Warning! Javascript is disabled. Please enable javascript for a completly functioning application.

Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator

about
methodology

About

The UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator contains information about known international arbitration cases initiated by investors against States pursuant to international investment agreements (IIAs). Such arbitrations are also referred to as treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.

General disclaimer

The Navigator includes information about publicly known IIA-based international investor-State arbitration proceedings. As some proceedings (or certain aspects of proceedings) remain confidential, the information contained in the Navigator cannot be deemed exhaustive.

While every effort is made to keep the information up to date and complete, the material is provided without any guarantees or warranties as to its accuracy or completeness. UNCTAD assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data.

We welcome any additional information or clarifications on specific cases as well as suggestions to improve the Navigator. Please contact us using the online contact form.

Cases included in the Navigator

A case is included in the Navigator if it is:

  • an international arbitration between an investor and a State;
  • fully or partially based on an IIA, such as a bilateral investment treaty or the investment chapter of a free trade agreement (not included are investor-State disputes that are solely based on contracts or on domestic investment legislation);
  • submitted to arbitration through a notice of arbitration or a request for arbitration, and upon registration of such request if applicable (not included are cases where a disputing party has only notified the other party of the existence of a dispute or signalled its intention to submit a claim, but has not yet commenced the arbitration).

Sources of information and frequency of updating

The information included in the Navigator is collected from publicly available sources. Primary sources (i.e. official documents relating to the case and information provided by the administering institutions) are the main and preferred source of information. Secondary sources, such as specialized reporting services and other sources deemed reliable, are used to supplement primary sources and/or obtain case information otherwise unavailable.

The Navigator is updated on a regular, typically biannual, basis. The date of the last update is displayed on the Navigator’s home page.

Methodological notes for the recording of data

Case name

Full case name is recorded as it appears in the official case documents and as it is registered at the administering institution if applicable. If there are more than five claimants in the case, the names of all claimants can be replaced by the name of the first claimant followed by the words “and others”.

Short case name is ascribed by UNCTAD. Typically it is the first word of a corporate claimant’s name, an abbreviation of the corporate claimant’s name, or the last name of a natural-person claimant “v.” the short version of the respondent State’s name.

If the Navigator includes more than one case with the exact same name, then “(I)” is added to the case name of the earlier case, and a “(II)”, “(III)”, etc. is added to the name of each subsequent case.

Year of initiation

This is the year in which the notice of arbitration / request for arbitration was submitted by the claimant. For arbitrations brought under the ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules or ICSID Additional Facilities (AF) Rules, the year in which the claim was registered by ICSID is used.

Applicable IIA

This is the IIA(s) pursuant to which the claimant initiated the arbitral proceedings.

Arbitral rules

These are the arbitral rules in accordance with which the proceedings are conducted. Proceedings that are not subject to any existing set of arbitral rules, i.e. where the arbitral tribunal determines procedural rules, are marked “None (ad hoc)”.

Administering institution

This is the institution that provides administrative support for the arbitral proceedings. When the proceedings are subject to arbitral rules of a certain arbitral institution (e.g. SCC or ICC), the relevant institution administers that case. In ad hoc arbitrations or those that are subject to non-institutional arbitral rules (e.g. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), the parties may request any arbitral institution to administer their case (e.g. PCA). Proceedings may also be conducted without being administered by any institution.

Common abbreviations for administering institutions:

CRCICACairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
ICCInternational Chamber of Commerce (International Court of Arbitration)
ICSIDInternational Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
LCIALondon Court of International Arbitration
MCCIMoscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry
PCAPermanent Court of Arbitration
SCCStockholm Chamber of Commerce (Arbitration Institute)

Details of investment and summary of the dispute

The details of investment are presented as argued by the claimant, unless otherwise expressly identified by an arbitral tribunal in its decisions or awards.

The summary of the dispute describes in very general terms the conduct allegedly in breach of IIA obligations as argued by the claimant.

Economic sector and subsector

This refers to the economic sector to which the investment at issue allegedly belongs. The structure of economic activities follows the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4 (UN ISIC Rev.4).

Status/Outcome of original proceedings

This refers to the current status of the original arbitration proceedings.

