0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
1K просмотров1 страница
The District Court of Amsterdam held that the arbitration agreement was binding on the Egyptian State for the following reasons:
1) The second agreement between SPP and EGOTH bore the signature and stamp of the Egyptian Minister of Tourism, indicating approval and ratification by the Egyptian government.
2) Egypt failed to prove that the arbitral award should not be enforced based on grounds for refusal in the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, such as the award being set aside by a competent authority.
3) Mere initiation of an action for setting aside an award does not automatically suspend the award's binding nature; a court must consider whether suspension is warranted. The Egyptian State did not demonstrate
The District Court of Amsterdam held that the arbitration agreement was binding on the Egyptian State for the following reasons:
1) The second agreement between SPP and EGOTH bore the signature and stamp of the Egyptian Minister of Tourism, indicating approval and ratification by the Egyptian government.
2) Egypt failed to prove that the arbitral award should not be enforced based on grounds for refusal in the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, such as the award being set aside by a competent authority.
3) Mere initiation of an action for setting aside an award does not automatically suspend the award's binding nature; a court must consider whether suspension is warranted. The Egyptian State did not demonstrate
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
The District Court of Amsterdam held that the arbitration agreement was binding on the Egyptian State for the following reasons:
1) The second agreement between SPP and EGOTH bore the signature and stamp of the Egyptian Minister of Tourism, indicating approval and ratification by the Egyptian government.
2) Egypt failed to prove that the arbitral award should not be enforced based on grounds for refusal in the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, such as the award being set aside by a competent authority.
3) Mere initiation of an action for setting aside an award does not automatically suspend the award's binding nature; a court must consider whether suspension is warranted. The Egyptian State did not demonstrate
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
Southern 1. SPP and the Minister of The arbitration agreement was
Pacific Tourism and EGOTH (Egyptian binding to the Egyptian State. Properties Gen Organization for Tourism - The 2nd agreement bore the (SPP) v. Arab and Hotels) entered into an signature and stamp of the Minister. Republic of agreement concerning a tourist - Egypt argued that arbitral award is Egypt village and a tourist resort in not yet binding and its enforcement Egypt, which did NOT contain an is suspended as an action for setting arbitration clause. aside was initiated. (based on the 2. A subsequent agreement was - Court ruled that “mere initiation of decision in the made between SPP and EGOTH an action for setting aside does not District Court (beneath the parties’ signatures have as a consequence that the of were the words “approved, arbitral award must be considered as Amsterdam) agreed and ratified by the not binding” Minister of Tourism” and - An arbitral award is not binding if it signature of the Minister). Said is open to appeal on the merits agreement provided for ICC before a judge or an appeal arbitral arbitration. tribunal. 3. Many opposed the project so the Egyptian government was Egyptian State failed to prove the forced to stop it. existence of grounds for refusal 4. Since no amicable settlement mentioned in the Convention on the was reached, SPP initiated ICC Recognition and Enforcement of arbitration. Foreign Arbitral Award. 5. Egypt objected to the - Convention provides that a ground competence of the arbitrators, of refusal is that “the award has been arguing that it was not a party to set aside or suspended by a the 2nd agreement. competent authority of the country in 6. Court of Appeals in Paris set which or under the law of which, that aside an arbitral award made in award was made” Paris between the parties on the - A judicial authority must have had ground that there was no the opportunity to consider whether arbitration agreement binding a request for suspension is made for a the Egyptian State. However, the good cause. President of the District Court of - ITCAB: Court found that such ground Amsterdam granted SPP’s of refusal is absent. request for a leave of enforcement on the said award. The President held that there was an arbitration agreement binding the Egyptian State.