I tried my best to translate, hoping to help you.
===================================================================
-
The original text has a certain degree of arrangement.
-
95. In order to make the rest of the procedure go smoothly, the parties included alternative conditions in the statute of 1975: CARU believes that the activities planned by one party may cause great damage to the other party, thus obliging the first party to consult with the other party and take preventive measures to eliminate or minimize risks; Or CARU should not make a decision on this within the specified time after being properly notified.
96. The court noted that both parties agreed that the two planned factories were very important projects, which fell within the scope of Article 7 of DecreeNo. 1975, so CARU knew about them. The same applies to the plan to build a port terminal in Fray Bentos for the exclusive use of Orion (Botnia) factory, including dredging works and the use of riverbed.
97. The Court noted, however, that the two parties disagreed on whether they were obliged to inform CARU about the extraction and use of river water by Orion (Botnia) plant for industrial purposes. Argentina believes that the authorization granted by Uruguay's Ministry of Transport and Public Works on September 2, 2006 12 involves an activity of sufficient importance ("entidad suficiente"), which will affect the river system or its water quality. On this issue, Uruguay should have followed the procedures stipulated in Articles 7 to 12 of Decree 1975. Uruguay insists that this activity is an integral part of the entire Orion (Botnia) mill project, and regulation 1975 does not require CARU to be informed of every step of the planned project.
98. The court pointed out that although both parties agreed that CARU should have been informed of the two planned flour mills and the plan to build a port terminal in Fray Bentos, they disagreed on the content and when the information should be provided to CARU.
99. Argentina believes that the content of the notification obligation must be determined according to its objective, that is, to prevent threats to navigation, river system or water quality. Argentina believes that the plan that must be notified to CARU may be at a very early stage, because it only allows the Committee to "preliminarily determine" whether the plan "may cause significant damage to the other party" within a very short period of 30 days. Only in the next stage of the procedure will the essence of the obligation to inform become more extensive. However, Argentina believes that CARU must be informed before the Uruguay River project is approved or implemented.
-
Translated as follows
-
95. In order to successfully complete the remaining procedures, both parties have added alternative conditions to Law 1975: In CARU's view, either party should be responsible for the planned activities, if the activities cause heavy losses to the other party during the negotiation with the other party, or prevent the first party from eliminating or minimizing risks and incurring debts; Either after being properly informed, CARU should not make a decision within the specified time.
96. According to the court records, both parties agreed that the two planned factories are very important projects and fall within the jurisdiction of Article 7 of Law 1975, so CARU has been informed of these situations. The same applies to the plan to build a port dedicated to Orion (Portnia) factory in Freventos, including river dredging and riverbed reconstruction.
97. However, the court held that the parties could not reach an agreement on whether they were obliged to inform the CARU Orion(Portnia) factory industry about the use of river water. Argentina believes that the authorization granted by Uruguay's Ministry of Communications and Public Works in September 2006 12 involves this important activity that can affect the river regime and water quality. At the same time, Argentina believes that Uruguay should have followed the procedures stipulated in Articles 7 to 12 of DecreeNo. 1975. As far as Uruguay is concerned, Uruguay insists that this activity is the main part of the whole Orion (Portnia) factory project, and at the same time, Law 1975 does not require CARU to be informed of every step of the planned project.
98. The court pointed out that the two sides reached a consensus that CARU should be informed of the two planned factories and the plan to build a port in Freventos, but they disagreed on the content and time of the information that should be informed to CARU.
99. Argentina believes that the content of the obligation to inform must be determined according to its objective, so as to prevent threats to river navigation, water regime and water quality. Argentina believes that this plan, which must be notified to CARU, may be in a very early stage, because it only allows the Committee to "preliminarily decide" whether this plan "may cause significant damage to the other party" in just 30 days. Only in the next stage of the procedure will the essence of the obligation to inform become important. However, Argentina believes that CARU must be informed before the Uruguay River project is approved or started.
-
note:
CARU = River Uruguay Administrative Committee
Spanish, meaning Uruguay River Management Committee.
==================================================================
exceed
I hope it helps you.