  • Decided in favour of State: the tribunal dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction or found that the respondent State has not committed any breach of the applicable IIA.
  • Decided in favour of investor: the tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA and awarded monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Decided in favour of neither party (liability found but no damages awarded): the arbitral tribunal found that the respondent State committed one or more breaches of the applicable IIA but did not award monetary compensation or non-pecuniary relief to the claimant investor.
  • Settled: the disputing parties settled the case and the arbitral proceedings were discontinued for that reason.
  • Pending: the arbitration proceedings are pending. A case remains pending if any of the following elements remain to be decided: jurisdiction, liability (merits), compensation. The case remains pending, for instance, if a State is found to have breached one or more IIA obligations (liability) but no award on damages has been issued yet.
    Notes:
    • The Navigator only records treaty-based disputes or treaty-based aspects of "mixed" disputes. In treaty-based cases that are simultaneously contract-based or based on national investment law ("mixed" disputes), a case is deemed concluded (for purposes of the Navigator) if the tribunal dismissed the case on jurisdiction or finds no breach of the IIA, even if it proceeds to adjudicate the contract- or statutory-based claims.
    • Cases in which a final award has been rendered but which are later subject to follow-on (post-award) proceedings (e.g. ICSID annulment proceedings or domestic judicial review), are marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).
  • Discontinued: the arbitration was discontinued for any reason other than due to a (known) settlement. This includes discontinuance as a result of non-payment of arbitration fees, in order to pursue litigation in another forum, or for any other reason (including for unknown reasons).

Arbitral decisions rendered

These are decisions rendered by an arbitral tribunal. Included are those decisions that concern the substance of the case and affect the final outcome. In particular, these include decisions (awards) on jurisdictional issues, liability (merits) and damages, including arbitrators’ individual opinions where these were issued. Discontinuance orders and settlement agreements are also recorded if such information is available.

Not included are any other (supplementary) arbitral decisions, e.g. concerning provisional measures or decisions regarding requests for disqualification of arbitrators. Similarly, procedural orders issued by arbitral tribunals are not included. To access a full list of documentation available with respect to a case, users are invited to use (i) the link to the case page on http://italaw.com, and/or (ii) links to the websites of governments and/or arbitral institutions provided in the “Additional information” section.

Amounts claimed and awarded

Amount claimed refers to the amount of monetary compensation claimed by the investor, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

Amount awarded refers to the amount of monetary compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal to the claimant, not including interest, legal costs or costs of arbitration.

For proceedings that end in a settlement, the amount of compensation that the State agreed to pay to the claimant under the terms of settlement (if known) is recorded in this section.

Amounts are recorded in the currency used by the claimant/tribunal. The list of currencies in the Navigator follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4217 code list.

To enable comparisons between cases, all amounts are also converted to US dollars. For the purposes of such conversion, the OANDA Historical Currency Converter is being used; the date of conversion is the date of the document or other source from which the information was obtained (e.g. the date in which the request for arbitration containing this amount was submitted or the date of the final award).

Whenever possible, information about amounts claimed and awarded is obtained from primary sources such as the arbitration documents. Otherwise, it is derived from other publicly available sources that are deemed reliable. In some cases, the approximate amount may be recorded to give a broad indication of the dispute’s magnitude. As a general rule, a rounded figure (to the nearest hundred thousand) of the amount claimed or awarded is provided.

If the claimant provides more than one valuation of damages claimed, the highest of these amounts is recorded.

IIA breaches alleged and found

Information about breaches alleged is primarily derived from the claimant’s request of arbitration, claimant’s memorials and/or arbitral decisions. When the relevant case documentation is not publicly available, information about breaches alleged may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Information about breaches found is primarily derived from the arbitral decisions. When the relevant decision is not publicly available, information about breaches found may be obtained from other public sources that are deemed reliable.

Claims concerning expropriation are classified as “direct” or “indirect” according to the characterisation made by the claimant and/or the tribunal. Whenever a claimant or the tribunal refer to “expropriation”, without distinguishing between “direct” or “indirect”, such distinction is made on the basis of the factual background of the case and the context of the claimant’s claims and tribunal’s findings.

Composition of tribunal

These are individuals who serve as members of the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the dispute (arbitrators).

