{"id":284823,"date":"2025-02-12T10:55:00","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T09:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=284823"},"modified":"2025-02-11T23:06:05","modified_gmt":"2025-02-11T22:06:05","slug":"exploring-jurisdiction-in-investment-arbitration-interdependence-of-jurisdiction-ratione-materiae-and-ratione-temporis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2025\/02\/12\/exploring-jurisdiction-in-investment-arbitration-interdependence-of-jurisdiction-ratione-materiae-and-ratione-temporis\/","title":{"rendered":"Exploring Jurisdiction in Investment Arbitration: Interdependence of Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae and Ratione Temporis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><strong>Review of Awards: Court of Cassation (Chamber 1), 9 October 2024, No. 23-14.368, <em>Etrak v. Libya<\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/jad-el-hage\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Jad El Hage<\/strong><\/a>, Legal Counsel at the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-centre-de-mdiation-et-darbitrage-de-paris-centre-for-mediation-and-arbitration-of-paris\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Center of Mediation and Arbitration of Paris (CMAP)<\/strong><\/a>, and PhD Candidate and Teaching Fellow at <strong>Paris Dauphine University<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-6f4e5034\">\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-libya-none-currently-available-friday-1st-january-2016#decision_4300\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Etrak v. Libya<\/em><\/a> case concerns several construction projects in Libya, which entailed the conclusion of public works contracts between Libyan entities and the Turkish company Etrak Insaat Taahh\u00fct Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (hereinafter \u201cEtrak\u201d or \u201cInvestor\u201d) in the 1980s. In 1991, the investor decided to suspend the performance of the contracts due to unpaid invoices by the State. A settlement agreement \u2013 modifying the conditions of compliance with a decision by Libyan courts ordering the Libyan State to pay the invoices in addition to damages \u2013 was signed on 9 December 2013 between the parties. This settlement agreement offered a temporary glimmer of hope, later dissipated by its annulment by Libyan courts (<em>See<\/em> North Tripoli First Instance Court, 2 May 2019). The non-performance of the settlement agreement led the investor to resort to arbitration under the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-libya-turkey-bit-2009-libya-turkey-bit-2009-wednesday-25th-november-2009\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Libya &#8211; Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty (2009) (hereinafter \u201cBIT\u201d)<\/a> (On the entry into force of this BIT, see: <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-nurol-insaat-ve-ticaret-a-s-v-libya-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-19-19834-tuesday-28th-september-2021\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (Department 5 &#8211; Chamber 16) 19\/19834 of 28 September 2021<\/a>). The seat of arbitration was chosen as Geneva, Switzerland. On 22 July 2019, the arbitral tribunal issued a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-libya-none-currently-available-friday-1st-january-2016#decision_4300?su=\/en\/search?query=Etrak%20Insaat%20Taahh%C3%BCt%20Ve%20Ticaret%20Anonim%20Sirketi&amp;page=1&amp;lang=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Final Award<\/a> in which it upheld its jurisdiction and ordered Libya to pay more than USD 21 million in damages to the investor. This award was challenged for annulment, but the Swiss Federal Tribunal rejected this challenge in its <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-libya-judgment-of-the-swiss-federal-tribunal-monday-2nd-november-2020#decision_14162\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Judgment 4A_461\/2019 of 2 November 2020<\/a>. On 10 April 2021, the Higher Regional Court of Munich rejected the request for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-order-of-the-higher-regional-court-of-munich-34-sch-3-20-saturday-10th-april-2021#decision_36246\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Order 34 Sch 3\/20<\/a>. The investor then applied for enforcement in France, and the president of the Paris Judicial Court issued an order granting the enforcement of the arbitral award in France. The State of Libya appealed this decision before the Paris Court of Appeal, which upheld the order for enforcement in its <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-21-06118-tuesday-14th-march-2023#decision_62125\">Judgment 21\/06118 of 14 March 2023<\/a>. However, the French Court of Cassation overturned this decision with a <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-23-14-368-wednesday-9th-october-2024#decision_69097\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Judgment 23-14.368 of 9 October 2024<\/a>, which is the subject of this commentary. This annulment impacted the request for enforcement of the North Tripoli First Instance Court\u2019s judgment of 2 May 2019, <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-23-14-368-wednesday-9th-october-2024#decision_69097:~:text=En%20application%20de%20l%27article%20624,un%20lien%20de%20d%C3%A9pendance%20n%C3%A9cessaire.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">which had annulled the settlement<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The issue before the French enforcement judge was, in particular, whether the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The interaction between <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/publication\/en-jurisdiction-ratione-materiae\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>ratione materiae<\/em><\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/publication\/en-jurisdiction-ratione-temporis?su=https%3A%2F%2Fjusmundi.com%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%2522Jurisdiction%2520Ratione%2520Temporis%2522%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5b0%5d=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>ratione temporis<\/em><\/a> jurisdiction is of particular interest in this analysis. The other components of an arbitral tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction in investment arbitration will not be addressed, as they are not contested in the challenge against the award in question. Other grounds, such as public policy, will also not be discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the merits, the Paris Court of Appeal considered that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction by addressing, first, <em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction, qualifying the \u201cclaims to money\u201d arising from the settlement agreement as an investment, and then addressing <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction, qualifying the dispute arising from the non-performance of the settlement agreement as new, notably because it <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-21-06118-tuesday-14th-march-2023#decision_62125:~:text=La%20cour%20rel%C3%A8ve%20toutefois,pr%C3%A9sente%20un%20caract%C3%A8re%20autonome.