 15/5 16/4 17/2 17/14 18/17 21/20 23/12 25/19 27/23 28/10 29/12 30/15 36/11 40/2 48/3 49/12 57/1 66/1 69/15 71/15 73/6 74/24 78/9 79/2 83/11 83/15 85/8 88/8 89/4 89/12 89/14 95/2 98/16 101/3 105/8 108/21 109/13 110/23 112/5 113/19 118/16 119/10 120/5 | ||
| serious [7] 17/10 72/5 104/4 115/16 161/9 246/22 246/22 | shouldn't [1] 106/22 | signed [99] 35/25 48/9 48/14 48/19 48/25 49/18 51/11 56/4 56/10 56/19 57/1 57/5 57/8 57/11 57/14 58/6 58/11 58/18 58/18 59/19 59/23 62/6 67/8 73/3 73/4 73/9 80/3 80/9 80/11 81/20 81/21 81/21 83/2 83/8 83/9 117/19 117/22 117/23 128/6 154/18 155/24 158/16 159/22 159/23 159/24 160/10 160/17 161/11 161/13 161/15 162/11 162/12 163/8 163/9 163/11 163/19 166/10 172/22 179/18 179/20 200/22 202/19 209/19 209/25 210/4 210/5 210/8 210/12 210/14 211/9 211/11 211/12 211/14 214/10 214/17 214/21 215/19 215/23 216/15 216/18 217/8 217/12 217/12 217/15 237/6 237/8 237/12 238/8 239/5 242/13 255/15 255/20 274/1 274/5 274/6 282/21 283/9 283/11 284/25 | |
| servants [1] 157/22 | show [10] 71/19 77/15 132/4 160/3 174/21 190/17 209/23 210/9 242/7 262/1 | ||
| serves [1] 46/8 | showed [3] 213/9 242/4 242/10 | ||
| service [5] 6/18 9/1 222/24 223/16 239/6 | significant [7] 40/2 40/10 42/17 101/12 103/19 137/12 262/20 | ||
| servicing [3] 116/21 196/4 261/17 | significantly [1] 139/16 | ||
| session [1] 174/17 | signing [4] 48/19 160/16 207/4 230/15 | ||
| set [13] 38/18 40/4 40/6 40/20 60/20 92/23 113/5 126/20 151/11 151/24 174/1 177/15 218/10 | signs [4] 50/25 81/24 128/5 284/4 | ||
| sets [2] 140/16 183/8 | SILVIA [1] 2/25 | ||
| similar [6] 104/14 141/15 141/17 181/19 194/20 275/5 | |||
| Similarly [1] 65/6 | |||
| simple [7] 32/14 98/25 111/10 210/19 239/12 246/6 260/3 | |||
| simply [10] 24/15 66/11 85/1 87/13 202/2 209/15 253/14 253/19 257/9 260/20 | |||
| simultaneous [4] 57/20 63/2 63/11 113/24 | |||
| simultaneously [4] 62/20 62/23 68/23 89/23 | |||
| since [10] 19/2 102/7 130/18 154/19 162/2 196/5 214/14 244/19 265/9 270/6 | |||
| sincere [2] 8/6 149/25 | |||
| single [12] 31/8 32/23 81/22 98/17 102/10 102/24 103/15 104/25 154/20 154/23 198/7 284/13 | |||
| singled [1] 63/10 | |||
| singled-out [1] 63/10 | |||
| sir [2] 212/7 260/25 | |||
| Sircu [1] 117/14 | |||
| Sircu's [1] 95/11 | |||
| sister [1] 263/20 |
[Page 111]
| so... [176] 120/21 123/18 126/4 129/4 129/21 129/23 130/18 130/22 132/9 133/6 141/10 144/17 146/5 151/2 151/11 151/12 151/25 160/8 164/25 166/15 166/25 167/6 167/10 167/21 170/16 173/6 175/19 177/21 180/6 183/23 186/4 186/25 187/11 188/2 191/13 191/21 192/3 192/21 194/4 196/25 197/11 198/1 198/3 198/6 198/9 199/9 199/13 201/19 203/6 203/19 204/19 205/8 205/10 205/11 205/14 205/19 205/22 206/4 206/8 206/11 206/14 207/14 207/17 207/22 208/13 209/23 210/21 210/21 210/25 212/7 212/11 212/23 213/6 213/8 213/17 213/24 214/5 215/11 215/22 216/4 216/15 216/16 217/7 217/21 218/2 218/16 219/21 220/18 221/4 222/3 222/12 222/15 222/20 223/5 223/9 223/19 223/20 223/21 223/25 224/10 224/12 224/24 225/11 226/8 226/10 227/5 228/12 229/15 230/18 231/3 231/18 231/19 234/9 234/22 235/6 237/10 237/12 237/22 238/6 238/7 238/9 238/11 239/2 239/5 239/5 239/25 240/2 242/14 243/12 244/14 246/5 246/11 246/13 246/18 246/21 248/7 248/8 248/21 248/25 249/4 249/7 249/11 250/16 253/3 254/15 255/23 256/8 257/7 258/18 258/21 259/9 259/14 259/17 260/20 262/7 262/13 263/6 263/10 263/11 263/23 265/21 271/4 272/6 273/12 273/13 273/15 273/18 278/22 279/10 280/9 281/6 283/21 284/20 287/6 287/7 287/9 | sole [3] 39/7 149/17 166/25 | somewhere [1] 81/14 | speculative [2] 111/19 113/4 | starts [1] 55/14 |
| solely [2] 101/17 101/20 | son [7] 206/18 233/9 247/3 247/5 248/14 248/14 249/12 | spend [6] 28/3 40/9 40/14 99/5 223/19 258/15 | STASIUNAITE [2] 3/5 8/15 | |
| solemnity [1] 267/22 | soon [4] 140/4 230/6 230/16 231/1 | spent [1] 247/9 | state [44] 12/11 40/11 46/22 46/25 51/14 53/13 70/22 70/25 71/1 89/16 90/12 90/19 94/8 94/19 95/21 97/17 98/19 104/6 105/2 107/24 110/12 111/12 114/22 119/20 121/11 129/4 129/6 131/8 132/4 133/18 141/7 141/8 142/16 153/20 177/4 262/21 262/24 263/12 265/11 265/22 266/1 266/6 280/19 281/18 | |
| solemnly [2] 186/21 267/23 | sophisticated [2] 134/15 135/25 | sphere [5] 51/7 51/8 61/2 61/3 61/12 | ||
| solve [1] 278/20 | sophistication [1] 135/9 | spheres [4] 51/6 59/23 61/13 61/15 | ||
