No Result
View All Result
Daily Jus
  • News
  • Legal Tech & AI
  • Legal Insights
  • World
  • Reports
  • Awards
  • Jus Events
  • Publish on Daily Jus
  • About us
  • News
  • Legal Tech & AI
  • Legal Insights
  • World
  • Reports
  • Awards
  • Jus Events
  • Publish on Daily Jus
  • About us
No Result
View All Result
Daily Jus
No Result
View All Result

Home Legal Insights Arbitration Arbitration Aftermath

Arbitration Aftermath – March 8, 2024

8 March 2024
in Africa, Americas, Arbitration, Arbitration Aftermath, Arbitration for In-House Counsel, Asia-Pacific, DR Congo, Ecuador, Europe, Latin America, Legal Insights, Libya, Russia, United Kingdom, World
Arbitration Aftermath – September 21st, 2023

THE AUTHOR:
Zeyad Abouellail, Legal Content Officer at Jus Mundi


Introducing “Arbitration Aftermath” by Zeyad Abouellail: Your guide to the latest post-award developments in the evolving landscape of investor-State and commercial arbitration. Each week, Zeyad explores a range of post-award news involving sovereign States with a global perspective –– from post-award settlements, compliance with awards, to recognition and enforcement procedures, annulment, and more.

Discover more digests


Energoinvest v. DR Congo (II)

DR Congo Fails in Appeal Against Enforcement of a Duo of ICC Awards in France

ICC Cases No. 11441/KGA & 11442/KGA
Institution: International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
Tribunal: Renato Roncaglia (President), Marc Ronca (Appointed by the claimant), Mohamed Abu-Samra (Appointed by the institution)
Seat of arbitration: Zurich (ICC Case No. 11441/KGA), Paris (ICC Case No. 11442/KGA)


On 28 February, in two parallel rulings (22-16.151; 22-16.152), the French Court of Cassation dismissed the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (“DRC”) appeals against earlier decisions that confirmed the enforcement of a duo of ICC awards.

Background

In 2003, two identically constituted tribunals ordered the DRC to pay Energoinvest USD 11 million and USD 18 million after the State defaulted on its repayment obligations related to a project for the construction of a hydro-electric facility and electric transmission lines within the DRC. 

Subsequently, in 2004, Energoinvest transferred the rights to these awards to FG Hemisphere Associates (“FG”), a US-based investment fund.

By 2009, FG had secured the exequatur of the awards in France. The DRC contested these exequatur orders and, in 2012, informed FG of its decision to exercise its right of withdrawal as per Article 1699 of the French Civil Code (which permits a debtor to repurchase its debt rather than a third party, under the terms agreed upon between the creditor and the third party). FG opposed the DRC’s invocation of the right of withdrawal.

In December 2021, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the exequatur orders. The DRC appealed the decision to the French Court of Cassation (“Court”). 

Court of Cassation Dismisses the DRC’s Challenge 

Reiterating its arguments on appeal, the DRC alleged that the arbitral tribunal breached the adversarial principle. The State argued that the tribunal failed to inform it of the procedural calendar and to ensure that procedural documents were properly served to the State even though it ceased to participate in the proceedings. Furthermore, the State contended that the Paris Court of Appeal failed to verify that the DRC had indeed been informed of the different steps of the proceedings and properly served the necessary documents.  

The Court of Cassation refuted the DRC’s claims, determining that the State sought to relitigate the Court of Appeal’s discretionary assessment of the factual and evidentiary basis presented to it. The Court elucidated that the Court of Appeal, having considered the evidence, found no breach of the adversarial principle and that the DRC had been adequately informed of the proceedings but had intentionally chosen to withdraw from the arbitration process.

Thus, the Court deemed the DRC’s argument as without merit.

However, on its own motion, the Court of Cassation found that the Court of Appeal erred in adjudicating the DRC’s right of withdrawal.

The Court underscored that the jurisdiction to decide on the right of withdrawal lies with the enforcement judge (juge de l’exécution), not with the set-aside judge adjudicating an appeal against an exequatur order.

Accordingly, the Court determined that the Court of Appeal should not have ruled on the right of withdrawal, leading to the annulment of that part of the judgment. Nevertheless, the Court opted not to remit the case to the Court of Appeal.

Related Documents

  • Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal 18/10217, 7 December 2021
  • Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal 11/20732, 12 April 2016

Worley v. Ecuador

US Investor Pays Costs Award to Ecuador

Institution: Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
Tribunal: Andrés Rigo Sureda (President), Bernard R. Hanotiau (Appointed by the claimant), Brigitte Stern (Appointed by the State)
Seat of arbitration: Paris


On 26 February, the Attorney General’s Office of Ecuador announced that the State received a USD 6 million payment from US-based Worley International to satisfy a costs award. 

In December 2023, a PCA tribunal dismissed Worley’s claims under the Ecuador – US BIT based on jurisdictional grounds. The tribunal cited issues of corruption, illegality, and bad faith as the basis for its dismissal. Consequently, Worley was ordered to cover both the arbitration costs and the legal expenses of the State, totalling around USD 6 million.

Worley, in a January press release, refuted allegations of corruption, asserting that it had not violated anti-bribery and corruption laws. The company emphasised its commitment to adhering strictly to such laws, stating, “Worley takes its responsibilities under such laws extremely seriously.“

Following the tribunal’s award, Ecuador promptly initiated enforcement proceedings in the United States. The State submitted its enforcement petition to the Southern District Court of Texas merely one week after the award’s issuance.