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">definitively ended the original dispute<\/a> (we refer to a new dispute as one that falls under the <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal). However, the Court of Cassation questioned this jurisdiction. Let us examine the details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To recall, <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-libya-turkey-bit-2009-libya-turkey-bit-2009-wednesday-25th-november-2009\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Article 1(2) of the BIT<\/a> defines \u201cinvestment\u201d as: \u201c<em>The term &#8220;investment&#8221;, in conformity with the hosting Contracting party&#8217;s laws and regulations, shall include every kind of asset in particular, but not exclusively&nbsp;: [\u2026] (b) returns reinvested, claims to money or any other rights having financial value related to an investment, [\u2026]<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Article 10 of the BIT concerning its temporal scope provides: \u201c<em>The present Agreement shall apply to investments in the territory of a Contracting Party made in accordance with its laws and regulations by investors of the other Contracting Party before or after the entry into force of this Agreement. However, this Agreement shall not apply to disputes that have arisen before its entry into force.<\/em>\u201d (Readers may recall that in the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-oschadbank-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-french-court-of-cassation-wednesday-7th-december-2022#decision_39277\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Oschadbank v. Russia<\/em><\/a><em> <\/em>case, the Court of Cassation excluded from the scope of the review of awards the issue of the timing of the investment\u2019s realization, as it pertains to the merits). The dispute resolution clause, which forms the basis for arbitration, is found in Article 8 of this treaty and Article 8(4)(a) limits the BIT scope to \u201c<em>only the disputes arising directly out of investment activities<\/em> <em>[\u2026]<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To address the general issue of the arbitral tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction, two questions must be answered:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the claim arising from the settlement agreement constitutes an investment (<em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction), and,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the dispute submitted to the arbitral tribunal arose after the entry into force of the treaty (<em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Paris Court of Appeal already dealt with these two issues in the <em>\u00dcstay v. Libya<\/em> case (<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-ustay-yapi-taahhut-ve-ticaret-as-v-libya-judgment-of-the-paris-court-of-appeal-21-01507-tuesday-23rd-january-2024#decision_58982\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (Department 5 &#8211; Chamber 16) 21\/01507 of 23 January 2024<\/a>, see commentary: Sophie Lemaire, <em>Revue de l\u2019arbitrage<\/em> 2024, n\u00b0 2, p. 646). Also, it is worth recalling that the ICSID arbitral tribunal, in the <em>CMC v. Mozambique<\/em> case, had the opportunity to decide in its award of 24 October 2019 that financial claims arising from a settlement agreement constituted an investment within the meaning of the applicable BIT in this case (<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-cmc-africa-austral-lda-cmc-muratori-cementisti-cmc-di-ravenna-soc-coop-and-cmc-muratori-cementisti-cmc-di-ravenna-soc-coop-a-r-l-maputo-branch-and-cmc-africa-v-republic-of-mozambique-award-thursday-24th-october-2019\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>CMC v. Mozambique<\/em>, Award, 24 October 2019, para. 175<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding <em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction, the Court of Cassation emphasized that for the settlement claim (by \u201csettlement claim\u201d, we refer to the claims to money arising from the settlement agreement) to qualify as an investment under Article 1(2)(b) of the BIT, it must be linked to an investment activity (by &#8220;investment activity&#8221;, we refer to the investment operation to which the claims to money must be linked in order to be qualified as an investment within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of the BIT). In the case at hand, since the settlement claim did not stem from the 1980 investment, the Court of Cassation held that the settlement claims did not relate to an investment activity and thus did not constitute an investment under the treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction, the practical importance of this issue is that the investor could not rely on the non-performance of the public works contracts, as this dispute arose before the treaty entered into force. The only hope for the investor was to qualify the claims arising from the settlement agreement as an investment, in other words, to argue that the dispute related to the non-performance of the settlement agreement was a new and autonomous dispute, arising after the entry into force of the treaty and related to an investment under the treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After pointing out the findings of the Court of Appeal, which held that the claim arising from the settlement agreement, considered in isolation, did not constitute an investment under the treaty, the Court of Cassation triggered the following question: Is there a link between the investment (settlement claim) and the investment activity (1980 contracts), and what are the implications of this link regarding the tribunal\u2019s <em>ratione materiae<\/em> and <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the Court of Cassation, if such a link exists, the settlement claim constitutes an investment (<em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction). However, the dispute did not arise after the entry into force of the treaty because it was linked to a dispute predating the treaty concerning the non-performance of the public contracts (<em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction). On the other hand, if no such link exists, the settlement claim is not an investment, and the question of <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction need not be addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court of Cassation\u2019s reasoning results in the link between the investment and the investment activity influencing <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction, even though this link is only relevant for <em>ratione materiae <\/em>jurisdiction. A condition in the BIT has seen its scope extended beyond its original intention in the treaty text. Therefore, the link between the settlement agreement and the 1980 investment activity implies a link between the dispute arising from the settlement agreement and the previous dispute arising from the 1980 contracts, which excludes the arbitral tribunal\u2019s <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To determine the date of the dispute in question and assess its novelty, the Court of Cassation referred to the Court of Appeal\u2019s finding <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-23-14-368-wednesday-9th-october-2024#decision_69097:~:text=Pour%20juger%20que,d%27un%20diff%C3%A9rend%20nouveau.