CASE FACTS
Southern 1. SPP and the Minister of
Pacific Tourism and EGOTH (Egyptian
Properties Gen Organization for Tourism
(SPP) v. Arab and Hotels) entered into an
Republic of agreement concerning a tourist
Egypt village and a tourist resort in
Egypt, which did NOT contain an
arbitration clause.
(based on the 2. A subsequent agreement was
decision in the made between SPP and EGOTH
District Court (beneath the parties’ signatures
of were the words “approved,
Amsterdam) agreed and ratified by the
Minister of Tourism” and
signature of the Minister). Said
agreement provided for ICC
arbitration.
3. Many opposed the project so
the Egyptian government was
forced to stop it.
4. Since no amicable settlement
was reached, SPP initiated ICC
arbitration.
5. Egypt objected to the
competence of the arbitrators,
arguing that it was not a party to
the 2nd agreement.
6. Court of Appeals in Paris set
aside an arbitral award made in
Paris between the parties on the
ground that there was no
arbitration agreement binding
the Egyptian State. However, the
President of the District Court of
Amsterdam granted SPP’s
request for a leave of
enforcement on the said award.
The President held that there
was an arbitration agreement
binding the Egyptian State.
HELD/RATIO
The arbitration agreement was
binding to the Egyptian State.
- The 2nd agreement bore the
signature and stamp of the Minister.
- Egypt argued that arbitral award is
not yet binding and its enforcement
is suspended as an action for setting
aside was initiated.
- Court ruled that “mere initiation of
an action for setting aside does not
have as a consequence that the
arbitral award must be considered as
not binding”
- An arbitral award is not binding if it
is open to appeal on the merits
before a judge or an appeal arbitral
tribunal.
Egyptian State failed to prove the
existence of grounds for refusal
mentioned in the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Award.
- Convention provides that a ground
of refusal is that “the award has been
set aside or suspended by a
competent authority of the country in
which or under the law of which, that
award was made”
- A judicial authority must have had
the opportunity to consider whether
a request for suspension is made for a
good cause.
- ITCAB: Court found that such ground
of refusal is absent.