The disputing party (i.e. claimant or respondent) that appointed a particular arbitrator is also recorded insofar as information is available. Instances where the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, and the latter was appointed by an “appointing authority”, are not recorded separately (i.e. both types of appointment are recorded under “Appointed by / designated to Respondent” without further distinction).

In case an arbitrator has been replaced by another individual (e.g. as a result of resignation, disqualification or passing away), the names of both the previous and subsequent arbitrator are recorded.

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings

Follow-on (post-award) proceedings include three types of legal proceedings:

  • ICSID annulment proceedings;
  • Judicial review by national courts (set-aside proceedings); and
  • ICSID resubmission proceedings.

Initiation of a follow-on proceeding by either disputing party does not affect the field “Case Status/Outcome” of the original proceeding, until the follow-on proceeding is completed. For example, in a case where a final award has been rendered but it is later subject to a follow-on proceeding (e.g. ICSID annulment proceeding), the status of the case is marked according to the outcome of the original arbitral proceeding (i.e. not as “Pending”).

Decisions, judgments and/or awards rendered in the course of follow-on (post-award) proceedings, as well as any individual opinions appended to them, are recorded.

The composition of the ICSID ad hoc committees that adjudicate requests for annulment under the ICSID Convention is recorded.

Link to Italaw’s case page

The Italaw.com portal offers a wide collection of case documentation for many investor-State disputes. It makes available not only the main arbitral decisions, but also procedural orders, parties’ submissions, expert opinions and other types of documents.

A link to the relevant case page at http://italaw.com is provided where such page is available, so that users could browse all documents relating to the case at hand.

Additional information

This section provides links to sources of information used for gathering data for the case at hand or otherwise relevant to that case. These may include links to websites of arbitral/administering institutions, governments, international organisations, specialised reporting services (including subscription-based), media and other resources.

Number of cases as respondent State
1 60
Updated as of 31 July 2017

Egypt - as respondent State

Clear selection
Loaded 29 out of 29 Show all
No. Year of
initiation
Short case
name
Summary Outcome of
original proceedings
Respondent
State
Home State
of investor
1 2016 Al Jazeera v. Egypt Al Jazeera Media Network v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/1) Egypt - Qatar BIT (1999) ICSID ICSID Investment: Investments in multimedia broadcasting operations.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged destruction of the claimant’s media business in Egypt, by means of arrest and detention of employees, attacks on facilities, interference with transmissions and broadcasts, closure of offices, cancellation of claimant’s broadcasting licence and compulsory liquidation of its local branch.
Investments in multimedia broadcasting operations. Pending Egypt Qatar Tertiary: J - Information and communication 60 - Programming and broadcasting activities van den Berg, A. J. - Claimant

Ziadé, N. - Respondent

Rigo Sureda, A. - President
150.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
2 2016 Champion Holding Company and others v. Egypt Champion Holding Company, James Tarrick Wahba, John Byron Wahba and others v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/2) Egypt - United States of America BIT (1986) ICSID ICSID Investment:

Summary:
Pending Egypt United States of America Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities McLaren, R. H. - Claimant

Douglas, Z. - Respondent

Khan, M. A. - President
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
3 2016 Fund III and others v. Egypt Fund III Egypt, LLC, LP Egypt Holdings I, LLC and OMLP Egypt Holdings I, LLC v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/37) Egypt - United States of America BIT (1986) ICSID ICSID Investment:

Summary:
Pending Egypt United States of America Tertiary: F - Construction 41 - Construction of buildings Alexandrov, S. A. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent

Name not available - President
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
4 2015 ArcelorMittal v. Egypt ArcelorMittal S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/47) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Egypt BIT (1999) ICSID ICSID Investment: Investments in the construction of a steel plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged refusal to extend the development period for the claimant’s steel plant construction project, followed by a process to revoke the claimant’s licenses. According to the claimant, the construction was delayed due to the occupation of the property and problems with gas and electricity supply.
Investments in the construction of a steel plant. Settled Egypt Luxembourg Secondary: C - Manufacturing 24 - Manufacture of basic metals Price, D. M. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
600.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
5 2014 Unión Fenosa Gas v. Egypt Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4) Egypt - Spain BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding (80 per cent) in SEGAS, an Egyptian company that operated the Damietta liquefied natural gas plant in the port of Damietta.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged suspension of gas supplies by the Government to a liquefied natural gas plant operated by the claimant, which caused the plant to be inoperative for over a year.
Majority shareholding (80 per cent) in SEGAS, an Egyptian company that operated the Damietta liquefied natural gas plant in the port of Damietta. Pending Egypt Spain Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 9 - Mining support service activities Veeder, V. V. - President