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">that the claims arising from the 1980 contracts and those from the settlement agreement were different<\/a>. There is no incompatibility between the difference in the cause of action of the claims (<em>i.e.<\/em>, the dispute is different) and the common economic source of the claims, which is the 1980 investment activity. Two things can be different yet connected: the content and legal source of the claims may differ, even though their economic origin is the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The settlement agreement is inherently a resolution of a prior dispute; therefore, we are in a situation where a new condition is added to the treaty: the dispute resolved by the settlement agreement must arise after the entry into force of the treaty (The Court of Cassation has previously ruled against adding a condition to the treaty that is not provided for in its terms: <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-serafin-garcia-armas-et-karina-garcia-gruber-c-republique-bolivarienne-du-venezuela-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-20-16-714-wednesday-1st-december-2021\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Garc\u00eda Armas and Garc\u00eda Gruber v. Venezuela<\/em>, Judgment of the French Court of Cassation (First Civil Chamber) 20-16.714, 1 December 2021<\/a>). The fact that the dispute regarding the non-performance of the settlement agreement arose after the treaty\u2019s entry into force is not enough. It is important to recall that <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-libya-turkey-bit-2009-libya-turkey-bit-2009-wednesday-25th-november-2009\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Article 10 of the BIT<\/a> only requires that disputes arise after its entry into force, excluding those that arose before. Thus, the key criterion is the date on which the dispute was crystallized, and only an identity between the disputes arising from the non-performance of the original contracts and the non-performance of the settlement agreement would exclude <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction, not a mere relationship between these disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In its reasoning, the Court of Cassation criticizes the Court of Appeal\u2019s findings for allegedly being self-contradictory. On the one hand, the Court of Appeal, in order to uphold <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction, stated that the dispute was autonomous with respect to the 1980 contracts. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal also recognized that this settlement-related dispute was connected to the 1980 contracts, in order to uphold <em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction. However, the connection between the disputes is an economic link, not a legal one. As the Court of Appeal explained, the legal dispute related to the settlement agreement is new: concessions, damages, etc. The economic link exists between the disputes, but it is not relevant for <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction. The economic link between the investment operations (settlement claim and 1980 contracts) is relevant for <em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction (to qualify as a protected investment) as required by the BIT, but not for determining whether the dispute is new. Thus, the Court of Appeal addresses each issue separately, whereas the Court of Cassation gives significant weight to the link between the disputes without distinguishing, depending on the issue to be resolved <em>(ratione materiae<\/em> or <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction), the subject of the link (disputes or economic operations) and the types of links (legal or economic). Therefore, the existence of an economic link between the settlement claims and the 1980 contracts (<em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction) does not exclude the absence of a legal link between the disputes arising from the non-performance of the settlement agreement and those arising from the non-performance of the 1980 contracts (<em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction). The dispute at stake can therefore arise \u201c<em>directly out of investment activities\u201d <\/em>and this link is not indirect. Whereas, for the Court of Cassation, the autonomy of the disputes related to the non-performance of the initial contracts and the non-performance of the settlement agreement excludes the possibility that the settlement claims are related to the initial contracts, and therefore excludes their qualification as investments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Does the intention of the drafters of the BIT to link \u201cclaims to money\u201d (and its dispute) to an investment activity mean that they wish to link, in principle and under all circumstances, disputes arising out of that investment activity and those arising out of the non-performance of the claims? Isn\u2019t the BIT\u2019s purpose to link the \u201cclaims to money\u201d to an investment activity primarily a means of excluding purely commercial disputes from the material scope of the treaty? Do the drafters of the BIT intend to link the conditions of <em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction to those of <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction? &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This is not the first time that the different aspects of jurisdiction are assessed in light of one another, which has not escaped doctrinal criticism (<em>See<\/em> <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-serafin-garcia-armas-et-karina-garcia-gruber-c-republique-bolivarienne-du-venezuela-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-1-chambre-1-15-01040-tuesday-25th-april-2017#decision_62213\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Garcia v. Venezuela<\/em><\/a>: Sophie Lemaire and Malik Laazouzi, \u201c<em>Chronique de jurisprudence arbitrale en droit des investissements<\/em>\u201d, <em>Revue de l&#8217;arbitrage<\/em> 2019, n\u00b0 2, p. 576).