Featured in GAR: Egypt liable but escapes damages in cement dispute.
After a long and intense dispute, a divided International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal has held Egypt liable for its actions towards Spanish investors in a cement plant but declined to award the investors the €240 million in damages they sought. In his dissent, US arbitrator Charles N. Brower chastised the majority ruling, calling it inadequate and not reflective of the facts presented.
Karim A. Youssef Criticizes Ruling, Praises Dissent for Insight
Karim A Youssef, CEO of Youssef & Partners and the legal counsel representing the Spanish investors tells GAR that he was stunned by the ruling and denounces it as “astonishingly disappointing.” He does, however, applaud the Brower’s dissent, stating it contains “ample guidance” for proceedings involving international law and investment treaties, as well as fundamental observations of the weight assigned to evidence in such cases.
Read the full article on Global Arbitration Review
Stay Updated
Frequently Asked Questions: Egypt-Vicat Cement Dispute
What was the dispute about?
The dispute involved Egypt’s actions towards Spanish investors in a cement plant. The investors sought €240 million in damages.
What did the ICSID tribunal decide?
The ICSID tribunal found Egypt liable for its actions but declined to award the €240 million in damages that the Spanish investors sought.
Who dissented from the tribunal’s decision?
US arbitrator Charles N. Brower dissented, criticizing the majority ruling as inadequate and not reflective of the facts presented.
What was Charles N. Brower’s stance in his dissent?
Brower chastised the majority ruling and provided ample guidance for proceedings involving international law and investment treaties. He also made fundamental observations about the weight assigned to evidence in such cases.