Rowley, J. W. - Claimant

Clodfelter, M. A. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
6 2013 Al Sharif v. Egypt (I) Ossama Al Sharif v. Arab Republic of Egypt (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/3) Egypt - Jordan BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in the Sokhna Port Development Company that operates the Port of North El Sokhna.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged interference by the Government with claimant's investments in a port development project.
Shareholding in the Sokhna Port Development Company that operates the Port of North El Sokhna. Settled Egypt Jordan Tertiary: F - Construction

Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage
43 - Specialized construction activities

50 - Water transport
Tercier, P. - President

Schwebel, S. M. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1) issued dated 27 May 2015 None None None None None None
7 2013 Al Sharif v. Egypt (II) Ossama Al Sharif v. Arab Republic of Egypt (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/4) Egypt - Jordan BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment:

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged interference by the Government with claimant's investments in a customs system project.
Settled Egypt Jordan Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 52 - Warehousing and support activities for transportation Cremades, B. M. - President

Price, D. M. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1) issued dated 27 May 2015 None None None None None None
8 2013 Al Sharif v. Egypt (III) Ossama Al Sharif v. Arab Republic of Egypt (III) (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/5) Egypt - Jordan BIT (1996) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in the company Amiral Holdings, which formed part of the winning consortium for a 25-year concession to develop a bulk liquids terminal in East Port Said.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged interference by the Government with claimant's investments in a bulk liquids terminal project.
Shareholding in the company Amiral Holdings, which formed part of the winning consortium for a 25-year concession to develop a bulk liquids terminal in East Port Said. Settled Egypt Jordan Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 52 - Warehousing and support activities for transportation Abraham, C. W. M. - President

Schwebel, S. M. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1) issued dated 27 May 2015 None None None None None None
9 2013 ASA v. Egypt ASA International S.p.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/23) Egypt - Italy BIT (1989) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding (85 per cent) in Ama Arab Environment Company that held two solid waste management contracts in Cairo.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged Government measures that affected claimant's investment in a company that had concluded contracts for waste management services in Cairo.
Majority shareholding (85 per cent) in Ama Arab Environment Company that held two solid waste management contracts in Cairo. Settled Egypt Italy Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery Oreamuno Blanco, R. - President

van den Berg, A. J. - Claimant

Hossain, K. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability None None None None None None None
10 2013 Cementos La Union v. Egypt Cementos La Union S.A. and Aridos Jativa S.L.U v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/29) Egypt - Spain BIT (1992) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding (60 per cent) in the cement manufacturing company Arabian Cement Company that had concluded the construction of a cement production facility in Suez.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged overpricing by the Government of an operating license for a cement manufacturing plant, and the application of an allegedly uncommon system of granting the licenses through tenders.
Majority shareholding (60 per cent) in the cement manufacturing company Arabian Cement Company that had concluded the construction of a cement production facility in Suez. Pending Egypt Spain Secondary: C - Manufacturing 23 - Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products Söderlund, C. - President

Brower, C. N. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
11 2013 Utsch and others v. Egypt Erich Utsch Aktiengesellschaft, Helmut Jungbluth and Utsch M.O.V.E.R.S. International GmbH v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/37) Egypt - Germany BIT (2005) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract concluded with Egypt's Ministry of Finance for the manufacture and delivery of 9 million vehicle license plates.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's termination of a license plate supply and manufacturing contract concluded with the claimants, on the alleged basis that the transaction was closed for an uncompetitive price, leading to the conviction of Utsch's chief executive officer.
Rights under a contract concluded with Egypt's Ministry of Finance for the manufacture and delivery of 9 million vehicle license plates. Discontinued Egypt Germany Secondary: C - Manufacturing 32 - Other manufacturing van Houtte, H. - President

Ali, A. H. - Claimant

Clodfelter, M. A. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order Taking Note of the Discontinuance of the Proceeding Pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 44 dated 18 April 2017 None None None None None None
12 2012 Ampal-American and others v. Egypt Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11) Egypt - United States of America BIT (1986)

Egypt - Germany BIT (2005)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in a consortium that held a long term gas supply contract with the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holdings.

