Interim Award in ICC Case No. 5029
Panel of Arbitrators
XII Y.B. Comm. Arb. 113 (1987)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Two French companies (plaintiffs) entered into a joint venture with two Egyptian companies (defendants) to construct civil works in Egypt. The contract included a choice-of-law clause providing that the laws in force in Egypt governed the contract. The contract also contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules without specifying a seat for the arbitral tribunal. A dispute arose between the parties, and the French companies filed a request for arbitration under the ICC Rules. The ICC selected the Netherlands as the arbitral seat pursuant to Article 12 of the ICC Rules; the Egyptian companies also proposed the Hague as a place for the arbitral tribunal in its responses to the tribunal. The Egyptian companies argued Egyptian law of civil procedure controlled because the choice-of-law clause governed substantive and procedural issues, including issues relating to the arbitration. The Egyptian companies argued that the choice-of-law clause and arbitration clause clearly expressed the intention of the parties that the arbitration is a local arbitration. Although agreeing that Egyptian law controlled the substantive issues arising from the contract, the French companies argued Dutch law governed any procedural issues because the arbitration was seated in the Netherlands.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.