Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:49:01.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Orascom TMT Investments S.à.r.l. v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  31 May 2017 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Procedure — ICSID Arbitration Rule 27 — Whether the parties needed to agree on a procedural language

Evidence — Parallel proceedings — Confidential information — Whether materials from confidential parallel proceedings should be allowed into the arbitral record

Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Corporate nationality — Meaning of siège social — Whether the nationality criteria in the BIT were reasonable and of objective significance — Whether pursuant to international law an ambiguous term in a definition of nationality should be interpreted by reference to criteria under the applicable national law or an autonomous notion of nationality — Whether siège social meant the registered office of the investor

Jurisdiction — Investment — Minority or indirect shareholding — Whether the investor made a contribution or allocation of resources for a duration with an expectation of commercial return — Whether the investment was located in the host State

Interpretation — VCLT, Article 31 — VCLT, Article 32 — Customary international law — Whether the rules of treaty interpretation supported a particular meaning of siège social — Whether supplementary means of interpretation confirmed the meaning of siège social — Whether the customary rules on diplomatic protection were relevant to treaty interpretation — Whether the contracting States intended to give the term “investment” an ordinary meaning or special meaning

Admissibility — Settlement — Claim preclusion — Whether the claims of a parent company were precluded by the settlement of an earlier claim on the same facts by a subsidiary company against the State under a different BIT — Whether the claim requested any distinct relief from the settled dispute — Whether the related settlement agreement had terminated the underlying dispute

Admissibility — Standing — Divestment — Whether the sale of shares in the company holding the investment prior to the notice of arbitration impacted on admissibility

Admissibility — Abuse of rights — Whether successive claims brought by entities within the same vertically integrated chain of companies under different BITs amounted to an abuse of process — Whether the principles of abuse of rights had evolved since earlier investment treaty jurisprudence

Costs — ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) — Whether the success on jurisdiction and failure on admissibility affected the allocation of costs

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)