Magnifier Search

Wena Hotels v. Egypt

Type of decisionAward
Date of decision8 December 2000
Monroe Leigh (President)
Don Wallace Jr.
Ibrahim Fadlallah
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.
The burden of proof regarding an alleged bribery is borne by the host state; it is not sufficient to demonstrate a coincidence in the timing of payments and the investment in question
Bribery by the claimant can be ground for dismissal of a claim
To draw a line between illegal bribery and legal commissions, a tribunal may take into account whether the bribed person was prosecuted by the host state
Expropriation is not limited to tangible property rights
Expropriation requires a lasting interference with property rights; the seizure of property for nearly a year qualifies as such a lasting interference
On calculating the damages, it does not matter whether the actual investment was carried out by affiliates of the claimant, as long as the investment went into the venture and it is a widely established practice to adopt such allocation measure for taxation purposes
It is appropriate for a tribunal to award compound interest in most commercial arbitrations
The precedence of international law over rules of domestic law is not altered by Article 42 ICSID Convention, even where municipal statutes collide with general, well-established international legal principles


Above you will find 8 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!