Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw portal. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Etrak Insaat Taahut ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Libya, ICC Case No. 22236/ZF/AYZ

New
Short Name:

Etrak v. Libya

Case type:
International Investment Agreement (Investor–State)
Applicable arbitration rules:
ICC Rules of Arbitration (2012)
Seat of Arbitration:
Investment treaty:
Libya - Turkey BIT (2009)
Applicable legal instruments:
Libya - Turkey BIT (2009)
Economic sector:
Construction
Outcome:
In Favour of Claimant(s)
Amount of damages:
US $21,865,554
Other remedy:
The Tribunal decided that the Respondent shall pay the cost of arbitration.
See case mapped on Investor-State LawGuide

Available documents

29 Aug 2016
Request for Arbitration
Document provided by: IAReporter
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Request for Arbitration
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Request for Arbitration
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


9 Nov 2017
Procedural Order No. 3 - Decision on Claimant's Request for Interim Measures
Document provided by: IAReporter
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Procedural Order No. 3 - Decision on Claimant's Request for Interim Measures
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Claimant appointee:
John M. Townsend
Respondent appointee
Respondent appointee:
Jean Engelmayer Kalicki
Tribunal/Panel chair
Chair/President:
Kaj Hobér
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Joel Dahlquist Cullborg
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Libya
Document Summary
Procedural Order No. 3 - Decision on Claimant's Request for Interim Measures
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is Procedural Order No. 3, which contains the Arbitral Tribunal's decision on the Claimant's request for interim measures in an ICC arbitration. The application sought to compel the Respondent, the State of Libya, to suspend a parallel appeal proceeding it was pursuing in the Beida Court of Appeal, which concerned issues related to the arbitral dispute.

The Claimant argued that the Respondent's pursuit of the domestic appeal violated a prior settlement agreement, was intended to undermine the integrity of the arbitration, and aggravated the dispute. Accordingly, the Claimant requested an order directing the Respondent to suspend the appeal, refrain from any other recourse to Libyan courts on the same issues, and cease any actions that could further aggravate the dispute pending the final award.

The Respondent opposed the application, contending that the Libyan court was the proper forum to address the validity of the purported settlement agreement and that the parallel domestic proceedings posed no risk to the integrity of the arbitration. The Respondent requested the dismissal of the application and an award of costs.

The Tribunal, after affirming its prima facie jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, ultimately denied the Claimant's application for interim measures. The Tribunal reasoned that it was not convinced the domestic appeal threatened the integrity of the arbitration. It noted that since the Claimant's case included claims of denial of justice related to the Respondent's court system and the settlement agreement, it was reasonable to allow the domestic judicial process to proceed. The Tribunal affirmed its authority to independently assess any findings of fact or law from the Libyan court and determine what weight, if any, to accord them. While denying the primary relief, the Tribunal directed the Respondent to furnish the Claimant with a complete set of all pleadings and documents submitted in the domestic appeal, addressing the Claimant's concern that it had not been provided with these materials.

The Tribunal reserved its decision on the costs associated with the application for interim measures to a later stage of the proceedings.
22 Jul 2019
Award
Document provided by: IAReporter
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Award
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Chair/President:
Kaj Hobér
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Jennifer Morrison Ersin, Gladstone N. Jones, Svetlana Evliya, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison LLC, Mehmet Karli, Tuvan Yalim, Selim Can Bilgin, Ozgecan Korkmaz, Alp Ozzeybek, Ethel Kocoglu, Kabine Law Office
Respondent's counsel
Jonathan Leach, David Sellers, Aseel Barghuthi, Cameron Forsaith, Jeremy Record, Eversheds Sutherland International LLP, Christian Tams, Matrix Chambers
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Award
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


2 Nov 2020
Judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal (German)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal (German)
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
Switzerland
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal (German)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


4 Oct 2021
Decision by the Higher Regional Court of Munich
Document provided by: IAReporter
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Decision by the Higher Regional Court of Munich
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
Germany
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Decision by the Higher Regional Court of Munich
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


