Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH, Klöckner Belge SA and Klöckner Handelsmaatschappij BV v. Republic of Cameroon and La Société Camerounaise des Engrais (SOCAME) SA (“Klöckner II”)

Abstract

Arbitration — Resubmitted case — Award — Contract — Series of contracts between parties — Joint venture — Cancellation or termination of contracts — Vices of consent — Whether fraudulent actions and disloyal behaviour — Whether failure to disclose information — Whether decisive on consent — Violation of contractual rights — Whether incompetent, negligent and dishonest contracting party — Unilateral imposition of prices — Whether supervening circumstances outside control of party — Responsibility for failure of project — Allocation of responsibility to each party — Award of arbitration tribunal — Damages — Payment of outstanding balance due — Interest — Costs

Annulment — Challenge to Award of arbitration tribunal — Reference to ad hoc Committee — Powers of Committee — Whether total or partial annulment of Award

Annulment — Admissibility — Indication of ground — Whether mention sufficient — “State in detail” requirement — Committee’s competence to determine whether ground within Article 52 of ICSID Convention and Arbitration Rule 50

Annulment — Grounds for annulment of Award — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Former arbitrator as counsel in later stage of same proceedings — Whether violation of right of defence — Whether reversal of burden of proof — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(d)

Annulment — Grounds for annulment of Award — Failure to state reasons — Whether absence or contradiction of reasons — Allocation of responsibilities — Vices of consent — Unilateral imposition of prices — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(e)

Annulment — Grounds for annulment of Award — Manifest excess of powers — Whether wrong application of the law constituting excess of powers — Allocation of responsibilities — Vices of consent — Unilateral imposition of prices — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b)

Annulment — Multiple requests for annulment — Coexistence of requests — Concurrence of requests — Whether agreement of parties in annulment request leading to automatic annulment