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court of Cassation seems unwilling to accept that a relationship between the settlement claim and the initial investment activity can coexist with a lack of identity between the dispute arising from the non-performance of the settlement claim and the dispute arising from the non-performance of the initial contract. As explained above, the nature of the relationship is different: for one, it is a matter of an economic relationship between the settlement claim and the investment activity, and for the other, it is one of a legal or procedural relationship between the dispute arising from the claim and the dispute arising from the initial contract. According to the Court of Cassation, pursuant to Article 8(4)(a) of the BIT, which requires that disputes arise directly from an investment activity, the fact that the disputes are not linked excludes the tribunal\u2019s <em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction because the link between the settlement claim and the initial contracts is severed. Thus, there is also an influence of the link between the disputes (relevant for <em>ratione temporis <\/em>jurisdiction) on the link between the economic operations (relevant for <em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction (definition of investment) and <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction (dispute arising after the treaty\u2019s entry into force) are different issues. The settlement claim and the initial activity can be linked (thus, this claim is an investment) while triggering a new dispute, unless a new condition is added to the treaty, stating that the new dispute must arise from an investment resulting from an investment activity that did not generate a pre-existing dispute before the entry into force of the treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The real issue is determining what constitutes a new dispute in the context of a settlement agreement. As the Court of Appeal observed, the settlement agreement can give rise to new legal issues independent of those arising from the initial contract, despite the normal link between the settlement claim and the initial activity. The Court of Cassation could have chosen other criteria to assess the novelty of the dispute, for example, as <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/ly\">Libya<\/a> argued, the persistence (or lack thereof) of the unresolved initial dispute. But the Court preferred to assess <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction in light of the conditions of <em>ratione materiae<\/em> jurisdiction, and vice versa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The correlation between the link between the settlement claim and the initial contract, on the one hand, and the link between the old and new disputes, on the other hand, is established by this decision. However, this correlation does not seem self-evident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, this decision highlights the particularities of jurisdictional issues in investment arbitration compared to commercial arbitration and the fluctuating reactions of the post-award judge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In light of this decision, the Court of Appeal, in a different formation, to which the case was remanded is invited by the Court of Cassation to determine whether there is a link between the settlement claims and the 1980 investment activity and, if so, to draw the consequences on the issue of <em>ratione temporis<\/em> jurisdiction. We shall see how the lower court addresses this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHORS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/jad-el-hage\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Jad El Hage<\/strong><\/a> is an attorney at the Beirut Bar and a legal counsel at the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-centre-de-mdiation-et-darbitrage-de-paris-centre-for-mediation-and-arbitration-of-paris\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Center of Mediation and Arbitration of Paris (CMAP)<\/strong><\/a>. He specializes in international commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration, conducts research in the field (PhD Candidate), and lectures at universities. Jad El Hage is frequently invited to speak at conferences on international arbitration, and he actively participates in treaty negotiations at the United Nations. He has worked with leading international law firms, representing both states and private entities in arbitration proceedings under the rules of various arbitration institutions. He is fully fluent in Arabic, French and English and is a graduate of Saint Joseph University of Beirut, Paris II Panth\u00e9on Assas University and Paris Dauphine University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-6f4e5034\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Analyse de la comp\u00e9tence dans l&#8217;arbitrage d&#8217;investissement : Interd\u00e9pendance de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em> et de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><strong>Contr\u00f4le des sentences : note sous Cour de cassation (Chambre civile 1), 9 octobre 2024, n\u00b0 23-14.368,<\/strong> <strong><em>Etrak c. Libye<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L\u2019affaire <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-libya-none-currently-available-friday-1st-january-2016#decision_4300?su=\/en\/search?query=Etrak\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Etrak c. Libye<\/em><\/a> porte sur plusieurs projets de construction en Libye donnant lieu \u00e0 la conclusion de contrats de travaux publics entre des entit\u00e9s libyennes et la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de droit turc Etrak Insaat Taahh\u00fct Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (ci-apr\u00e8s \u00ab&nbsp;Etrak&nbsp;\u00bb ou \u00ab&nbsp;Investisseur&nbsp;\u00bb) dans les ann\u00e9es 1980. En 1991, l\u2019investisseur a d\u00e9cid\u00e9 de suspendre l\u2019ex\u00e9cution des contrats du fait de factures impay\u00e9es par l\u2019\u00c9tat. Un protocole transactionnel &#8211; am\u00e9nageant les conditions d&#8217;ex\u00e9cution d&#8217;une d\u00e9cision des juridictions libyennes ayant condamn\u00e9 l&#8217;\u00c9tat libyen au r\u00e8glement de sommes d&#8217;argent relatives aux factures impay\u00e9es et \u00e0 des dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats &#8211; sign\u00e9 le 9 d\u00e9cembre 2013 entre les parties a constitu\u00e9 une lueur d\u2019espoir momentan\u00e9ment dissip\u00e9e par son annulation par les juridictions libyennes (V. Tribunal de premi\u00e8re instance de Tripoli-Nord du 2 mai 2019). L\u2019inex\u00e9cution de la transaction a men\u00e9 l\u2019investisseur \u00e0 recourir \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage sur le fondement du <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/fr-libya-turkey-bit-2009-libya-turkey-bit-2009-wednesday-25th-november-2009\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Trait\u00e9 Bilat\u00e9ral d\u2019Investissement Libye \u2013 Turquie (2009) (ci-apr\u00e8s \u00ab&nbsp;TBI&nbsp;\u00bb)<\/a> (Sur l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur de ce TBI, voir&nbsp;: <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-nurol-insaat-ve-ticaret-a-s-v-libya-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-19-19834-tuesday-28th-september-2021\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Cour d\u2019appel de Paris (P\u00f4le 5 &#8211; Chambre 16), 28 septembre 2021, n\u00b0 19\/19834<\/a>). Le si\u00e8ge de l\u2019arbitrage a \u00e9t\u00e9 plac\u00e9 \u00e0 Gen\u00e8ve en Suisse et le tribunal arbitral a rendu, le 22 juillet 2019, une <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-libya-none-currently-available-friday-1st-january-2016#decision_4300\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">sentence finale<\/a> dans laquelle il retient sa comp\u00e9tence et il condamne la Libye au paiement de dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats de plus de 21 millions USD au profit de l\u2019investisseur. Cette sentence a fait