| solved [1] 108/6 | split [1] 39/15 | |||
| some [96] 14/16 15/10 18/2 20/13 31/14 35/21 38/9 38/19 40/9 40/14 43/11 43/18 44/18 46/14 47/4 53/16 54/17 56/5 57/22 62/3 63/21 64/2 73/4 77/16 77/20 79/20 80/12 80/13 81/6 83/3 92/14 104/14 105/7 105/23 118/5 119/2 119/7 119/14 120/20 131/16 131/21 133/13 137/20 139/6 141/11 146/6 151/19 155/2 156/7 161/11 187/9 190/14 192/7 196/21 197/5 197/23 198/2 198/20 204/8 207/7 207/16 208/11 208/23 220/14 223/21 225/3 225/12 228/22 229/12 229/14 232/9 237/19 237/22 238/11 240/23 243/17 245/25 246/10 247/15 248/6 248/24 249/11 252/24 253/7 257/14 259/16 262/19 263/22 268/11 271/2 271/3 272/5 273/17 274/17 282/10 284/21 | Soroca [1] 259/23 | spoke [5] 151/17 204/25 205/16 217/17 247/25 | ||
| sorry [9] 44/8 51/24 83/19 175/8 178/2 189/18 273/6 282/21 286/2 | sprayed [1] 239/7 | State Chancellery [9] 94/19 114/22 177/4 262/21 262/24 265/11 265/22 266/1 266/6 | ||
| sort [6] 7/8 50/5 269/19 271/25 273/14 283/5 | sprayers [1] 239/4 | |||
| sorted [1] 279/10 | spring [5] 45/10 211/6 232/6 250/3 253/8 | State Chancellery's [1] 263/12 | ||
| sorts [1] 276/20 | spring/summer [1] 45/10 | state's [1] 103/11 | ||
| sought [6] 158/11 164/10 165/17 168/24 171/3 202/24 | Springs [2] 192/8 262/6 | state-owned [1] 141/7 | ||
| sound [3] 25/9 147/10 149/3 | SRL [17] 39/9 41/20 45/1 55/23 57/15 74/19 86/22 91/4 106/2 158/18 171/8 173/9 174/21 215/4 219/11 244/13 244/20 | stated [12] 57/10 66/25 67/13 75/15 75/17 75/25 99/19 101/23 108/15 190/25 251/1 255/6 | ||
| sounds [2] 63/3 174/18 | SRL's [1] 91/16 | |||
| source [1] 232/15 | stable [2] 46/23 52/23 | |||
| southern [2] 38/7 45/5 | staff [1] 126/24 | |||
| sovereign [2] 51/14 148/4 | stage [3] 26/23 199/19 213/4 | statement [100] 33/4 35/4 35/23 38/25 39/1 44/22 67/14 67/23 68/15 71/15 72/15 72/19 74/22 74/24 75/1 87/23 88/24 89/1 89/7 92/4 92/18 93/1 93/3 93/12 114/5 136/8 154/7 156/6 156/18 157/1 157/10 157/18 157/23 158/14 159/5 159/9 159/15 159/18 159/22 160/9 160/22 161/4 161/22 169/18 170/1 171/4 178/6 182/9 186/17 186/18 186/20 187/25 188/14 188/22 189/9 189/15 189/16 189/19 189/24 190/1 190/4 190/9 196/4 200/3 206/5 206/25 209/9 210/4 211/13 214/8 214/9 214/13 218/2 218/22 223/14 227/12 227/16 229/22 230/2 230/9 230/21 237/6 245/10 251/14 252/19 254/1 255/15 256/1 257/8 257/13 258/16 268/18 268/23 269/5 270/7 270/20 271/2 272/22 277/1 277/18 | ||
| Soviet [1] 205/7 | stamp [13] 48/15 49/24 49/25 62/9 79/20 190/23 210/20 211/24 211/25 211/25 212/4 241/3 242/20 | |||
| Soviet Union [1] 205/7 | ||||
| space [2] 6/16 6/16 | ||||
| Spanish [6] 30/7 30/12 30/14 31/1 31/14 31/16 | stamped [7] 48/10 73/4 127/6 161/12 161/13 161/15 162/12 | |||
| speak [12] 31/14 66/17 77/21 144/17 146/5 184/5 186/22 187/1 192/15 221/8 281/20 284/17 | stamping [2] 60/2 61/14 | |||
| speaking [4] 53/5 156/20 224/4 247/15 | stamps [1] 81/25 | |||
| speaks [4] 31/1 204/5 216/3 218/16 | stand [3] 98/5 148/25 268/22 | |||
| special [1] 248/8 | standard [4] 31/20 108/15 236/5 236/6 | |||
| specialises [1] 218/13 | standards [1] 52/21 | |||
| specialist [1] 39/4 | standing [1] 93/15 | |||
| somebody [12] 62/7 91/18 168/3 224/24 245/12 249/18 249/19 249/23 251/4 269/17 274/16 281/1 | specialists [1] 47/16 | stands [2] 17/8 32/16 | ||
| somebody's [1] 283/24 | specific [12] 46/21 46/25 53/12 126/2 127/4 127/7 135/19 141/3 148/17 149/1 197/20 208/14 | stark [1] 130/2 | ||
| someone [2] 81/13 255/8 | start [16] 11/3 36/20 95/25 107/21 150/16 187/2 201/3 206/9 213/7 227/12 227/17 228/3 230/14 231/1 231/8 272/3 | |||
| something [22] 10/2 27/10 29/22 30/1 81/14 142/21 146/15 165/23 168/14 197/21 198/17 216/14 219/1 234/3 255/25 257/16 271/23 275/4 275/5 275/10 275/11 284/24 | specifically [4] 65/15 119/16 128/1 129/16 | |||
| sometimes [6] 210/19 210/22 237/23 275/21 285/16 285/25 | speculate [1] 166/8 | started [9] 66/3 66/8 85/8 154/24 159/11 206/14 230/5 251/25 258/19 | ||
| somewhat [6] 24/5 | speculation [7] 109/8 123/10 166/13 168/7 168/15 177/11 212/10 | starting [3] 150/18 157/6 199/2 | ||
| soil [12] 136/2 137/6 139/21 139/25 140/14 140/22 141/15 141/16 141/20 143/3 148/24 198/6 | 32/1 33/1 126/18 274/18 279/12 |
[Page 112]
