The British multinational company HSBC announced an “excessively unusual and irrational” motion by the Constitutional Chamber to resolve a judicial process initiated in 2009.
The return of a judicial response by the Chamber of the Constitution in a judicial case may expose the country to an international request before the International Center for the Regulation of Relative Differences in Inversions (CIADI) of no less than $ 49 million.
The British Multinational Bank HSBC, in its Holding de Latinoamérica (HLAH), a journey of its legal representatives, sent on 17 December 2020 a card directed to the President of the Republic, the General Tax Office of the Republic and the President of the The Supreme Court of Justice in the notification of a “controversy” over a judicial process with the salvador company Ingeniero José Antonio Salaverría y Compañía (IJASAL) in which he confirmed that he had “unusual and irresponsible” actions on the part of the Hall of the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court of Justice.
In the notification, the bank records the authorities that in 1999 issued an agreement for the promotion and reciprocal protection of inversions with the Governor of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of the North, abbreviated to the APRI UK-El Sailors.
LEE TAMBIÉN: Constitutional Hall reitera a Bukele that can not close the economy of the country
“The Salvador explicitly assumes the international obligation to accord fair and equitable treatment in its territory to the inverse of the United Kingdom, including the obligation to protect against all arbitrary and discriminatory treatment”, the document states.
“The conduct of court proceedings of El Salvador in this respect, including its maximum judicial authority, configures a judicial denunciation of HLAH and constitutes inequitable treatment, injustice, arbitration and discrimination on the part of El Salvador. The violation of these international obligations means that El Salvador will have to rely on HLAH with public funds for the losses caused by the result of its production ”, the document states.
In the Bank’s card the notification to the authorities about this controversy and the opinion that if it does not result in a place of three months since the issuance of the card, the bank initiates a lawsuit before the Center for Arreglo de Diferencias Relatief as a Inversiones (CIADI) “sin aviso ulterior”.
“HLAH hopes that the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court will recover the appeal that it has received in connection with the controversy over the form in which it is not necessary to appeal to the CIADI. If the controversy does not result satisfactorily, HLAH will initiate the corresponding arbitration ”, advised.
The case
Following a chronological summary by the bank, HSBC announced in July 2007 a contract for the contract of Engineer José Antonio Salaverría y Compañía, of Capital Variable. The prestige era of $ 2.1 million.
In June and October 2008 HSBC El Salvador asked IJASAL to cover the debt.
However, IJASAL has since asked HSBC for a new legal agreement. With this solicitation that HSBC will condone to pay the sum of $ 22.7 million in terms of donations and prejudices.
The lawsuit was filed against the Civil Court, which IJASAL ordered to pay $ 49.3 million.
Following the summary of its denunciation, in the follow-up proceedings in the Juzgado Primero de lo Mercantil, HSBC has no right to participate in the position hearing.
The bank that, in view of the considered violations to its fundamental rights, presented an appeal before the Constitutional Court to apply for the result of the Civil Court.
“The Chamber of Deputies will hold a quorum between the courts and also months to decide on the administration of these resources”, exposes the legal buffet which, however, the Chamber has a 17-month debate on the administration of the empire.
And by the way, the ejaculation process has started with a lot of celebrations. “The Juzgado Primero de lo Mercantil, responsible for ejaculation, will issue an embargo deed in solely these months,” she said.
The Constitutional Court has not informed us of the process by which the international financial entity has been detained.