Summary: Claims arising out of alleged breaches of a long term contract for the supply of natural gas between the parties, including the prolonged interruption of gas supply and failure to deliver the agreed volume of gas.
Shareholding in a consortium that held a long term gas supply contract with the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holdings. Pending Egypt United States of America

Germany
Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Fortier, L. Y. - President

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Claimant

McLachlan, C. A. - Respondent
535.10 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Umbrella clause
Indirect expropriation

Full protection and security, or similar
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 1 February 2016

Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss dated 21 February 2017
None None None None None None
13 2012 Maiman and others v. Egypt Yosef Maiman, Merhav (MNF), Merhav-Ampal Group, Merhav-Ampal Energy Holdings v. Arab Republic of Egypt (PCA Case No. 2012/26) Egypt - Poland BIT (1995) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Shareholding in EMG, a company that had concluded a 15 year contract with the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holdings to resell Egyptian natural gas.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged Government's failure to protect a gas pipeline in which the claimants had invested from attacks that took place during the Arab Spring.
Shareholding in EMG, a company that had concluded a 15 year contract with the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holdings to resell Egyptian natural gas. Pending Egypt Poland Tertiary: D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply 35 - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply McRae, D. M. - President

Reisman, W. M. - Claimant

Thomas, J. C. - Respondent
1100.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures

Umbrella clause
Pending Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility dated 5 May 2016 None None None None None None
14 2012 Veolia v. Egypt Veolia Propreté v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/15) Egypt - France BIT (1974) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a 15-year contract concluded with the governorate of Alexandria to provide waste management services in that city.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over the performance of a contract entered into between Veolia's subsidiary, Onyx Alexandria, and the governorate of Alexandria to provide waste management services, including Egypt's alleged refusal to modify the contract in response to inflation and the enactment of new labour legislation.
Rights under a 15-year contract concluded with the governorate of Alexandria to provide waste management services in that city. Pending Egypt France Tertiary: E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities 38 - Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery Yusuf, A. A. - President

Sachs, K. - Claimant

Douglas, Z. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Pending Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction dated 13 April 2015 None None None None None None
15 2011 Bahgat v. Egypt Mohamed Abdel Raouf Bahgat v. Arab Republic of Egypt (PCA Case No. 2012-07) Egypt - Finland BIT (2004) UNCITRAL PCA Investment: Investments in an iron ore venture and a steel plant.

Summary: Claims arising out of criminal charges allegedly brought against the claimant by the Government and a related seizure of the claimant’s assets. According to the claimant, the assets were not returned after the domestic courts’ dismissal of the criminal charges.
Investments in an iron ore venture and a steel plant. Pending Egypt Finland Primary: B - Mining and quarrying

Secondary: C - Manufacturing
7 - Mining of metal ores

24 - Manufacture of basic metals
Wolfrum, R. - President

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Respondent

Reisman, W. M. - Claimant
200.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Pending None None None None None None None
16 2011 Bawabet v. Egypt Bawabet Al Kuwait Holding Company v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/6) Egypt - Kuwait BIT (2001) ICSID ICSID Investment: Interests in an Alexandria-based fertilizer supply company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's cancellation of the free zone status in which the claimant's fertilizer company operated, along with the increase in the price of gas supplied under certain contract.
Interests in an Alexandria-based fertilizer supply company. Settled Egypt Kuwait Secondary: C - Manufacturing 20 - Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products Cheng, T. - President

Hanotiau, B. - Claimant

Sands, P. - Respondent
400.00 mln USD Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Decision on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question dated 10 September 2012

Decision on Jurisdiction dated 2 May 2013
None None None None None None
17 2011 Indorama v. Egypt Indorama International Finance Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/32) Egypt - United Kingdom BIT (1975) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in an Egyptian textile production company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's renationalisation of Indorama's Shebin al-Kom textile factory, in the Menoufia province.
Shareholding in an Egyptian textile production company. Settled Egypt United Kingdom Secondary: C - Manufacturing 13 - Manufacture of textiles McRae, D. M. - President