| statements [21] 20/6 22/19 34/12 35/15 41/7 41/10 52/15 95/1 95/3 95/5 95/7 105/19 106/5 136/2 143/18 160/14 188/15 196/15 202/13 202/15 251/10 | still [24] 9/23 49/18 61/23 77/11 112/3 112/18 113/4 113/9 124/21 143/20 144/25 145/3 145/14 164/13 170/6 184/4 185/13 205/11 211/24 235/7 243/19 249/17 265/18 271/23 | summarise [5] 64/17 88/8 111/4 119/7 184/19 | surrounding [1] 11/19 |
| states [20] 3/8 64/10 70/23 181/2 190/18 190/22 200/5 200/19 200/24 211/3 228/9 238/6 248/10 248/18 257/23 258/7 259/12 269/5 277/15 278/1 | stop [4] 41/1 42/1 120/16 244/1 | summary [3] 34/19 34/22 113/11 | survival [2] 116/12 184/9 |
| STATESCU [1] 2/25 | stopped [1] 249/10 | summed [1] 38/24 | survive [2] 198/21 255/9 |
| stating [2] 60/12 115/5 | stops [1] 127/17 | summer [7] 45/10 45/12 45/18 45/23 93/21 243/15 276/6 | suspected [2] 117/25 118/2 |
| Statistical [1] 35/20 | store [1] 208/19 | summoned [2] 174/17 284/23 | suspend [3] 107/6 109/3 127/23 |
| statistics [1] 56/11 | story [12] 37/25 153/18 153/18 153/20 153/25 225/6 231/22 231/22 233/8 278/24 279/6 281/3 | summons [2] 173/15 266/4 | suspending [1] 107/19 |
| status [2] 263/16 265/3 | straight [2] 58/2 198/1 | sunflower [2] 143/8 205/21 | suspension [7] 106/24 107/9 107/13 107/15 107/22 108/10 108/12 |
| stay [3] 107/6 108/10 267/6 | strange [10] 55/11 63/3 63/4 71/21 72/2 73/23 85/25 167/25 221/12 280/6 | superior [1] 178/5 | suspensive [1] 108/3 |
| stayed [1] 255/3 | stray [1] 133/13 | supervise [3] 224/16 224/17 279/8 | switch [2] 198/20 207/14 |
| staying [2] 82/2 242/22 | street [3] 3/7 126/1 227/6 | supervised [2] 158/21 224/18 | switched [1] 207/18 |
| stays [2] 280/20 280/22 | strength [2] 109/6 109/9 | supplemental [12] 24/8 24/13 27/7 28/8 28/10 29/7 139/8 140/7 143/17 145/11 151/9 151/12 | sympathetic [1] 6/24 |
| stealing [2] 207/13 207/17 | stressful [2] 235/12 267/7 | system [7] 196/23 196/24 205/2 205/8 227/23 246/13 264/8 | |
| Stefan [37] 38/8 41/23 42/5 42/8 42/20 42/24 45/5 45/7 134/18 136/6 156/19 194/9 194/13 194/17 195/1 195/4 195/9 201/5 201/16 201/20 203/24 204/21 206/12 240/7 246/8 269/6 269/8 269/12 269/14 271/18 271/22 272/23 273/7 279/12 279/17 279/19 282/22 | stretching [1] 89/12 | supplementals [1] 96/17 | systematic [1] 71/23 |
| strict [1] 15/2 | supplied [1] 120/4 | ||
| strictly [3] 47/22 59/11 61/12 | supplier [1] 129/17 | T |
|
| strike [2] 168/8 168/9 | support [11] 7/20 21/5 92/16 92/25 95/15 104/15 127/21 168/16 250/25 253/3 271/7 | table [4] 9/14 42/22 183/13 183/16 | |
| striking [3] 81/18 95/5 95/14 | supported [12] 62/21 63/5 63/13 77/9 93/11 99/25 114/4 135/16 250/12 250/18 250/18 250/22 | tables [9] 21/13 24/6 24/8 24/10 24/21 28/9 28/11 28/11 183/8 | |
| strong [3] 94/25 108/13 108/23 | supporting [5] 11/19 76/25 154/8 166/3 250/6 | take [52] 26/9 39/10 40/2 55/20 59/5 70/6 90/25 95/23 97/1 112/13 112/16 119/21 129/23 132/14 145/16 148/16 151/14 165/8 170/13 173/8 175/12 178/15 186/3 188/13 189/3 189/5 190/17 199/7 202/16 206/13 212/3 214/25 215/4 216/17 220/15 224/13 230/8 232/13 232/18 233/21 235/22 245/13 249/20 251/5 252/14 254/7 259/4 267/11 267/12 268/15 281/13 286/18 | |
| strongly [2] 29/16 30/1 | suppose [1] 43/24 | ||
| struck [2] 12/3 280/5 | supposed [9] 191/13 195/23 219/17 221/10 224/8 228/13 239/9 239/16 240/14 | ||
| structure [13] 138/19 138/22 138/24 139/20 141/25 142/23 142/25 143/24 145/6 145/7 145/23 146/12 205/2 | Supreme [6] 173/23 174/5 177/14 177/18 264/10 264/25 | ||
| studied [1] 218/7 | Supreme Court [2] 173/23 177/18 | ||
| studies [2] 140/24 144/14 | sure [25] 7/13 12/18 15/5 23/12 44/19 48/21 67/24 68/19 69/18 90/23 95/6 119/13 133/12 187/23 189/25 200/2 200/5 208/25 209/4 213/12 234/20 249/25 258/25 253/4 263/8 | takeaways [1] 138/21 | |
| study [2] 142/4 143/21 | taken [27] 10/15 10/16 10/21 11/2 16/9 28/22 36/23 67/20 69/4 69/17 71/13 71/16 80/20 104/22 116/24 117/2 119/19 121/11 139/2 139/17 142/15 167/10 167/11 173/12 221/18 231/19 239/18 | ||
| stuff [7] 198/21 206/3 207/7 225/3 229/14 238/7 275/10 | surely [1] 56/19 | ||
| step [6] 112/13 145/16 168/22 226/8 254/13 265/17 | subject [10] 20/19 25/15 37/18 86/19 96/15 96/19 125/4 178/4 194/1 272/15 | surprised [3] 33/1 259/20 285/25 | takes [3] 18/24 45/22 97/4 |
| stepped [2] 254/21 259/17 | subjected [1] 178/2 | surround [1] 115/20 | taking [14] 39/7 57/5 65/8 68/1 131/4 149/1 153/22 172/5 176/2 |
