The ex-president Jose Mujica questioned the ruling of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) of the world Bank that condemned the State of Uruguay to pay 30 million dollars to Latin American Regional Aviation Company Holding (Larah) for the closure of Pluna: “It was something that had been dead for a decade,” said the Frente Amplista leader.
Along with the cataract of criticism from the National Party and the Colorado Party to him Wide Front after the ruling of the ICSID against Uruguay —after a legal process that was initiated by the Panamanian company and Pluna shareholder, Larah, and lasted for five years—, also expressed Mujica, whose government was held responsible for the bankruptcy of the flag airline. “Pluna was dead a decade ago,” said the former president, and recalled that, at that time, there was no other solution other than closure.
However, he also assured that “governments are responsible for their actions,” as he stated in dialogue with VTV Noticias. “This is pure loss, that’s why it hurts twice as much,” she lamented.
By a Latin American court of law
Mujica took advantage of the occasion and the context to insist on the need to Latin America of “creating a court of law that forces transnational companies and foreign companies to sue here”, given the fact that the trial initiated by Larah was carried out before the ICSID.
“It is the price we pay for the dependence. We Latin Americans have managed to create a court on human rights, but in matters of commercial law “We depend on the failures of justice in the rich world,” said the former president and leader of the Popular Participation Movement (MPP). In that sense, he added that “someday it may be that the coming generations will liven up and we Latin Americans will be less cuckolded.”
As an example, Mujica recalled that “the resurgence of the Mortgage Bank (BHU) It cost 2,000-odd million dollars but to some extent they were public losses that shared a benefit.” On the other hand, the ruling by Pluna “is a loss for the outside world from which no Easterner gains a benefit, which is why it eventually hurts twice as much.”
“Won’t it be necessary to demand that any outside investment when it arrives have to be tied to the Uruguayan law? Because we have nothing in Latin America, everything is going to stop NY oa Paris”, he concluded.
Why did justice rule against the Uruguayan State?
According to the ruling of the ICSID, that condemned the Uruguayan State to pay an amount between 30 and 80 million dollars in compensation to Larah based on the interest since Pluna closed in 2012; the government of Jose Mujica violated the rights of the Panamanian company and violated its international obligations through “unfair, inequitable and expropriatory treatment” with its conduct towards the flag airline, according to El País.
The organization resolved an arbitration initiated after Larah’s claim, which denounced that the Frente Amplista government violated the Reciprocal Investment Protection agreement signed between Uruguay and Panama by expropriating Pluna without paying economic compensation. Faced with this, and after five years of litigation, the ICSID considered that the Frente Amplista government financially suffocated the airline company to avoid taking responsibility for million-dollar lawsuits for the bankruptcy of Varigin Brazilwhich Pluna managed between 1995 and 2000, despite the fact that the Uruguayan State had said that it would be responsible.
Source: Ambito