l\u2019objet d\u2019une demande d\u2019annulation rejet\u00e9e par le tribunal f\u00e9d\u00e9ral suisse dans sa <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-libya-judgment-of-the-swiss-federal-tribunal-monday-2nd-november-2020#decision_14162\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">d\u00e9cision 4A_461\/2019 du 2 novembre 2020<\/a>. En 2021, les juridictions allemandes <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-order-of-the-higher-regional-court-of-munich-34-sch-3-20-saturday-10th-april-2021#decision_36246\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">ont rejet\u00e9 la demande d&#8217;exequatur<\/a> de la sentence arbitrale. L\u2019investisseur cr\u00e9ancier a demand\u00e9 l\u2019exequatur de la sentence en France et c\u2019est le pr\u00e9sident du tribunal judiciaire de Paris qui a rendu une ordonnance qui avait rev\u00eatu la sentence arbitrale de l&#8217;exequatur en France. L&#8217;\u00c9tat de Libye a interjet\u00e9 appel de cette ordonnance devant la Cour d\u2019appel de Paris qui a confirm\u00e9 cette ordonnance d&#8217;exequatur dans son <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-21-06118-tuesday-14th-march-2023#decision_62125\">arr\u00eat du 14 mars 2023<\/a> (n\u00b0 21\/06118), avant que la Cour de cassation ne casse cette d\u00e9cision par son <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-23-14-368-wednesday-9th-october-2024#decision_69097\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">arr\u00eat du 9 octobre 2024<\/a> (n\u00b0 23-14.368) que nous nous proposons de commenter dans le cadre de cette note. Cette cassation a eu des r\u00e9percussions sur la demande d&#8217;exequatur du jugement du tribunal de premi\u00e8re instance de Tripoli-Nord du 2 mai 2019 <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-23-14-368-wednesday-9th-october-2024#decision_69097:~:text=En%20application%20de%20l%27article%20624,un%20lien%20de%20d%C3%A9pendance%20n%C3%A9cessaire.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">annulant la transaction<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La question que se pose le juge de l\u2019exequatur est notamment celle de savoir si le juge du trait\u00e9 est comp\u00e9tent pour trancher le diff\u00e9rend en question. L\u2019interaction entre la comp\u00e9tence <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/publication\/en-jurisdiction-ratione-materiae\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>ratione materiae<\/em><\/a> et <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/publication\/en-jurisdiction-ratione-temporis?su=https%3A%2F%2Fjusmundi.com%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D%2522Jurisdiction%2520Ratione%2520Temporis%2522%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den&amp;contents%5b0%5d=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>ratione temporis<\/em><\/a> constitue un point central dans le cadre de cette analyse. Les autres composantes de la comp\u00e9tence d\u2019un tribunal arbitral en arbitrage d\u2019investissement ne seront pas abord\u00e9es ne faisant pas d\u00e9bat dans le cadre du recours contre la sentence en question. Les autres griefs notamment la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public ne seront pas non plus abord\u00e9s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sur le fond, la Cour d\u2019appel de Paris avait consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que le tribunal arbitral \u00e9tait comp\u00e9tent en abordant classiquement et s\u00e9par\u00e9ment la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em> d\u2019abord qualifiant les \u00ab&nbsp;cr\u00e9ances financi\u00e8res&nbsp;\u00bb qui d\u00e9coulent de la transaction comme un investissement pour ensuite aborder la question de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em> en qualifiant le diff\u00e9rend n\u00e9 de l\u2019inex\u00e9cution de la transaction comme nouveau, notamment car <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-21-06118-tuesday-14th-march-2023#decision_62125:~:text=La%20cour%20rel%C3%A8ve%20toutefois,pr%C3%A9sente%20un%20caract%C3%A8re%20autonome.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">mettant fin d\u00e9finitivement au premier diff\u00e9rend<\/a> (nous entendons par nouveau diff\u00e9rend celui qui tombe sous le coup de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em> du tribunal arbitral). Cependant, la Cour de cassation remet en cause cette comp\u00e9tence en raisonnant diff\u00e9remment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pour rappel <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-libya-turkey-bit-2009-libya-turkey-bit-2009-wednesday-25th-november-2009\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">l\u2019article 1(2) du TBI<\/a> sur la d\u00e9finition de l\u2019investissement dispose&nbsp;: \u00ab&nbsp;<em>Le terme \u00ab investissements \u00bb, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la l\u00e9gislation et \u00e0 la r\u00e9glementation de la Partie contractante h\u00f4te, comprend toute classe de biens, notamment, mais non exclusivement :<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>[\u2026] b) Les revenus r\u00e9investis, les cr\u00e9ances financi\u00e8res ou tous autres droits ayant une valeur financi\u00e8re li\u00e9e \u00e0 un investissement, [\u2026]&nbsp;<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L\u2019article 10 du TBI sur son champ d\u2019application temporel dispose&nbsp;:&nbsp;\u00ab&nbsp;<em>Le pr\u00e9sent Accord s\u2019applique aux investissements effectu\u00e9s sur le territoire d\u2019une Partie contractants conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 sa l\u00e9gislation et \u00e0 sa r\u00e9glementation avant ou apr\u00e8s son entr\u00e9e en vigueur, par les investisseurs de l\u2019autre Partie contractante. Toutefois, il ne s\u2019applique pas aux diff\u00e9rends qui sont n\u00e9s avant son entr\u00e9e en vigueur<\/em> \u00bb. Pour rappel, la Cour de cassation a exclu dans l\u2019affaire <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-oschadbank-v-russian-federation-judgment-of-the-french-court-of-cassation-wednesday-7th-december-2022#decision_39277\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Oschadbank c. Russie<\/em><\/a> du champ du contr\u00f4le des sentences la question de la temporalit\u00e9 de la r\u00e9alisation de l\u2019investissement car elle rel\u00e8ve du fond. La clause de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends, fondement de l\u2019arbitrage, se trouve \u00e0 l\u2019article 8 de ce trait\u00e9 et l\u2019article 8(4)(a) limite le champ du TBI aux \u00ab<em> diff\u00e9rends d\u00e9coulant directement des activit\u00e9s d\u2019investissement<\/em>&nbsp;[\u2026] \u00bb&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pour trancher la question g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la comp\u00e9tence du tribunal arbitral, il faut r\u00e9pondre, notamment, \u00e0 deux questions&nbsp;: celle de savoir si la cr\u00e9ance issue du protocole transactionnel constitue un investissement (comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em>) et si le diff\u00e9rend soumis au tribunal arbitral est n\u00e9 apr\u00e8s la date de l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur du trait\u00e9 (comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour d\u2019appel de Paris a d\u00e9j\u00e0 eu l\u2019occasion de traiter ces deux questions dans l\u2019affaire <em>\u00dcstay c. Libye<\/em> (<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-ustay-yapi-taahhut-ve-ticaret-as-v-libya-judgment-of-the-paris-court-of-appeal-21-01507-tuesday-23rd-january-2024#decision_58982\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Cour d\u2019appel de Paris (P\u00f4le 5 &#8211; Chambre 16), 23 janvier 2024, n\u00b0 21\/01507<\/a>, voir note : Sophie Lemaire, <em>Revue de l\u2019arbitrage<\/em> 2024, n\u00b0 2, p. 646). Il est \u00e9galement int\u00e9ressant de rappeler que le tribunal arbitral CIRDI, dans l\u2019affaire <em>CMC c. Mozambique<\/em>, a d\u00e9cid\u00e9 dans sa sentence du 24 octobre 2019 que les cr\u00e9ances financi\u00e8res issues d\u2019une transaction constituaient un investissement au sens du TBI applicable en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce (<a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-cmc-africa-austral-lda-cmc-muratori-cementisti-cmc-di-ravenna-soc-coop-and-cmc-muratori-cementisti-cmc-di-ravenna-soc-coop-a-r-l-maputo-branch-and-cmc-africa-v-republic-of-mozambique-award-thursday-24th-october-2019\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>CMC c. Mozambique<\/em>, Sentence, 24 octobre 2019, para. 175<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sur la comp\u00e9tence mat\u00e9rielle, la Cour de cassation rappelle que pour que la cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle soit comprise dans la d\u00e9finition de l\u2019investissement de l\u2019article 1(2)(b) du TBI, elle doit \u00eatre li\u00e9e \u00e0 une activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement (nous entendons par \u00ab activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement \u00bb l\u2019op\u00e9ration d\u2019investissement \u00e0 laquelle doit se rattacher la cr\u00e9ance financi\u00e8re pour \u00eatre qualifi\u00e9e d\u2019investissement au sens de l\u2019article 1(2)(b) du TBI). Or en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, si la cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle ne d\u00e9coule pas de l\u2019investissement de 1980, elle ne d\u00e9coule pas d\u2019une activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement et n\u2019est donc pas un investissement au sens du trait\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sur la comp\u00e9tence temporelle, l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat pratique de cette question est que l\u2019investisseur ne pouvait se fonder sur l\u2019inex\u00e9cution des contrats de travaux publics car ce diff\u00e9rend \u00e9tait n\u00e9 avant l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur du trait\u00e9. Son seul espoir \u00e9tait de qualifier d\u2019investissement les cr\u00e9ances issues du protocole, autrement dit de soutenir que le diff\u00e9rend relatif \u00e0 l\u2019inex\u00e9cution du protocole transactionnel \u00e9tait un nouveau diff\u00e9rend autonome n\u00e9 post\u00e9rieurement \u00e0 l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur du trait\u00e9 relatif \u00e0 un investissement, au sens du trait\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Apr\u00e8s avoir repris les constatations de la Cour d\u2019appel selon lesquelles la cr\u00e9ance n\u00e9e de la transaction, consid\u00e9r\u00e9e isol\u00e9ment, ne constitue pas un investissement au sens du trait\u00e9, la Cour de cassation appelle \u00e0 trancher la question suivante&nbsp;: Y a-t-il un lien entre l\u2019investissement (cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle) et l\u2019activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement (contrats de 1980) et quelles sont les cons\u00e9quences de ce lien sur la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em> et <em>ratione temporis<\/em> du tribunal arbitral&nbsp;?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Selon la Haute juridiction, si ce lien existe, la cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle constitue un investissement (comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em>) mais le diff\u00e9rend n\u2019est pas n\u00e9 apr\u00e8s l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur du trait\u00e9 \u00e9tant li\u00e9 \u00e0 un diff\u00e9rend relatif \u00e0 l\u2019inex\u00e9cution des contrats publics pr\u00e9datant le trait\u00e9 (comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>). D\u2019autre part, si ce lien n\u2019existe pas, alors la cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle ne constitue pas un investissement ce qui rend la question de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em> inutile \u00e0 aborder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Cette analyse fait d\u00e9couler des cons\u00e9quences au lien entre l\u2019investissement et&nbsp;l\u2019activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement \u00e0 laquelle il doit se rattacher sur le terrain de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em> alors que ce lien ne vaut que pour la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em>. Une condition existante dans le TBI s\u2019est vu \u00e9tendre son domaine d\u2019application au-del\u00e0 de celui qui lui \u00e9tait initialement pr\u00e9vu dans le trait\u00e9. Le lien entre la transaction et l\u2019activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement de 1980 implique un lien entre le diff\u00e9rend qui d\u00e9coule de la transaction et l\u2019ancien diff\u00e9rend qui d\u00e9coule des contrats de 1980 ce qui exclut la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em> du tribunal arbitral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Pour d\u00e9terminer la date de naissance du diff\u00e9rend en question et appr\u00e9cier sa nouveaut\u00e9, la Cour de cassation reprend la constatation de la Cour d\u2019appel selon laquelle <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-etrak-insaat-taahut-ve-ticaret-anonim-sirketi-v-the-state-of-libya-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-23-14-368-wednesday-9th-october-2024#decision_69097:~:text=Pour%20juger%20que,d%27un%20diff%C3%A9rend%20nouveau.