ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor

ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor

The English court has no jurisdiction under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (as extended by the 1997 Order) to grant interim relief in support of ICSID arbitration proceedings, as 'proceedings' does not include arbitration after the repeal of section 25(3)(c). The New York proceedings were not substantive proceedings to which the English proceedings could be ancillary. Even if section 25 applied, the ICSID Convention and Rules exclude national court intervention unless expressly agreed, making it inexpedient to grant relief. Bolivia is entitled to state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, and there was no proper basis for an order against Entel.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: E. T. I. Euro Telecom International N. V.; First Respondent/first Defendant: Republic of Bolivia; Second Respondent/second Defendant: Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones Entel S. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Setting Aside Freezing Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
ICSID Arbitration, Freezing Orders, Interim Relief, Jurisdiction, State Immunity Act, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act
Arbitration State Immunity Civil Procedure ICSID Arbitration Freezing Orders Interim Relief Jurisdiction State Immunity Act +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. T. I. Euro Telecom International N. V.

Appellant/claimant

Republic of Bolivia

First Respondent/first Defendant

Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones Entel S. A.

Second Respondent/second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Setting Aside Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (as extended by the 1997 Order) to grant a freezing order in support of ICSID arbitration or New York proceedings;
  2. 2 Whether it was inexpedient to grant such relief given the ICSID Convention and Rules;
  3. 3 Whether the State Immunity Act 1978 prevented the order against Bolivia;

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has no jurisdiction under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (as extended by the 1997 Order) to grant interim relief in support of ICSID arbitration proceedings, as 'proceedings' does not include arbitration after the repeal of section 25(3)(c). The New York proceedings were not substantive proceedings to which the English proceedings could be ancillary. Even if section 25 applied, the ICSID Convention and Rules exclude national court intervention unless expressly agreed, making it inexpedient to grant relief. Bolivia is entitled to state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, and there was no proper basis for an order against Entel.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; freezing orders set aside; no interim relief granted against Bolivia or Entel.