The Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award in the Agarwal v. Uruguay case, opining that the tribunal introduced a substantive temporal restriction in Article 1 of the UKUruguay BIT which could not be found in the treaty text. The main issue revolved around the question of whether an arbitral tribunal could have jurisdiction under an investment treaty if there was no investment at the time an alleged treaty violation took place. The arbitral tribunal sided with Uruguay considering that there was no jurisdiction ratione temporis in such a case, while the Paris Court of Appeal disagreed, annulling the award, while seeing the issue as that of a condition for the substantive protection of the treaty. At last, whether an investment needs to have been established before the alleged violations of the applicable treaty seems to raise issues at the level of qualification. For French courts, a distinction between the temporal jurisdiction and temporal application of substantive standards—often deemed moot by investment arbitration treaty-based tribunals—is the fulcrum point of the set-aside proceedings, in the Agarwal v. Uruguay case having as a result an annulled arbitration award.