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">les cr\u00e9ances issues des contrats de 1980 et celles issues de la transaction sont diff\u00e9rentes<\/a>. Il n\u2019existe aucune incompatibilit\u00e9&nbsp;entre la diff\u00e9rence du contenu des cr\u00e9ances (ce qui rend les diff\u00e9rends distincts) et la source commune du litige qui est l\u2019activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement de 1980. Deux choses peuvent \u00eatre diff\u00e9rentes mais li\u00e9es : le contenu et la source juridique des cr\u00e9ances sont diff\u00e9rents m\u00eame si leur origine \u00e9conomique est la m\u00eame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La transaction r\u00e9sulte par nature d\u2019un premier diff\u00e9rend auquel elle met fin. Par cons\u00e9quent, une nouvelle condition est rajout\u00e9e au trait\u00e9 : le diff\u00e9rend que r\u00e9sout la transaction doit na\u00eetre apr\u00e8s l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur du trait\u00e9 (la Cour de cassation a d\u00e9j\u00e0 condamn\u00e9 le fait d\u2019ajouter au trait\u00e9 une condition qu\u2019il ne pr\u00e9voit pas&nbsp;: <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-serafin-garcia-armas-et-karina-garcia-gruber-c-republique-bolivarienne-du-venezuela-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-20-16-714-wednesday-1st-december-2021\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Cour de cassation (Chambre civile 1), 1 d\u00e9cembre 2021, n\u00b0 20-16.714<\/a>). Le simple fait que le diff\u00e9rend relatif \u00e0 l\u2019inex\u00e9cution de la transaction soit n\u00e9 apr\u00e8s l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur du trait\u00e9 ne suffit pas. Il est important de rappeler que <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-libya-turkey-bit-2009-libya-turkey-bit-2009-wednesday-25th-november-2009\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">l\u2019article 10 du TBI<\/a> exige uniquement que soient \u00ab n\u00e9s \u00bb les diff\u00e9rends apr\u00e8s son entr\u00e9e en vigueur, en excluant ceux n\u00e9s avant son entr\u00e9e en vigueur. C\u2019est donc le crit\u00e8re de la naissance du diff\u00e9rend qui est pertinent ; ainsi, seule une identit\u00e9 des diff\u00e9rends n\u00e9s de l\u2019inex\u00e9cution des contrats initiaux et de l\u2019inex\u00e9cution de la transaction aurait exclu la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em> et non pas un simple rapport entre ces diff\u00e9rends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans ses attendus de principe (si cette terminologie n\u2019est pas encore d\u00e9mod\u00e9e), la Cour de cassation reproche une soi-disant contradiction \u00e0 la Cour d&#8217;appel. Cette derni\u00e8re a retenu la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis du tribunal arbitral en consid\u00e9rant<\/em> que le diff\u00e9rend \u00e9tait autonome par rapport aux contrats de 1980, alors qu\u2019elle a constat\u00e9 que ce diff\u00e9rend transactionnel \u00e9tait li\u00e9 aux contrats de 1980 pour retenir sa comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em>. Or, il s\u2019agit d\u2019un lien \u00e9conomique entre les diff\u00e9rends et non pas juridique. Le lien juridique n\u2019existe pas comme l\u2019a expliqu\u00e9 la Cour d\u2019appel, car le diff\u00e9rend juridique relatif \u00e0 la transaction est nouveau : concessions, dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats, etc. Le lien \u00e9conomique existe entre les diff\u00e9rends, mais celui-ci n\u2019est pas pertinent pour la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>. Le lien \u00e9conomique entre les op\u00e9rations d\u2019investissement (cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle et contrats de 1980) est pertinent pour la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em> (qualification d\u2019investissement) comme le TBI l\u2019exige et non pour d\u00e9terminer si le diff\u00e9rend est nouveau ou non. Ainsi, la Cour d&#8217;appel traite chacun s\u00e9par\u00e9ment, tandis que la Cour de cassation donne au lien entre les diff\u00e9rends une port\u00e9e importante sans distinguer, selon la question \u00e0 trancher (comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em> ou <em>ratione temporis<\/em>), l\u2019objet du lien (diff\u00e9rends ou op\u00e9rations \u00e9conomiques) et les types de lien (juridique ou \u00e9conomique). Donc, rien n\u2019emp\u00eache qu\u2019il y ait un lien \u00e9conomique entre les cr\u00e9ances transactionnelles et les contrats de 1980 (donc comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em>) sans qu\u2019il n\u2019y ait de lien juridique entre les diff\u00e9rends n\u00e9s de l\u2019inex\u00e9cution de la transaction et ceux n\u00e9s de l\u2019inex\u00e9cution des contrats de 1980 (donc comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>). Le diff\u00e9rend en question est donc consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme<em> \u00ab&nbsp;d\u00e9coulant directement des activit\u00e9s d\u2019investissement&nbsp;\u00bb <\/em>et ce lien n\u2019est pas indirect.&nbsp;Alors que pour la Cour de cassation, l\u2019autonomie des diff\u00e9rends relatifs \u00e0 l\u2019inex\u00e9cution des contrats initiaux et \u00e0 l\u2019inex\u00e9cution de la transaction exclut la possibilit\u00e9 que les cr\u00e9ances transactionnelles d\u00e9coulent des contrats initiaux et donc exclut leur qualification d\u2019investissement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La volont\u00e9 des r\u00e9dacteurs du trait\u00e9 de lier la cr\u00e9ance financi\u00e8re (et le diff\u00e9rend qui en d\u00e9coule) \u00e0 une activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement implique-t-elle une volont\u00e9 de lier par principe et en toute circonstance les diff\u00e9rends n\u00e9s de cette activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement et ceux n\u00e9s de l\u2019inex\u00e9cution de la cr\u00e9ance ? La volont\u00e9 des r\u00e9dacteurs du trait\u00e9 de lier la cr\u00e9ance \u00e0 une activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement n\u2019est-elle pas uniquement un moyen d\u2019\u00e9carter des contestations purement commerciales du champ mat\u00e9riel du trait\u00e9&nbsp;? La volont\u00e9 des r\u00e9dacteurs est-elle de lier les conditions de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em> \u00e0 celles relatives \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>&nbsp;?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ce n\u2019est pas la premi\u00e8re fois que les diff\u00e9rentes facettes de la comp\u00e9tence sont appr\u00e9ci\u00e9es l\u2019une \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re de l\u2019autre, ce qui n\u2019a pas \u00e9chapp\u00e9 \u00e0 la critique doctrinale (Voir sur l&#8217;affaire <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-serafin-garcia-armas-et-karina-garcia-gruber-c-republique-bolivarienne-du-venezuela-arret-de-la-cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-1-chambre-1-15-01040-tuesday-25th-april-2017#decision_62213\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>Garcia c. Venezuela<\/em><\/a>&nbsp;: Sophie Lemaire et Malik Laazouzi, Chronique de jurisprudence arbitrale en droit des investissements, <em>Revue de l&#8217;arbitrage<\/em> 2019, n\u00b0 2, p. 576).