Schreuer, C. H. - Claimant

Douglas, Z. - Respondent
156.00 mln USD 54.00 mln USD Direct expropriation Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Procedural order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1) dated 2 July 2015 None None None None None None
18 2011 National Gas v. Egypt National Gas S.A.E. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/7) Egypt - United Arab Emirates BIT (1997) ICSID ICSID Investment: Right to arbitrate under a concession agreement concluded between claimant (allegedly owned by a UAE company) and Egypt's national oil company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the decision by Cairo Court of Appeal to set aside a commercial arbitration award rendered in favour of National Gas against the state-owned Egyptian General Petroleum Company under a gas pipelines construction and operation agreement, on the alleged basis that the arbitration clause in the concession agreement had not been approved by the competent authorities as required by Egyptian law.
Right to arbitrate under a concession agreement concluded between claimant (allegedly owned by a UAE company) and Egypt's national oil company. Decided in favour of State Egypt United Arab Emirates Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 49 - Land transport and transport via pipelines Veeder, V. V. - President

Fortier, L. Y. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
36.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
None - jurisdiction declined Award dated 3 April 2014 None None None None None None
19 2011 Sajwani v. Egypt Hussain Sajwani, Damac Park Avenue for Real Estate Development S.A.E., and Damac Gamsha Bay for Development S.A.E. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/16) Egypt - United Arab Emirates BIT (1997) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of 30 square kilometers of land near the Red Sea for a property development project.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's conviction of Mr. Sajwani and of Egypt's tourism minister on grounds of corruption concerning the investor's acquisition of land in Gamsha Bay for the development of a residential complex.
Ownership of 30 square kilometers of land near the Red Sea for a property development project. Settled Egypt United Arab Emirates Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Tercier, P. - President

Price, D. M. - Claimant

Landau, T. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Data not available Not applicable - settled or discontinued before decision on liability Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued by the Tribunal dated 10 September 2014, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 44 None None None None None None
20 2009 H&H v. Egypt H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/15) Egypt - United States of America BIT (1986) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a hotel management and operation contract concluded between the claimant and Grand Hotels of Egypt (GHE), a company owned by the Egyptian Government; option to buy in the form of a one-page letter addressed to the then chairman of GHE.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements between the parties concerning a contract to manage and operate a resort in El Ain El Sokhna including the denial of claimant's alleged right to purchase the resort under an option to buy agreement leading to litigation before domestic courts and the Government's subsequent eviction of H&H from the resort.
Rights under a hotel management and operation contract concluded between the claimant and Grand Hotels of Egypt (GHE), a company owned by the Egyptian Government; option to buy in the form of a one-page letter addressed to the then chairman of GHE. Decided in favour of State Egypt United States of America Tertiary: I - Accommodation and food service activities 55 - Accommodation Cremades, B. M. - President

Heiskanen, V. - Claimant

Gharavi, H. G. - Respondent
833.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Umbrella clause
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage The Tribunal’s Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction dated 5 June 2012

Award dated 6 May 2014
None ICSID annulment proceedings Discontinued (ICSID annulment proceedings) None None Alexandrov, S. A. - President

Abraham, C. W. M. - Member

Cheng, T. - Member
21 2008 Malicorp v. Egypt Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18) Egypt - United Kingdom BIT (1975) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract concluded with the Government for the construction and operation of an international airport.

Summary: Claims arising out of the Government's rescission of a contract for the construction and operation of the Ras Sudr international airport in Sinai.
Rights under a contract concluded with the Government for the construction and operation of an international airport. Decided in favour of State Egypt United Kingdom Tertiary: F - Construction

Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage

Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage
41 - Construction of buildings

51 - Air transport

52 - Warehousing and support activities for transportation
Tercier, P. - President

Baptista, L. O. - Claimant

Tschanz, P.-Y. - Respondent
Data not available Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 7 February 2011 None ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on the Application for Annulment of Malicorp Limited dated 3 July 2013 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Rigo Sureda, A. - President

Alexandrov, S. A. - Member

Silva Romero, E. - Member
22 2005 Helnan v. Egypt Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19) Denmark - Egypt BIT (1999) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract for the management and the operation of a hotel concluded with the Egyptian Organization for Tourism and Hotels (EGOTH).