| steps [5] 167/9 167/11 212/8 247/23 259/4 | subleasing [1] 201/12 | ||
| stick [2] 34/1 37/18 | submission [15] 5/2 5/3 25/6 25/24 26/16 31/22 37/24 67/3 67/9 67/19 74/5 82/18 153/13 154/22 191/17 | ||
| Stefan Voda [33] 38/8 41/23 42/5 42/8 42/20 42/24 45/5 45/7 134/18 136/6 156/19 194/9 194/13 194/17 195/1 195/4 195/9 201/5 201/16 201/20 203/24 206/12 240/7 246/8 269/6 269/8 269/12 269/14 271/18 271/22 273/7 279/17 279/19 | submissions [9] 19/6 26/7 65/20 66/1 100/2 132/13 153/9 154/5 163/16 | ||
| submit [10] 20/2 127/24 151/9 156/5 161/19 168/25 170/17 172/3 175/25 181/9 | |||
| Submittal [1] 110/6 | |||
| submitted [19] 12/9 27/9 29/11 30/5 30/7 42/18 75/15 117/19 135/3 149/9 156/11 159/25 163/1 173/11 191/19 229/22 230/1 270/7 271/14 | |||
| submitting [2] 172/7 270/20 | |||
| substance [1] 22/20 | |||
| substantive [6] 27/18 64/10 110/1 110/3 110/15 144/1 | |||
| subtly [1] 57/12 | |||
| subtract [1] 184/2 | |||
| success [7] 42/10 134/12 135/8 135/11 164/3 258/1 265/25 | |||
| successful [13] 38/1 40/22 41/23 45/6 136/10 145/19 194/16 226/9 229/16 263/11 271/19 272/7 272/8 | |||
| successfully [1] 41/4 | |||
| succinct [3] 34/19 34/21 226/2 | |||
| such [19] 75/12 99/3 102/23 106/21 109/23 110/13 118/4 125/10 141/1 143/15 145/4 150/2 172/3 172/7 198/15 199/21 270/8 276/10 284/1 | |||
| sudden [1] 10/20 | |||
| suddenly [1] 39/3 | |||
| sue [4] 114/10 114/11 114/11 171/17 | |||
| sued [2] 165/18 171/15 | |||
| suffer [1] 285/11 | |||
| sufficient [4] 32/5 33/18 242/25 266/25 | |||
| sugar [5] 55/14 66/4 239/25 252/7 261/15 | |||
| sugarbeet [3] 144/23 238/23 239/2 | |||
| suggest [4] 25/13 128/22 134/23 135/7 | |||
| suggested [2] 127/18 165/7 | |||
| Suite [2] 2/10 3/7 | |||
| sum [1] 132/1 |
[Page 113]
| taking... [5] 176/5 176/7 196/8 235/1 237/18 | templates [1] 160/21 | testifies [3] 14/11 15/14 147/7 | that [1251] | thereafter [2] 104/5 175/7 |
| talk [12] 40/5 40/12 54/15 68/18 84/16 85/19 85/21 96/14 115/1 166/15 196/16 250/10 | Temporally [1] 128/7 | testify [3] 136/7 140/8 151/24 | that and [1] 50/12 | therefore [13] 7/16 10/23 19/10 21/9 23/4 26/19 103/3 140/17 148/6 165/10 177/25 179/25 180/5 |
| talked [2] 199/17 285/17 | ten [24] 11/22 11/23 20/14 20/20 21/11 21/11 38/10 80/21 95/24 194/4 214/15 214/18 214/21 217/18 217/23 221/10 225/4 228/10 231/19 237/16 248/15 249/14 285/5 285/15 | testimonies [1] 24/11 | that point [1] 58/22 | |
| talking [18] 49/1 49/23 49/23 61/12 67/3 67/17 72/15 73/25 74/16 164/16 164/17 168/11 168/12 209/22 231/22 232/12 234/13 235/12 | testimony [13] 14/12 15/22 15/23 29/13 35/16 121/13 144/5 160/8 160/12 193/4 240/6 242/25 260/12 | the December 7 [1] 12/9 | therein [2] 64/15 176/23 | |
| ten-minute [1] 95/24 | testing [2] 141/7 141/8 | the injunction [1] 247/25 | these [136] 6/10 6/14 12/3 13/4 13/10 17/11 24/10 24/11 24/15 24/21 29/19 31/5 31/21 32/10 38/15 40/12 40/24 42/12 43/14 47/16 48/9 48/23 49/16 51/6 51/11 52/15 55/16 55/17 56/22 58/5 59/23 60/6 60/21 61/12 61/15 62/5 63/2 67/3 67/8 69/13 72/24 73/5 73/9 77/15 79/20 80/18 81/7 82/3 82/4 82/16 82/21 83/1 83/7 83/9 84/7 84/22 85/14 85/23 87/6 88/13 88/22 90/3 94/5 94/10 94/25 95/6 97/2 100/18 103/9 106/1 109/6 114/21 116/4 116/25 117/19 117/22 118/1 118/4 120/13 120/15 121/6 122/3 122/18 124/19 126/4 126/20 126/23 126/25 129/5 129/22 133/15 137/19 137/22 138/14 140/16 141/14 146/14 156/24 160/9 164/5 166/10 167/12 181/7 186/13 188/14 202/11 202/22 211/17 213/11 217/6 225/3 232/14 233/17 234/6 235/12 235/15 238/11 241/18 242/17 245/13 247/16 248/2 249/21 253/3 253/13 255/16 259/10 259/11 267/8 269/19 272/3 276/16 284/5 284/8 284/14 287/3 | |
| talks [1] 67/16 | tenants [1] 168/10 | text [3] 76/12 79/8 79/15 | the Laguardia [1] 273/18 | |
| Tapu [3] 231/17 250/17 250/18 | term [17] 119/24 119/24 123/4 123/5 127/19 128/1 128/9 128/10 132/7 132/8 156/9 174/21 185/2 213/14 223/22 231/10 234/10 | than [30] 28/1 28/3 32/6 37/2 44/7 62/7 89/2 89/12 97/5 116/4 129/6 136/13 138/25 141/10 144/24 146/9 146/18 149/4 154/11 162/13 184/22 185/5 185/8 185/11 203/16 203/21 235/1 236/11 250/15 279/11 | the Levintsa [1] 219/19 | |
