Citaat | Rechtbank Den Haag 20 april 2016

Onder 2.10. Rechtbank Den Haag 20 april 2016

Een alinea uit Rechtbank Den Haag 20 april 2016, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:4230.

377. On the other hand, Respondent seeks support for its position by pointing out that some of the explanatory notes submitted to the Duma in connection with the ratification of BITs have made it explicit that the BIT in question is subject to ratification because it contains a provision for the settlement of investor-State disputes through international arbitration. As Claimant points out, however, none of the BITs in question contains a provisional application regime such as that found in Article 45(1) of the ECT. Ratification by the State Duma is thus required in order for the Russian Federation to express its consent to arbitration.

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/c41b7b536312fc28d662a84342c9ad14bf27e0adff7968e8433c5063474db641. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt c41b7b536312fc28d662a84342c9ad14bf27e0adff7968e8433c5063474db641, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 62311 tot 63026.