Summary: Claims arising out of the claimant's eviction from the management of the Shepheard Hotel in Cairo, following a decision of the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism to downgrade the hotel's classification from the five star status required under certain management contract, and an award by an arbitral tribunal appointed under the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration to decide the underlying contractual dispute.
Rights under a contract for the management and the operation of a hotel concluded with the Egyptian Organization for Tourism and Hotels (EGOTH). Decided in favour of State Egypt Denmark Tertiary: I - Accommodation and food service activities 55 - Accommodation Derains, Y. - President

Lee, M. J. A. - Claimant

Dolzer, R. - Respondent
41.50 mln EUR (65.70 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Decision of the Tribunal on Objection to Jurisdiction dated 17 October 2006

Award dated 3 July 2008
None ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision partially annulled (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision of the ad hoc Committee dated 14 June 2010 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Schwebel, S. M. - President

Ajibola, B. - Member

McLachlan, C. A. - Member
23 2005 Siag v. Egypt Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15) Egypt - Italy BIT (1989) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in two local companies that acquired a parcel of oceanfront land for the development of a tourist resort on the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea.

Summary: Claims arising out of a series of acts and omissions by the respondent that allegedly expropriated claimants' property of oceanfront land, including the issuance of a ministerial resolution cancelling the project's contract and the physical seizure of the property on two occasions.
Majority shareholding in two local companies that acquired a parcel of oceanfront land for the development of a tourist resort on the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea. Decided in favour of investor Egypt Italy Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Williams, D. A. R. - President

Pryles, M. C. - Claimant

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Respondent
230.00 mln USD 74.55 mln USD Direct expropriation

Full protection and security, or similar

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Most-favoured nation treatment

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Direct expropriation

Full protection and security, or similar

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 11 April 2007

Award dated 1 June 2009
Partial Dissenting Opinion of Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Decision on Jurisdiction)

Dissenting Opinion of Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Award)
ICSID annulment proceedings

Judicial review by national courts
Discontinued (ICSID annulment proceedings)

Award/decision upheld (Judicial review by national courts)
Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding issued by the ad hoc Committee dated 26 July 2010, pursuant ICSID Arbitration Rule 45 (ICSID annulment proceedings)

Decision of the Southern District of New York Court, 2009 WL 1834562 (Judicial review by national courts)
None Schwebel, S. M. - President

Kettani, A. - Member

Tomka, P. - Member
24 2004 Jan de Nul and and Dredging International v. Egypt Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13) BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Egypt BIT (1977)

BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Egypt BIT (1999)
ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract concluded with Egyptian authorities to undertake a dredging project; contributions of capital and other type of assets required to perform the dredging activities.

Summary: Claims arising out of disagreements over additional compensation allegedly due to the investor under a contract it had entered into with the Egyptian agency in charge of the operation of the Suez Canal for the deepening and widening of certain southern stretches of the Canal.
Rights under a contract concluded with Egyptian authorities to undertake a dredging project; contributions of capital and other type of assets required to perform the dredging activities. Decided in favour of State Egypt Belgium Tertiary: F - Construction 42 - Civil engineering Kaufmann-Kohler, G. - President

Mayer, P. - Claimant

Stern, B. - Respondent
80.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Other
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Decision on Jurisdiction dated 16 June 2006

Award dated 6 November 2008
None None None None None None
25 2003 Joy Mining v. Egypt Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11) Egypt - United Kingdom BIT (1975) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under a contract for supply of phosphate mining equipment concluded with an Egyptian State enterprise.

Summary: Claims arising out of the investor's supply of two sets of phosphate mining equipment to an Egyptian State enterprise, IMC, for a project in Egypt under a contract requiring the claimant to put in place letters of guarantee, including allegations that the equipment was paid but the relevant guarantees were never released.
Rights under a contract for supply of phosphate mining equipment concluded with an Egyptian State enterprise. Decided in favour of State Egypt United Kingdom Primary: B - Mining and quarrying 8 - Other mining and quarrying Orrego Vicuña, F. - President

Craig, W. L. - Claimant

Weeramantry, C. G. - Respondent
2.50 mln GBP (4.50 mln USD) Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Transfer of funds

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - jurisdiction declined Award on Jurisdiction dated 6 August 2004 None ICSID annulment proceedings Discontinued (ICSID annulment proceedings) Order taking note of the discontinuance issued by the Tribunal dated 16 December 2005, pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1) (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Dimolitsa, A. - President

Hwang, M. - Member

Shaw, J. L. - Member
26 2002 Ahmonseto v. Egypt Ahmonseto, Inc. and others v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/15) Egypt - United States of America BIT (1986) ICSID ICSID Investment: Majority shareholding in three textile Egyptian companies.