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour de cassation ne semble pas accepter qu\u2019un rapport entre la cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle et l\u2019activit\u00e9 initiale aille de pair avec l\u2019absence d\u2019identit\u00e9 entre le diff\u00e9rend d\u00e9coulant de l\u2019inex\u00e9cution de cette cr\u00e9ance et le diff\u00e9rend d\u00e9coulant de l\u2019inex\u00e9cution des contrats initiaux. Comme expliqu\u00e9 ci-dessus, la nature du rapport est diff\u00e9rente : pour l\u2019un il s\u2019agit d\u2019un rapport \u00e9conomique entre la cr\u00e9ance et une activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement, pour l\u2019autre il s\u2019agit d\u2019un rapport juridique, voire proc\u00e9dural, entre le diff\u00e9rend n\u00e9 de la cr\u00e9ance et le diff\u00e9rend n\u00e9 du contrat initial. Selon la Cour, faisant r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l\u2019article 8(4)(a) du TBI qui exige que les diff\u00e9rends d\u00e9coulent directement d&#8217;une activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement, le fait que les diff\u00e9rends ne soient pas li\u00e9s exclut la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em> du tribunal arbitral, car le lien entre la cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle et le contrat initial est bris\u00e9. C\u2019est donc aussi une influence du lien entre les diff\u00e9rends (pertinent pour la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>) sur le lien entre les op\u00e9rations \u00e9conomiques (pertinent pour la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em> (d\u00e9finition d\u2019un investissement) et la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em> (diff\u00e9rend n\u00e9 apr\u00e8s l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur du trait\u00e9) posent des probl\u00e9matiques diff\u00e9rentes. La cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle et l\u2019activit\u00e9 initiale peuvent \u00eatre li\u00e9es (ce qui fait de cette cr\u00e9ance un investissement) tout en ayant d\u00e9clench\u00e9 un nouveau diff\u00e9rend, \u00e0 moins d\u2019ajouter une condition au trait\u00e9 selon laquelle le nouveau diff\u00e9rend doit na\u00eetre d\u2019un investissement d\u00e9coulant d\u2019une activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement n\u2019ayant pas g\u00e9n\u00e9r\u00e9 de diff\u00e9rend ant\u00e9rieur \u00e0 l\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur du trait\u00e9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le vrai probl\u00e8me est celui de savoir ce qu\u2019est un nouveau diff\u00e9rend&nbsp;dans le contexte d\u2019une transaction. Comme l\u2019a constat\u00e9 la Cour d\u2019appel, la transaction peut donner naissance \u00e0 de nouveaux probl\u00e8mes de droit ind\u00e9pendants de ceux que g\u00e9n\u00e8rent le contrat initial malgr\u00e9&nbsp;le lien normal entre la cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle et l\u2019activit\u00e9 initiale. La Cour de cassation aurait pu opter pour d\u2019autres crit\u00e8res afin d\u2019appr\u00e9cier la nouveaut\u00e9 du diff\u00e9rend ; par exemple, comme l\u2019a soutenu la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/ly\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Libye<\/a>, celui de la persistance &#8211; ou pas &#8211; du diff\u00e9rend initial non \u00e9teint par la transaction. Mais la Cour a pr\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 appr\u00e9cier la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em> \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des conditions de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione materiae<\/em>, et vice versa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La corr\u00e9lation entre le lien de la cr\u00e9ance transactionnelle et du contrat initial d\u2019une part et le lien entre l\u2019ancien et le nouveau diff\u00e9rend d\u2019autre part est \u00e9tablie par cet arr\u00eat. Or cette corr\u00e9lation ne semble pas \u00e9vidente.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Enfin, cet arr\u00eat montre les particularit\u00e9s des questions de comp\u00e9tence pos\u00e9es dans le cadre des arbitrages d\u2019investissement par rapport \u00e0 celles de l\u2019arbitrage commercial et les r\u00e9actions fluctuantes du juge du contr\u00f4le qui en d\u00e9coulent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En vertu de cette d\u00e9cision, la cour d\u2019appel de renvoi est invit\u00e9e par la Cour de cassation \u00e0 se poser la question de savoir si un lien existe ou pas entre les cr\u00e9ances transactionnelles et l\u2019activit\u00e9 d\u2019investissement de 1980 et, dans l\u2019affirmative, d\u2019en tirer les cons\u00e9quences sur le terrain de la comp\u00e9tence <em>ratione temporis<\/em>. Voyons ce qu\u2019en fera la cour d\u2019appel de renvoi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><strong>\u00c0 PROPOS DE L&#8217;AUTEUR<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/jad-el-hage\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Jad El Hage<\/strong><\/a> est avocat au Barreau de Beyrouth et conseiller juridique au <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-centre-de-mdiation-et-darbitrage-de-paris-centre-for-mediation-and-arbitration-of-paris\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><strong>Centre de M\u00e9diation et d&#8217;Arbitrage de Paris (CMAP)<\/strong><\/a>. Il est sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 en arbitrage commercial et d\u2019investissement, m\u00e8ne des recherches dans ce domaine (Doctorant), et enseigne \u00e0 l&#8217;Universit\u00e9 Paris-Dauphine. Jad El Hage est fr\u00e9quemment invit\u00e9 \u00e0 intervenir lors de conf\u00e9rences sur l&#8217;arbitrage international, et il participe aux n\u00e9gociations de trait\u00e9s au sein de l\u2019Organisation des Nations Unies. Il a travaill\u00e9 dans des cabinets d&#8217;avocats repr\u00e9sentant tant des \u00c9tats que des entit\u00e9s priv\u00e9es dans des proc\u00e9dures d&#8217;arbitrage r\u00e9gies par les r\u00e8glements de diverses institutions arbitrales. Il ma\u00eetrise l&#8217;arabe, le fran\u00e7ais et l&#8217;anglais, et est dipl\u00f4m\u00e9 de l&#8217;Universit\u00e9 Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth, de l&#8217;Universit\u00e9 Paris II Panth\u00e9on-Assas et de l&#8217;Universit\u00e9 Paris-Dauphine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Discover how the nexus of ratione materiae and ratione temporis drives jurisdiction in investment arbitration in Etrak v. Libya.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":284827,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"179","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"Exploring Jurisdiction in Investment Arbitration: Interdependence of Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae and Ratione Temporis","fb_description":"Discover how the nexus of ratione materiae and ratione temporis drives jurisdiction in investment arbitration in Etrak v. Libya.","fb_image":"284828","twitter_title":"Exploring Jurisdiction in Investment Arbitration: Interdependence of Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae and Ratione Temporis","twitter_description":"Discover how the nexus of ratione materiae and ratione temporis drives jurisdiction in investment arbitration in Etrak v. Libya.","twitter_image":"284828"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[250,205,167,179,208,188,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-284823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitral-institutions-spotlights","category-arbitration","category-europe","category-france","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284823","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=284823"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284823\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":288085,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284823\/revisions\/288085"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284827"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=284823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=284823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=284823"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=284823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}