Magnifier Search

Wena Hotels v. Egypt

Type of decisionDecision on Annulment
Date of decision5 February 2002
Konstantinos D. Kerameus (President)
Andreas Bucher
Francisco Orrego Vicuña
Legal instrumentBIT between Egypt and United Kingdom (1975)
Related decision(s)
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
Compensation for expropriation must not be eroded by the passage of time or diminution in market value; thus interest has to be awarded
A tribunal can, as a matter of discretion, determine the calculation of interest
The role of international law within the meaning of Article 42 ICSID Convention is determined according to the special circumstances of each case; the use of the word "may" confers a margin of appreciation upon the tribunal
Annulment proceedings do not provide for an appeal and the grounds for annulment are interpreted neither narrowly nor extensively
Requirements for an excess of power being manifest within the meaning of Article 52(1)(b) ICSID Convention
Requirements for a departure from a fundamental rule of procedure to be considered serious
A fundamental rule of procedure within Article 52(1)(d) ICSID Convention is the right of each party to be heard before an independent and impartial tribunal
The requirement that an award state the reasons on which it is based is weakened when the parties confer a wide discretionary power to the tribunal
The ground for annulment under Article 52(1)(e) ICSID Convention includes the case where a tribunal failed to decide upon a question submitted to it to the extent such supplemental decision may affect the reasoning supporting the award
The requirement of an award stating the reasons on which it is based is fulfilled when the decision reveals the factual and legal premises leading the tribunal to its decision
The ICSID Convention does not preclude raising new arguments related to a ground of annulment within the time limit fixed in the Convention
A tribunal has discretion to make its opinion about the relevance and evaluation of the elements of proof presented by each party
A tribunal is not obligated to call for evidence; rather, the tribunal has a discretionary power to call upon the parties to produce further evidence


Above you will find 13 statement(s) from this decision. Please note that when viewing the statements in their context, the same statement may appear multiple times if it is relevant for more than one topic. Did we miss something? Feel free to send us your suggestions!