Tayeb Benabderrahmane v. State of Qatar

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Tayeb Benabderrahmane (national of Algeria and France) v. the State of Qatar
Case no.: ICSID Case No. ARB/22/23
Forum and rules: ICSID Convention arbitration; ICSID Arbitration Rules in force as of 1 July 2022; place of proceeding Paris, France
Treaty: France–Qatar BIT, signed at Doha on 8 July 1996
Tribunal: Ms. Lucinda Low (President), Prof. Andreas Bucher, Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan
Sector: Consultancy and business activities in Qatar (nature disputed)
Outcome: Pending. The published documents are procedural orders only and do not show a decision on jurisdiction, the merits or an award.

The dispute

Mr. Benabderrahmane, a national of Algeria and France, says Qatar arrested him on 13 January 2020 and held him until 31 October 2020: first in an undisclosed facility, then in the Salwa Road prison until 1 July 2020, then under house arrest. He also says Qatar seized his assets. He left Qatar on 1 November 2020 and claims expropriation and breach of fair and equitable treatment under the France–Qatar BIT. He says he invested funds, know-how, goodwill and a clientele as a freelance consultant. Qatar objects that he had no protected investment, because he was an employee of a privately held real estate business, and that any investment breached Qatari law. During the arbitration it emerged that the Qatar Criminal Court had sentenced him to death on 31 May 2023, which led to requests for provisional measures.

Key holdings

Document production partly granted. Qatar was ordered to produce the documents on the decisions to remand the Claimant in custody, to detain him in an undisclosed facility, to incarcerate him in the Salwa Road prison and to place him under house arrest. The Tribunal refused overly broad requests, including those for files on seized devices (Requests 10–18), which it treated as relief on the merits rather than evidence. President Low concurred in part and dissented in part. Procedural Order No. 3, ¶¶ 18–27
Further disclosure on third-party funding is limited by the purpose of Rule 14, which is to reveal conflicts of interest, not to inquire into a party's finances. Only two of Qatar's 11 requests were granted: the timeframe for repaying the loan and whether the lender has assumed liability for any costs award. Procedural Order No. 4, ¶¶ 18–19, 23
Provisional measures were recommended in the form of Qatar's five undertakings, with clarifications. Qatar is not to harm the Claimant or his relatives. The criminal proceedings are to be suspended. No step is to be taken to enforce the 31 May 2023 sentence, including an Interpol Red Notice or an extradition request. Qatar must give 30 days' written notice before any other criminal proceedings and must preserve the seized evidence and list it within 45 days. The broader requests, for example to protect unnamed witnesses or to forbid aggravation of the dispute, were refused as too general. Procedural Order No. 5, ¶¶ 45–55, 61
Bifurcation refused. Both of Qatar's objections (no investment; illegality under Qatari law) are serious and would dispose of the case if upheld. But they are factually intertwined with the merits, so hearing them separately would be inefficient. Procedural Order No. 6, ¶¶ 29–35
Mr. Khan concurred in the result. In his view the illegality objection could have been bifurcated and decided efficiently, but he did not consider the point important enough for a dissent. Concurring Opinion, ¶¶ 3–5
The request for findings of non-compliance was denied. The Claimant had not shown that the Qatari court documents were inauthentic; that question is left to the merits, and no bad faith was found. Qatar was directed to search thoroughly for official detention documents within 4 weeks. It was also directed to reissue the undertakings within 15 days as original Arabic documents on official letterhead, with all markings required under Qatari law. The requests for adverse inferences and for anonymised witness testimony were refused. Procedural Order No. 7, ¶¶ 58–80
In the second round of document production, both parties' requests were granted in part and denied in part, on a prima facie view of relevance and materiality. Production was due by 7 July 2025. Procedural Order No. 9, ¶¶ 12–14

Procedural history

22 August 2022Request for Arbitration dated 22 August 2022, supplemented by letter of 9 September 2022 and registered by ICSID.
January 2023Tribunal constituted on 26 January. Procedural Order No. 2 prints the year as 2022, but ICSID's request for advances "upon the constitution of the Tribunal" is dated 27 January 2023.
13–27 March 2023Procedural Order No. 1 applies the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules (13 March). First session held in Washington, D.C. (27 March).
11 April 2023Procedural Order No. 2 sets the procedural rules, with Paris as the place of proceeding and English as the procedural language.
3 October 2023Procedural Order No. 3: the Claimant's document requests are granted in part; the President dissents in part.
14 December 2023Procedural Order No. 4: further disclosure on third-party funding is granted in limited part.
20 December 2023Procedural Order No. 5: provisional measures recommended after the Claimant's death sentence came to light.
1 July 2024Procedural Order No. 6 rejects Qatar's request for bifurcation; Mr. Khan files a concurring opinion.
31 July 2024Procedural Order No. 7: the request for additional provisional measures is largely denied; Qatar must search for detention documents and reissue its undertakings in Arabic.
20 June 2025Procedural Order No. 9 decides both parties' document production requests.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by: Lucinda A. Low President (concurred in part and dissented in part on Procedural Order No. 3)
Andreas Bucher Co-arbitrator
Makhdoom Ali Khan Co-arbitrator (concurring opinion on Procedural Order No. 6 (bifurcation))
For the claimant: Askolds
For the respondent: Carter-Ruck Solicitors · Essex Court Chambers
Experts: Celine Laur (claimant)