7 Jul 2022
Order of the German Federal Court of Justice I ZB 63/21 (English)
Order of the German Federal Court of Justice I ZB 63/21 (German)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the German Federal Court of Justice I ZB 63/21 (English)
Order of the German Federal Court of Justice I ZB 63/21 (German)
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Koch, Schwonke, Feddersen, Pohl, Schmaltz
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
Germany
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Order of the German Federal Court of Justice I ZB 63/21 (English)
Order of the German Federal Court of Justice I ZB 63/21 (German)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


14 Mar 2023
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (English)
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (French)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (English)
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (French)
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
France
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (English)
Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal (French)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


9 Oct 2024
Judgment of the French Court of Cassation (French)
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the French Court of Cassation (French)
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
France
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Judgment of the French Court of Cassation (French)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


4 Feb 2025
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jia M. Cobb
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


4 Feb 2025
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jia M. Cobb
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


3 Mar 2025
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jia M. Cobb
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


19 Sep 2025
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jia M. Cobb
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


8 Dec 2025
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jia M. Cobb
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


8 Dec 2025
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jia M. Cobb
Claimant's counsel
Respondent's counsel
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
United States
Print reporter
Entities
Document Summary
Order of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.


28 Apr 2026
Judgment of the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
Document Details:
PARTICIPANTS
Judgment of the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
Participants listed for this document only; this may not include all participants involved in the entire case.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Jan de Boer, Gerard Lewin, C.G. ter Veer
Claimant's counsel
Arnout S. Schennink, Chris de Bres
Respondent's counsel
Jacob Cornegoor, Mirto F. Murray
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Respondent's expert
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Country
Country in which this occurs:
Netherlands
Print reporter
Entities
Etrak Insaat Taahut ve Ticaret, Libyan Foreign Bank, Libyan Foreign Investment Company, Libya, Libya National Oil Corporation
Document Summary
Judgment of the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture and Decision

This judgment of the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba Curaçao Sint Maarten and of Bonaire Sint Eustatius and Saba dismisses an appeal brought by Etrak Insaat Taahhut ve Ticaret A.S. ('Etrak') against a first-instance decision. The lower court had refused to recognize and enforce an ICC arbitral award rendered against the State of Libya and had lifted pre-judgment attachments placed by Etrak on shares held by three Libyan state-owned entities: Libyan Foreign Investment Company (Lafico) the National Oil Corporation (LNOC) and Libyan Foreign Bank (LFB) (collectively 'Lafico c.s.'). The Joint Court upholds the lower court's decision and rejects the appeal on three independent grounds.

The Court's Analysis

First the Court held that the arbitral award was not eligible for recognition. The Court found that the ICC tribunal had incorrectly assumed jurisdiction over the dispute under the Libya-Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). It reasoned that the underlying dispute arose from construction activities that pre-dated the BIT's entry into force and a subsequent settlement agreement did not qualify as a new 'investment' protected by the treaty. In this finding the Court aligned its reasoning with prior decisions from German and French courts concerning the same award.

Second and assuming the award were recognizable the Court found that Etrak had failed to establish that Lafico c.s. were alter egos of the State of Libya. The Court affirmed that Lafico c.s. are distinct legal persons under both Libyan and Curaçao law. It concluded that Etrak had not proven the existence of exceptional circumstances such as abuse of legal personality that would warrant piercing the corporate veil to hold the state-owned entities liable for the state's debt.

Third the Court determined that even if the award were recognizable and the entities were alter egos of Libya the attached assets would be protected by state immunity from execution. The Court applied the principles of restrictive immunity as reflected in Article 19(c) of the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States which it considered to be customary international law applicable in Curaçao. It affirmed the presumption of immunity for state property and placed the burden of proof on the creditor Etrak to demonstrate that the assets were specifically used or intended for use for non-governmental commercial purposes. The Court found that Etrak failed to meet this burden reasoning that the commercial nature of the underlying company (Oilinvest) whose shares were attached did not prove that the shares themselves had a non-public commercial destination. A state may hold commercial assets for sovereign public purposes and Etrak did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.

Disposition

The Court rejected the appeal in its entirety and ordered Etrak to bear the costs of the proceedings.