UO ll-l rHE ilIATTE* Dts I Qo[? e8 t ttl 2 o t 1 L oD4r+ t+( * **#5 oF sEBA$TrEilr GERMATN AJAVON v. REFUBLTC oF BEN|N AFPLICATTS!'| NO 01 at20,l r JUDGEIIIIENT {REpARATI6Ns} oF zB NovEMBEnE z01s aD414Q3)B{ DISSENTING OFINION BY JUBGE GERARD NIYUNGEKO 1" I cnnctlr with the deeisisns of the court on reparations in favour of the Appticant, excepf for the arnsunt of rl"rirty Billion (30 000 000 000) cFA Francs granted as reparation sf the pre.iudice for the loss of investment opportunity in the oil sector o* the one hand {paragraph iii'S af the operative part), and an the other, in regard to the amount of rhree Billion (3 000 000 000) cFA Francs granted as reparation for moral prejudice suff*red by the Applicant (paragraph iv.3 of the operative part). ln my opinion, these amounts are excessive and cannot be objectively justifled" l' Reparation of prejudice relating to the toss of investment oppofiunity in the oil sector 2. ]t emerges from the ease file, that in 1016, the Appricant,* company, comrnon sA, reached wrth Philia Group lfd, within the framerrrrork af a partnership, a confidentiality agreement to cover all confidential informatian exchanged between the two structures as regards oil commercialization projecte, and then a lvlemorandum of Understand;ng {MOU} for the establishment cf a roadmap to carry out all the activities related to the two projects through a joint venture platfornn fparagraph 46 of the Judgement]. 3' tt further emerges frorn the case file that as a nesult of criminal proceedings iniliated against the Applicant by the Respondent state in the matter of suspected drug trafficking, Phi{ia Graup Lfd announced the suspensiol':, with irnmedlate effect, of all ongoing negotiations or commercial discussions with the Applicant in reiation to these projects [paragraphs 51 and 52 of the Judgement]. 4. As the Court noted, there is no doubt that the Applicant suffered a loss in business opportunities [paragraphs 54 and 55 of the JudgementJ. Furthermore, there is no doubt that lhe Applicant is entitled to reparation In ihis regard [paragraph 59 of the Judgemenu. 5, The Applicant claims pecuniary reparation of One Hundred and Fifty Billion (150 000 000 000) CFA Francs {paragraph 60 sf the Judgement}. However, as ws have noted, the Court granted hirn a lur*p sum *f Thirty Biltion {3CI 000 000 000} CFA Francs. To justify its decision, the Court stated that it based il, inter alia, on the following; the amounts 1

Select target paragraph3