| task [1] 157/20 | terminate [16] 67/1 72/9 73/1 73/19 75/10 75/13 77/6 77/12 77/19 77/25 82/5 85/23 89/19 90/2 114/7 280/4 | their [95] 6/23 8/7 19/21 24/7 29/13 48/15 66/16 69/6 71/7 86/12 87/13 88/14 88/16 90/2 90/4 91/19 92/2 93/7 93/8 97/25 98/10 98/23 107/23 109/9 112/3 113/3 113/9 113/16 114/13 115/10 121/20 123/9 123/15 128/17 128/17 130/5 132/9 137/1 141/6 142/14 144/5 148/12 149/24 153/9 153/17 153/21 153/23 155/9 155/11 155/12 155/16 155/22 156/9 158/1 158/7 161/7 161/20 161/21 163/16 163/17 163/25 164/20 165/12 165/14 165/16 165/21 168/2 168/2 168/11 168/14 168/22 169/7 170/21 171/15 172/8 174/25 175/1 175/6 175/23 175/24 175/25 178/21 179/2 181/14 181/22 182/19 182/22 184/14 185/19 185/20 185/21 205/22 213/1 236/2 254/6 | ||
| tasked [2] 159/17 161/2 | terminated [14] 72/19 73/13 74/19 76/8 86/13 94/20 113/17 117/7 117/11 131/13 166/22 167/3 168/10 180/4 | thank [68] 6/8 6/16 8/6 8/18 8/24 12/25 13/19 14/21 17/7 18/23 23/21 27/3 37/25 39/24 46/2 46/12 61/23 70/16 92/19 96/4 96/21 118/25 132/11 132/12 133/21 150/5 152/14 153/8 153/14 168/19 185/23 185/24 186/2 186/24 188/1 190/11 190/13 194/3 198/23 199/24 202/5 206/16 209/12 209/13 236/18 236/21 236/22 237/1 244/1 244/2 245/5 245/21 251/19 255/12 257/19 261/1 267/5 267/10 268/1 268/14 272/14 285/2 286/4 286/7 286/8 286/17 286/21 287/13 | ||
| tax [5] 144/19 144/23 147/18 147/20 147/23 | terminates [2] 76/13 78/21 | |||
| taxes [1] 227/5 | terminating [1] 280/7 | |||
| taxpayer [1] 248/5 | termination [23] 73/3 73/9 75/25 76/11 77/1 77/4 78/12 78/18 78/20 80/1 80/19 81/11 82/3 82/8 85/13 85/14 85/22 86/1 117/15 117/17 120/24 154/20 282/8 | thanks [3] 6/22 8/2 149/24 | ||
| Tcaci [2] 255/23 262/4 | them [66] 9/16 14/1 14/5 23/2 33/5 51/1 55/21 56/23 59/8 66/10 66/17 74/14 74/15 77/20 81/24 81/25 82/1 84/5 88/16 92/24 95/7 96/16 96/19 96/21 119/10 120/21 122/3 122/4 130/7 131/11 136/24 136/25 149/20 149/23 153/4 155/7 156/21 158/4 159/13 160/17 163/10 164/12 166/3 166/12 175/15 178/13 182/11 183/7 222/3 222/20 222/23 224/16 224/17 233/19 234/8 234/8 234/9 234/17 234/25 235/7 235/16 245/19 250/19 281/2 281/2 284/24 | |||
| teach [1] 286/1 | terminations [11] 83/9 84/23 85/16 86/8 86/21 105/18 106/4 113/23 117/20 118/1 123/21 | |||
| team [10] 7/23 8/4 8/6 8/10 8/11 9/4 155/19 156/14 156/16 159/1 | terms [22] 23/10 25/9 37/19 77/3 78/19 81/19 125/18 125/20 126/11 127/23 128/13 131/9 135/24 141/12 147/2 150/12 175/3 196/6 196/7 196/8 238/15 239/15 | |||
| tease [1] 287/2 | themselves [18] 7/3 12/2 48/25 62/5 65/2 75/21 76/17 77/21 101/21 103/1 103/10 114/1 122/11 126/5 128/16 131/24 154/25 192/12 | |||
| tech [1] 185/9 | terrible [3] 263/24 263/25 264/3 | |||
| technical [5] 37/13 135/9 200/1 238/2 283/3 | terrifically [1] 35/3 | then [89] 7/4 7/19 8/14 8/15 8/16 8/23 9/5 9/7 11/4 14/3 15/11 17/17 20/18 24/20 29/5 32/24 35/11 36/16 40/3 44/9 44/13 50/23 51/2 54/14 59/4 59/8 59/13 60/8 61/4 65/23 65/24 66/10 67/7 68/22 76/20 78/2 79/6 79/7 80/2 81/20 85/6 109/3 115/9 119/24 122/12 123/5 123/25 130/24 131/15 132/21 137/23 142/3 144/21 152/16 152/18 152/19 160/23 166/5 183/15 184/2 186/2 186/7 186/16 186/16 187/2 187/3 188/14 188/19 192/22 204/17 205/24 210/11 211/1 252/6 252/22 256/19 256/25 260/18 267/12 268/7 268/9 272/17 273/9 273/12 274/3 274/7 275/22 281/2 281/3 | ||
| technological [4] 141/17 175/5 175/12 283/1 | test [2] 105/10 109/9 | |||
| technologically [1] 135/25 | testified [5] 208/10 215/3 215/8 215/14 219/6 | |||
| technology [13] 164/7 165/7 197/4 197/7 197/12 197/22 197/23 198/3 198/6 198/8 198/10 272/4 283/5 | ||||
| Ted [1] 8/12 | THEODORE [1] 3/3 | |||
| ted.gleason [1] 3/9 | there [305] | |||
| telephone [6] 10/10 33/12 192/9 204/15 252/10 274/15 | ||||
| telephonically [1] 9/22 | ||||
| tell [13] 16/4 35/2 245/16 255/2 267/24 272/25 275/8 276/17 276/18 278/24 279/5 281/2 281/23 | ||||
| telling [5] 183/19 205/25 240/16 248/23 260/7 | ||||
| template [3] 43/13 160/25 242/24 |
[Page 114]