Related documents:

  • Final Award, 22 December 2023
  • Press Release of Worley Limited on Media Reports, 10 January 2024

Osama Fathallah v. Libya

Libya Secures Set Aside of USD 200 Million Award in Tunis

Institution: Center for Arbitration and Reconciliation of the Arab Pole
Tribunal: Not disclosed
Seat of arbitration: Tunis


On 25 February, the Libyan Lawsuits Department disclosed its success in overturning a USD 200 million contract award in Tunis. 

The department revealed that the Tunis Court of Appeal has set aside the international award rendered in 2021, which was administered by the Center for Arbitration and Reconciliation of the Arab Pole in Tunisia. 

The award had been granted in favour of Osama Nouh Fathallah. However, the press release does not provide details regarding the nature of the dispute or the grounds of the claim.


Yukos Universal v. Russia
Hulley Enterprises v. Russia
Veteran Petroleum v. Russia

Yukos Shareholders Successful in Seizing Russian Property in London

PCA Cases No. 2005-03/AA226, 2005-04/AA227, 2005-05/AA228
Institution: PCA 
Tribunal: L. Yves Fortier (President), Charles H. Poncet (Appointed by the Claimants), Stephen M. Schwebel (Appointed by the State)
Seat of arbitration: The Hague, Netherlands


On 1 February, the Yukos shareholders announced that they seized a vacant plot of land in London belonging to Russia to satisfy a UK costs order. 

In November 2023, Justice Cockerill of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales rejected Russia’s arguments of sovereign immunity in an attempt to block the enforcement of the Yukos shareholder awards. Subsequently, Russia was ordered to compensate the investors for their legal expenses incurred during the proceedings, amounting to approximately GBP 960,000, within a 28-day window (see our previous digest here.)

Following the State’s failure to comply with the costs order, the shareholders were granted an Interim Charging Order in January 2024 on a vacant property located at 245 Warwick Road, Kensington. Russia will be able to challenge the seizure at a hearing in April.

According to the press release, this incident marks the first instance of a successful charge against Russian property in England.

Related Documents

  • Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2023] EWHC 2704, 1 November 2023
  • Ruling of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2023] EWHC 2888, 1 November 2023

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Zeyad Abouellail is a Senior Legal Officer at Jus Mundi and a PhD candidate & teaching assistant at Paris-Saclay University. His doctoral research focuses on the post-award phase in investment arbitration, alongside his teaching responsibilities in civil and contract law. Zeyad regularly speaks on the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and law. He holds Master’s Degrees in International Business Law from both Paris-Saclay University and Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University. Before joining Jus Mundi, Zeyad interned at several law firms in international arbitration and corporate law in Cairo, Egypt.

Related Posts

Corrupt Arbitrators: Is There a Need to Push Past ICSID’s Three-Year Limitation Period of Article 52(2)?

Corrupt Arbitrators: Is There a Need to Push Past ICSID’s Three-Year Limitation Period of Article 52(2)?

by Jus Mundi
8 May 2025

Should ICSID's 3-year annulment limit protect corrupt arbitrators? This analysis makes the case for reform to uphold integrity in investor-state...

IGET and Jus Mundi Partner to Advance Global Esports Dispute Resolution

IGET and Jus Mundi Partner to Advance Global Esports Dispute Resolution

by Jus Mundi
7 May 2025

IGET and Jus Mundi partner to boost transparency in global esports dispute resolution, making legal resources more accessible for the...

Enforceability of Emergency Arbitration Awards in India

Enforceability of Emergency Arbitration Awards in India

by Jus Mundi
6 May 2025

Enforceability of emergency arbitration in India clarified: the Amazon-Future case reshapes interim relief under Indian law and boosts confidence in...

Load More

Your daily dose of arbitration and legal industry insights.

Follow Us

Ressources

  • News
  • Legal Tech & AI
  • Legal Insights
  • World
  • Reports
  • Awards
  • Jus Events
  • Publish on Daily Jus
  • About us

Newsletter

loader

Sign up now to get weekly digests of the latest arbitration updates and articles in your inbox.

© 2023 Jus Mundi

  • Home
  • About us
  • Jus Mundi
  • Jus Connect
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
    • Products
    • Partnerships
    • Conference Reports
  • Reports
  • Legal Insights
    • Arbitration
      • Commercial Arbitration
      • Investor-State Arbitration
      • Arbitration Aftermath
    • Mediation
    • Worldwide Perspectives
      • Arbitral Institutions’ Spotlights
      • Clyde & Co
      • London VYAP
      • SG VYAP
  • World
    • Africa
    • Americas
      • U.S.A
      • Brazil
      • Latin America
    • Asia-Pacific
      • Central Asia
      • China
      • Hong Kong SAR
      • India
      • Japan
      • Singapore
    • Europe
      • France
      • Germany
      • Poland
      • Spain
      • Switzerland
      • The Netherlands
      • United Kingdom
    • Middle East & Turkey
      • Turkey
      • UAE
  • Awards
    • Jus Connect Rankings
    • Arbitration Team Of the Month
    • Arbitration Practitioner Of the Week
  • Business Development
    • Firm growth
    • Professional Development
  • In conversation with
  • Legal Tech & AI
  • Jus Events
  • Publish on Daily Jus
    • Become an Author
    • Editorial Guidelines & Process
    • Editorial Policies
  • About us

© 2024 Jus Connect