Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:03:43.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  31 August 2018 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction – Investment – Contract – Shares – ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) – Salini test – Whether contract, execution, amendment and performance were an investment under a BIT – Whether shares in a local company were an investment under a BIT – Whether the investments met the guidance provided by the Salini test

Admissibility – Parallel proceedings – Res judicata – Bad faith – Claim-splitting – Whether the claims were inadmissible because the investor’s subsidiary had pursued contractual claims in parallel arbitration proceedings

Procedure – Stay of proceedings – Parallel proceedings – Res judicata – Claim-splitting – Whether the tribunal had to stay the arbitration to await the result of parallel proceedings

Jurisdiction – Investment – Legality – Corruption – Lobbying – Evidence – Whether bribe by a subcontractor to officials affected the legality of the investment – Whether using personal connections for the benefit of the investor was corrupt – Whether paying generous fees to a local representative was evidence of corruption or legitimate lobbying

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – State organ – State-owned entity – Whether a national oil company or its subsidiary were organs of the State

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – State-owned entity – Whether a national oil company or its subsidiary were empowered to exercise governmental authority

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Direction or control – State-owned entity – Contract – Whether a national oil company or its subsidiary were directed or controlled by the State – Whether the decision to reduce the supply of natural gas contrary to contractual agreement was made under the direction or control of the State

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 11 – Conduct adopted by the State – State-owned entity – Contract – Whether the breach of contract by a national oil company or its subsidiary had been adopted by the State as its own conduct

Fair and equitable treatment – Customary international law – Legitimate expectation – Contract – Taxation – Specific assurance – Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was equivalent to the customary minimum standard – Whether legitimate expectations were protected by the customary minimum standard – Whether a contract between the investor and the subsidiary of a national oil company created a legitimate expectation – Whether a letter from a State official created a legitimate expectation – Whether the expectation was relied upon – Whether the expectation was defeated – Whether non-payment under a contract defeated a legitimate expectation – Whether revocation of tax-free status defeated a legitimate expectation

State responsibility – State of necessity – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 25 – Only way – Essential interest – Contribution – Civil unrest – Economic crisis – Contract – Whether non-supply of natural gas was the only way to safeguard an essential interest – Whether maintenance of public safety was the basis for non-supply of natural gas – Whether natural gas shortage was an essential interest – Whether the State contributed to the situation of necessity

Remedies – Compensation – Quantum – Contract – Reduction – Mitigation – Interest – Whether the investor could claim more compensation than available under a contract – Whether the investor suffered loss – Whether the claim for compensation was excessively speculative – Whether lost cash flows were recoverable – Whether the investor suffered lost dividends – Whether compensation should be reduced to reflect lesser need for working capital and taxes – Whether the investor could have mitigated losses – Whether pre-award interest should be awarded – Whether post-award interest should be awarded

Costs – Costs follow the event – Legal fees – Arbitration costs – Whether the unsuccessful party was to pay the legal fees of the successful party – Whether the unsuccessful party was to pay the arbitration costs of the successful party

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2022

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.)