| these... [30] 202/22 211/17 213/11 217/6 225/3 232/14 233/17 234/6 235/12 235/15 238/11 241/18 242/17 245/13 247/16 248/2 249/21 253/3 253/13 255/16 259/10 259/11 267/8 269/19 272/3 276/16 284/5 284/8 284/14 287/3 | they're [1] 220/21 | thinking [7] 7/13 15/22 15/22 19/2 23/18 225/5 247/8 | though [2] 145/4 192/6 | time [153] 6/9 7/16 12/6 14/23 15/12 17/24 18/20 19/16 20/5 20/7 20/13 20/22 23/1 23/7 23/9 23/13 23/19 25/3 28/3 33/25 36/24 37/14 37/15 37/21 40/2 40/10 40/14 40/17 41/8 42/14 44/25 52/7 53/7 55/18 61/22 63/8 67/5 68/21 69/5 69/5 69/6 70/8 72/3 72/21 72/21 82/6 83/3 83/7 84/5 88/13 90/8 90/16 94/6 94/22 95/5 101/25 108/17 111/24 113/16 115/12 117/18 117/24 118/22 121/4 122/21 124/18 126/19 127/2 132/16 133/7 145/18 145/24 148/9 152/8 153/22 164/13 169/17 170/5 170/6 170/11 173/13 176/1 176/2 182/9 197/16 199/5 204/21 207/9 208/4 208/6 208/15 208/24 209/3 209/7 211/19 214/13 214/21 214/23 215/2 215/5 215/22 216/1 220/10 221/3 221/11 222/9 225/4 225/17 226/7 228/10 231/4 231/13 231/16 232/4 234/15 235/3 236/15 237/23 237/23 238/10 239/20 245/19 246/23 247/17 248/2 248/15 250/9 252/25 254/4 254/11 257/17 257/17 258/10 258/16 258/18 259/10 260/18 264/1 264/5 265/18 266/3 266/20 269/7 270/6 274/4 276/3 277/24 278/7 283/6 284/1 286/10 286/24 287/7 |
| they [247] 8/4 13/25 14/2 14/14 20/8 21/1 24/7 28/9 28/10 28/13 29/18 31/20 37/1 42/13 45/21 48/10 48/15 48/25 50/21 51/12 51/13 51/14 52/11 53/22 54/8 56/4 57/14 58/17 59/25 60/20 60/20 61/1 61/2 62/2 62/3 62/17 66/9 66/11 66/19 67/8 67/8 71/11 73/24 74/2 74/9 77/21 78/13 81/19 81/21 81/22 82/6 83/25 84/19 85/8 85/15 85/21 87/7 87/12 88/14 92/3 92/25 95/5 96/18 99/10 100/24 101/9 101/11 101/12 101/14 102/7 103/5 107/24 110/24 113/6 113/8 113/14 113/15 113/19 113/20 114/3 114/10 114/12 115/2 115/10 115/18 115/20 116/16 117/3 119/13 119/23 121/19 122/22 123/5 124/10 125/22 126/24 127/6 127/15 128/6 130/9 130/17 131/4 131/9 131/9 131/11 131/11 131/13 132/6 132/7 132/8 138/8 140/8 142/13 142/15 142/17 148/11 148/22 155/17 156/4 156/5 156/8 156/11 158/19 158/22 161/17 161/19 162/7 162/9 163/6 163/25 164/1 164/6 164/10 164/12 164/12 164/13 165/15 165/18 165/20 166/4 166/9 166/11 166/12 166/14 166/15 167/13 168/2 168/4 168/11 168/21 168/25 169/1 170/18 171/14 171/18 172/22 174/19 174/24 175/15 175/25 175/25 176/20 178/14 178/24 180/19 185/13 185/20 205/1 205/9 205/9 205/21 205/22 206/8 206/8 207/20 212/22 213/4 213/5 220/20 220/20 220/20 222/14 223/25 224/5 224/9 224/9 224/10 224/12 224/15 224/16 224/19 224/22 224/24 227/1 227/3 228/17 231/1 231/22 232/10 233/12 234/9 236/3 238/16 238/20 239/2 239/5 239/6 239/6 239/7 239/12 241/3 242/15 242/19 243/9 244/6 245/18 245/18 246/25 247/1 254/24 255/7 255/8 255/8 257/11 259/7 259/8 260/1 260/1 260/2 263/21 271/22 271/23 271/24 272/18 273/11 273/18 274/6 274/14 274/14 275/12 276/15 276/21 278/4 284/10 284/17 284/18 284/24 | thing [21] 25/10 29/14 32/8 48/24 61/17 80/24 87/2 158/9 198/23 210/19 213/10 215/24 220/21 226/10 228/16 231/7 253/9 260/3 280/11 281/20 282/14 | third [35] 16/8 16/12 16/14 16/17 17/2 17/9 17/14 18/11 18/12 18/19 39/21 55/13 55/19 69/11 86/6 86/15 87/7 91/14 95/15 98/21 103/3 112/7 112/15 112/17 112/20 113/20 114/11 116/20 117/1 167/3 172/22 179/5 179/8 231/17 277/1 | thought [18] 10/16 15/23 16/20 44/10 58/23 191/6 192/3 209/24 246/2 246/25 250/19 253/1 273/7 273/11 274/6 274/19 276/15 280/5 | |
| things [20] 14/9 59/10 85/22 119/23 167/6 210/20 237/6 237/13 257/10 269/19 273/5 273/14 273/16 273/21 273/21 276/17 276/20 278/21 284/12 285/1 | thirds [2] 18/6 116/10 | thoughts [2] 67/11 204/20 | time for [1] 118/22 | |
| think [79] 12/17 14/18 15/1 18/24 22/17 24/8 24/24 25/1 29/3 33/10 37/16 49/1 60/4 61/15 90/15 110/8 113/13 118/5 126/14 126/16 140/3 141/4 151/14 152/4 152/9 153/4 167/4 168/14 172/18 172/20 173/6 175/22 177/8 186/12 186/17 186/25 187/9 187/12 187/15 188/12 196/10 200/21 200/24 207/7 207/15 208/24 209/3 209/7 209/21 220/9 220/12 223/20 225/2 231/11 236/15 237/15 237/17 240/11 241/2 248/24 249/16 253/23 255/25 256/22 263/6 264/16 266/7 266/15 266/21 266/22 272/10 281/4 281/9 281/10 281/10 283/19 284/15 284/20 287/6 | thorough [1] 142/1 | thousand [4] 160/16 221/17 224/6 224/20 | timeline [6] 34/24 35/1 35/2 65/19 65/22 68/1 | |
| thoroughly [2] 126/8 131/24 | thousand-plus [1] 224/20 | timeliness [3] 24/23 25/24 26/8 | ||
