Benteler v. State of Belgium
Panel of Arbitration
Ad Hoc Award of 18 November 1983, 1989 Rev. arb. 339 (1983)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Benteler (plaintiff) and the State of Belgium (the State) (defendant) entered a Protocol of Agreement in February 1980 regarding the industrial and financial restructuring of company. The Protocol contained Article 14, which provided that an arbitral tribunal would decide all disputes arising out of the Protocol of Agreement. After a major dispute arose between the parties, Benteler initiated arbitration proceedings. The State disputed the validity of the arbitration clause from the outset of proceedings. The State argued Article 1676(2) of the Belgian Judicial Code prevented the State from submitting to arbitration. Benteler countered that Article 1676 did not apply to the international arbitration, especially when said arbitration did not take place in Belgium. Benteler instead argued that, under Article II(1) of the European Convention, public law entities retain the right to enter into arbitration agreement. Benteler argued the European Convention applied to the arbitration clause contained in the Protocol of Agreement. The State responded in an answering brief that the European Convention only applied to international commercial operations and that the Protocol of Agreement did not relate to a commercial operation under Belgian law. Benteler countered that the term “international commercial operations” required the broader definition offered by the European Convention rather than the definition distinctive to domestic Belgian law. The panel of three arbitrators rendered a preliminary decision and award.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.