Arbitrators highlight uncertainties regarding Prince Group’s corporate structure, as well as divergences between the English, Turkish and Arabic versions of the BIT

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

While evidence is thin, the tribunal still finds that the claimant’s tourism operations amounted to a protected investment

Lack of evidence of investment in Egypt deprives tribunal of jurisdiction

The BIT’s English version prevails, but this does not imply that Arabic and Turkish versions can be effectively ignored

Territorial link with host state is required, even if investment activities are performed abroad

The local litigation provision’s context offers little guidance, although an optional reading sits more easily with the six-month negotiation period

BIT contains an implicit territoriality requirement

The English wording of the local litigation provision leaves its meaning obscure

Background: Russian charter company lodges treaty-based claim in relation to Sinai plane crash

Supplementary means of interpretation provide no clarification regarding the local litigation provision

Background: Turkish travel agency seeks compensation for damages incurred due to the crash of Metrojet flight 9268

No rule that ambiguous jurisdictional provisions should be interpreted either narrowly or broadly

Local litigation issue was raised in a timely fashion

The contracting states’ respective treaty practice is not a useful guide

Parties agree that the same tribunal will hear the Prens Turizm and Metrojet cases, but the arbitrations remain formally separate

Egypt expresses concerns about the claimant’s bankruptcy, but does not request security for costs

Evidence put forward by counsel needs to be backed by the record

No “common practice” to favour claimants over respondents on costs

Claimant bears the burden of proving the facts on which it relies to establish jurisdiction

Tribunal splits costs, emphasizing that the claim was dismissed without prejudice

Local litigation requirement is a matter of admissibility rather than jurisdiction, leading to dismissal without prejudice

Arbitrators ultimately opt for a mandatory reading of the local litigation requirement, following the clause’s Arabic version

Business model cannot qualify as an investment in host state, as it was implemented by third parties abroad

Tribunal adopts “common sense approach to what constitutes an investment”

Negotiation requirement applies to both parties

Archives