| those [120] 7/8 7/10 10/8 11/23 13/24 14/8 15/6 20/5 20/8 20/21 22/13 22/14 22/19 22/21 25/9 27/23 28/20 31/9 33/9 35/14 38/4 38/15 38/20 41/2 45/11 47/4 57/2 62/4 62/9 62/10 65/12 74/11 79/2 79/13 91/13 95/9 98/7 100/10 104/15 105/19 106/6 106/16 112/18 119/22 121/20 122/15 124/11 124/14 124/16 125/16 125/20 125/23 126/4 127/20 128/12 131/6 131/17 132/14 133/8 138/11 143/10 144/3 151/9 153/19 158/2 158/10 158/25 160/3 160/4 161/10 162/21 163/11 165/3 165/3 166/6 166/22 166/24 181/23 181/24 182/2 182/4 182/17 182/18 183/6 183/15 183/16 184/8 185/14 192/13 192/23 195/18 202/18 203/12 211/8 211/11 211/20 211/24 213/17 214/14 215/23 217/4 217/5 223/11 233/2 234/20 236/12 241/2 242/6 242/9 243/10 243/13 251/5 256/24 261/3 274/4 274/25 276/22 280/4 280/5 284/21 | thousands [1] 158/2 | timely [4] 82/4 82/7 84/6 163/17 | ||
| threatened [4] 115/2 115/9 115/23 255/3 | times [10] 6/7 37/6 74/13 122/19 124/13 137/16 137/17 185/6 185/8 273/17 | |||
| threatening [1] 93/16 | timetable [6] 6/20 150/17 154/13 154/15 154/18 155/3 | |||
| threats [2] 91/15 115/17 | timetabling [2] 7/17 34/2 | |||
| three [41] 6/5 6/18 20/9 26/3 37/2 38/14 39/16 44/5 44/7 44/10 45/20 50/19 54/25 56/13 57/6 66/10 122/19 137/19 183/10 185/3 186/8 187/14 188/8 188/9 188/11 192/23 202/25 205/18 205/23 217/9 217/24 220/12 227/6 234/12 235/20 239/8 242/8 245/15 250/5 274/10 280/17 | ||||
| three-way [1] 227/6 | ||||
| through [43] 7/7 10/7 14/12 40/2 40/3 41/5 43/14 45/14 47/4 47/13 48/24 53/2 66/9 66/16 68/1 68/20 70/6 70/7 70/8 71/2 74/16 90/24 94/5 102/16 103/6 104/5 112/21 129/24 132/25 136/16 137/12 171/9 176/14 179/12 189/4 190/17 190/21 214/6 232/21 256/9 267/8 267/15 276/21 | ||||
| through this [1] 90/24 | ||||
| throughout [8] 7/1 31/21 31/23 40/24 57/16 85/4 94/4 99/9 | ||||
| thrust [1] 108/7 | ||||
| thus [7] 64/22 88/5 104/7 111/22 112/4 117/24 125/6 | ||||
| tight [4] 6/4 7/17 118/16 209/12 | ||||
| till [1] 175/17 |
[Page 115]
Ttiming [6] 32/1 37/11 timings [1] 37/22 Tiraspol [1] 201/23 title [1] 205/9 today [39] 7/14 8/1 TODD [2] 3/3 8/10 Todd Wells [1] 8/10 todd.wells [1] 3/9 together [17] 59/10 token [2] 61/1 257/11 told [23] 72/16 74/17 tomorrow [12] 7/16 tons [1] 239/10 too [7] 58/4 141/23 took [30] 27/12 38/5 top [5] 19/5 70/9 total [3] 69/9 183/25 totality [10] 16/22 |
59/21 70/1 107/23 totally [2] 116/22 touch [2] 204/17 towards [5] 91/16 town [5] 274/6 280/13 traced [1] 116/8 track [2] 61/5 135/8 tractor [1] 231/8 tractors [3] 229/13 tradition [1] 33/16 traditional [1] 188/12 transcript [2] 170/7 transfer [1] 223/7 transferred [2] 195/19 translate [4] 32/6 32/8 translated [7] 30/14 translation [19] 13/21 translations [2] 13/7 translator [5] 191/8 transmission [2] Transnistria [1] transparency [3] travelled [2] 200/24 travelling [2] 238/5 treasury [1] 148/7 treated [2] 130/3 treaties [2] 100/8 treatise [1] 128/19 treatment [1] 197/11 treats [1] 174/9 treaty [1] 101/11 trend [2] 144/17 trespassing [1] 165/9 trial [1] 172/23 Tribunal [83] 1/14 2/2 Tribunal's [10] 26/23 tribunals [2] 125/10 tried [9] 57/12 77/12 tries [3] 62/14 110/23 trip [1] 286/14 trivial [5] 98/25 troubled [1] 33/14 true [6] 122/25 124/4 truly [6] 123/1 135/15 trust [1] 15/7 trusted [1] 221/2 truth [13] 186/22 try [15] 7/13 14/11 trying [13] 18/3 32/17 Tugui [22] 43/11 turn [11] 12/19 15/4 turned [5] 31/9 220/20 turning [3] 15/11 turns [1] 32/23 twenty [1] 186/8 twice [1] 123/11 twist [1] 107/4 two [68] 8/21 12/1 two-page [1] 34/20 two-thirds [2] 18/6 type [6] 134/23 195/3 typed [2] 284/14 typed-up [1] 284/14 typo [2] 25/8 200/7 |
128/1 unaware [1] 113/15 unchanged [1] 138/11 unclear [9] 17/14 79/3 uncontested [1] under [55] 30/19 32/4 undermining [1] 93/6 underreporting [3] understand [37] understanding [15] understood [14] 11/4 undue [1] 120/1 unduly [1] 208/23 unexplained [5] 71/6 unfarmed [1] 188/10 unfortunately [7] 40/1 UUkraine [1] 156/8 ultimately [5] 65/10 unable [4] 167/15 unambiguous [1] |
[Page 116]
Uunfounded [3] 122/22 ungrounded [3] unhappy [1] 152/7 unilateral [3] 73/3 unilaterally [7] 72/25 Union [1] 205/7 unique [3] 111/1 United [14] 2/6 3/8 United States [12] university [2] 197/6 unlawful [3] 82/4 unleased [1] 165/10 unless [6] 18/1 20/25 unpleasant [1] 207/16 unprocessed [1] unproven [1] 153/18 unreasonable [3] 19/4 unreasoned [1] Unregistered [1] unreliable [2] 144/7 unseeded [1] 188/10 unsigned [13] 35/21 until [11] 14/10 55/11 until December [1] until December 2012 until March 2011 [1] untimeliness [1] untimely [1] 22/18 untrue [1] 199/12 |