Summary: Claims arising out of the modification by a bank allegedly controlled by Egypt of its credit policy towards the claimants, certain customs duties and taxes assessed against the claimants, and four separate criminal proceedings initiated against them.
Majority shareholding in three textile Egyptian companies. Decided in favour of State Egypt United States of America Secondary: C - Manufacturing 13 - Manufacture of textiles Tercier, P. - President

Fadlallah, I. - Claimant

Viandier, A. - Respondent
100.00 mln USD Data not available Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Most-favoured nation treatment
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Award dated 18 June 2007 None ICSID annulment proceedings Discontinued (ICSID annulment proceedings) Order for the discontinuance of the proceeding issued by the ad hoc Committee dated 13 October 2010, pursuant to ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulation 14(3)(d) and (e) (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Bernardini, P. - President

Kettani, A. - Member

Tomka, P. - Member
27 2002 Champion Trading and Ameritrade v. Egypt Champion Trading Company and Ameritrade International, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9) Egypt - United States of America BIT (1986) ICSID ICSID Investment: Shareholding in a cotton trading and processing company.

Summary: Claims arising out of the enactment of Egyptian laws in the mid-1990s privatizing and liberalizing cotton trade.
Shareholding in a cotton trading and processing company. Decided in favour of State Egypt United States of America Primary: A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing 1 - Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities Briner, R. - President

Fortier, L. Y. - Claimant

Aynès, L. - Respondent
365.00 mln USD Data not available Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar

Arbitrary, unreasonable and/or discriminatory measures
None - all claims dismissed at the merits stage Decision on Jurisdiction dated 21 October 2003

Award dated 27 October 2006
None None None None None None
28 1999 Middle East Cement v. Egypt Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6) Egypt - Greece BIT (1993) ICSID ICSID Investment: Ownership of branch enterprise licensed to import and store bulk cement in depot ship.

Summary: Claims arising out of Egypt's alleged expropriation of Middle East Cement's interests in a business concession located in Egypt and Egypt's alleged failure to ensure the re-exportation of Middle East Cement's assets.
Ownership of branch enterprise licensed to import and store bulk cement in depot ship. Decided in favour of investor Egypt Greece Tertiary: H - Transportation and storage 52 - Warehousing and support activities for transportation Böckstiegel, K.-H. - President

Bernardini, P. - Claimant

Wallace, D. Jr. - Respondent
42.20 mln USD 2.20 mln USD Indirect expropriation Indirect expropriation Award dated 12 April 2002 None None None None None None
29 1998 Wena Hotels v. Egypt Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4) Egypt - United Kingdom BIT (1975) ICSID ICSID Investment: Rights under two long-term hotel lease and development agreements concluded with a company wholly owned by the Egyptian Government.

Summary: Claims arising out of the alleged breach of agreements to develop and manage two hotels in Luxor and Cairo, Egypt, as well as an alleged campaign of continual harassment to the investor by the Government of Egypt.
Rights under two long-term hotel lease and development agreements concluded with a company wholly owned by the Egyptian Government. Decided in favour of investor Egypt United Kingdom Tertiary: L - Real estate activities 68 - Real estate activities Leigh, M. - President

Fadlallah, I. - Claimant

Wallace, D. Jr. - Respondent

Hoellering, M. F. - Respondent (replaced)

Haddad, H. A. - Respondent (replaced)
62.80 mln USD 8.00 mln USD (8.00 mln USD) Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar
Indirect expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment/Minimum standard of treatment, including denial of justice claims

Full protection and security, or similar
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 29 June 1999

Award dated 8 December 2000
None ICSID annulment proceedings Award/decision upheld (ICSID annulment proceedings) Decision on Application for Annulment dated 5 February 2002 (ICSID annulment proceedings) None Kerameus, K. D. - President

Bucher, A. - Member

Orrego Vicuña, F. - Member