unused [7] 38/10 unusual [1] 282/3 unwillingness [1] unwinding [1] 125/2 up [43] 14/3 15/9 19/5 update [3] 69/2 updated [7] 24/10 updates [1] 151/19 uphold [1] 101/13 uploaded [1] 36/9 upon [14] 64/10 75/19 urgently [1] 170/24 us [85] 6/4 8/8 9/21 US-Moldova BIT [2] USA [1] 149/15 usage [4] 139/24 USD [5] 41/8 196/10 use [30] 15/3 15/10 use/work [1] 175/5 used [22] 15/3 33/21 useless [1] 221/7 uses [3] 64/18 71/12 using [8] 65/9 126/19 Utica [4] 88/3 233/10 VV Garmas [1] 244/13 v.pernt [1] 4/9 vacant [3] 188/10 vague [2] 99/12 VALERIU [4] 3/14 VALERIU BERIL [2] valid [17] 58/6 58/19 validity [9] 75/20 validly [4] 54/20 71/7 validly-leased [1] valuation [11] 26/14 value [8] 71/16 104/22 variable [2] 139/15 variables [1] 137/20 variation [1] 15/10 variety [1] 84/12 various [11] 19/19 Varvareuca [23] 66/24 vehicle [2] 41/21 vein [1] 125/9 verified [3] 42/21 verify [4] 64/6 64/7 versed [2] 50/10 116/4 versed on [1] 50/10 version [5] 191/5 versus [3] 109/25 very [114] 6/16 6/21 |
249/18 251/3 257/19 via [2] 52/6 113/24 vice [21] 43/8 45/13 Vice-Minister [6] Vice-Ministers [1] Vice-President [11] vicinity [1] 164/23 Victor [4] 169/20 Victor Levintsa [1] VICTORIA [3] 4/4 9/5 Victoria Pernt [2] 9/5 VIENNA [8] 1/20 4/7 view [13] 12/20 13/9 views [7] 10/16 20/19 village [29] 35/4 45/19 villager [3] 212/19 villagers [11] 91/3 villages [24] 38/14 |
[Page 117]
Vvillages... [20] 54/25 Ville [1] 2/10 vindicated [1] 150/4 violate [1] 176/10 violated [1] 121/7 violating [3] 98/13 violation [4] 93/9 violent [1] 38/21 VIOREL [3] 4/16 9/8 Viroel [3] 245/22 vis [2] 78/1 78/1 vis-à-vis [1] 78/1 visit [1] 44/24 visited [1] 284/24 Visoca [2] 141/8 visualise [1] 164/21 Vlad [3] 144/22 Vlad Filat [1] 171/11 Voda [34] 38/8 41/23 voice [1] 216/9 voided [1] 179/21 Wwait [2] 205/18 252/21 waiting [4] 36/19 walk [4] 40/3 47/4 walked [1] 247/24 wall [2] 254/16 254/16 want [71] 7/10 7/10 wanted [13] 92/10 wanting [2] 18/1 Warsaw [1] 218/16 was [553] was December 2012 wasn't [2] 158/21 waste [2] 127/2 watch [1] 161/6 way [31] 6/24 7/2 WC1R [1] 2/6 we [628] Wednesday [3] 29/13 week [3] 11/13 13/13 weekend [1] 10/19 weeks [3] 26/3 66/11 weight [1] 193/25 weighted [2] 147/9 weighted-average [2] welcome [7] 6/2 6/8 welcoming [2] 11/15 well [51] 18/18 50/10 |
125/9 125/14 127/11 well-appreciated [1] well-grounded [1] WELLS [18] 3/3 3/6 went [38] 45/2 64/5 were [274] 10/18 21/7 weren't [2] 175/15 western [2] 197/11 what [213] 10/17 |
10/18 10/25 12/12 |
[Page 118]
Wwhat... [14] 281/7 whatever [1] 62/18 whatsoever [3] 39/3 wheat [6] 143/8 198/5 when [103] 15/4 15/8 where [33] 38/6 61/16 whereas [1] 25/9 wherever [2] 21/13 whether [40] 7/2 which [193] 6/24 10/6 |
242/5 242/9 244/11 while [20] 33/9 36/19 whilst [1] 86/13 white [1] 165/6 who [84] 6/13 7/4 8/20 whoever [1] 278/3 whole [12] 17/3 32/7 whom [3] 11/17 43/11 Whose [1] 79/22 why [49] 32/19 35/2 WIECHEN [4] 3/18 wife [1] 249/13 will [202] 7/7 7/9 7/16 |
239/4 249/1 249/2 willing [1] 22/22 wind [1] 115/15 winter [6] 55/12 198/5 wire [2] 223/7 257/5 wire-transfer [1] wire-transferred [1] wisdom [2] 26/23 wish [8] 20/6 48/17 with Bio-Alianta [1] withdraw [3] 17/17 within [7] 18/16 without [18] 18/8 witness [60] 34/12 witnessed [1] 249/6 witnesses [5] 3/13 won't [2] 36/23 105/8 wonder [7] 7/2 19/5 |
[Page 119]
Wwonder... [2] 209/13 wondered [1] 274/4 wonderful [2] 266/14 wondering [1] 150/16 word [2] 167/24 words [15] 15/10 work [23] 8/4 49/16 worked [8] 6/20 98/20 working [11] 84/4 works [2] 80/19 World [2] 140/25 World Bank [2] worries [1] 188/2 worry [2] 69/15 70/9 worse [3] 94/9 103/8 worth [2] 167/5 worthwhile [1] 141/10 would [302] writ [2] 173/14 266/4 write [3] 168/8 192/11 writers [1] 284/18 writes [1] 175/17 writing [6] 97/2 129/2 written [15] 58/9 wrong [2] 35/3 282/5 wrote [4] 192/17 |
Yyear [26] 41/8 41/23 year and [1] 233/12 years [43] 38/11 39/14 years' [2] 39/5 41/17 yellow [1] 183/12 yes [156] 10/3 10/12 yesterday [1] 13/22 yet [17] 20/12 51/1 yfortier.ca [1] 2/12 yield [14] 27/17 40/22 yields [25] 38/9 136/9 Yoda [1] 174/19 you [885] you come [1] 177/2 you have [1] 76/7 you on [1] 14/17 you that [1] 278/24 you to [1] 209/8 your [216] 6/18 7/11 yours [5] 9/11 202/16 yourself [4] 53/7 yourselves [1] 106/22 Yves [5] 1/15 2/9 2/10 yves.fortier [1] 2/12 ZZahar [8] 173/5 |
261/10 ZBIGNIEW [15] 1/8 Zbigniew Grot [1] ZBIGNIEW PIOTR Zelenenco [21] 43/8 zero [4] 79/2 205/23 Ziggy [17] 38/3 |