Alamos Gold Holdings Coöperatief U.A. and Alamos Gold Holdings B.V. v. Republic of Türkiye

At a glance

Parties

Alamos Gold Holdings Coöperatief U.A. and Alamos Gold Holdings B.V. (Netherlands) v. Republic of Türkiye

Case no.

ICSID Case No. ARB/21/33

Forum and rules

ICSID Convention arbitration; ICSID Arbitration Rules 2006

Treaty

Netherlands–Türkiye BIT (in force 1 November 1986)

Tribunal

Ian Glick KC (President), William Rowley KC, Zachary Douglas KC

Sector

Gold mining

Outcome

The parties settled after a Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 18 June 2025. On 16 October 2026 the Tribunal took note of the discontinuance, with prejudice and on a no costs basis.

The dispute

The claimants are two Dutch companies of the Alamos Gold group. Through their Turkish company Doğu Biga Madencilik Sanayi Ticaret A.S., they owned a gold mining project in Çanakkale Province, Türkiye, made up of the Kirazlı, Aği Daği and Çamyurt sites. They brought claims under the Netherlands–Türkiye BIT and the ICSID Convention over Türkiye's treatment of their investment in the Project. The only published document is the order taking note of the discontinuance. It does not set out the measures complained of, the parties' arguments, or what the Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 18 June 2025 decided.

Key holdings

1. After the Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, the parties told the Tribunal on 15 September 2025 that they had reached a settlement. At their joint request, the hearing on causation and damages set for 12–16 January 2026 was vacated and the arbitration stayed suspended. ¶¶ 6–10
2. ICSID refused the parties' request to waive or prorate its administrative fee. Under Regulation 14(3) of the ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulations, the annual fee falls due on the anniversary of registration and cannot be prorated or waived. ¶¶ 11–12
3. A condition precedent of the settlement was completed, and the parties jointly asked for the proceeding to be discontinued. Under Rule 43(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, the Tribunal took note of the discontinuance with prejudice and on a no costs basis. ¶¶ 13–15

Procedural history

1. 18 June 2025The Tribunal issued its Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability. It is not among the published documents.
2. 2 July 2025The parties reported settlement talks and asked for all steps other than the January 2026 hearing to be suspended. The Tribunal agreed on 3 July 2025.
3. 15 September 2025The parties announced a settlement. The hearing on causation and damages was vacated.
4. 29 April 2026The parties reported that they were implementing the settlement and that a condition precedent was planned for October 2026.
5. 9 October 2026The parties jointly confirmed that the condition precedent had been completed and asked for the proceeding to be discontinued.
6. 16 October 2026The Tribunal issued its order taking note of the discontinuance, with prejudice and on a no costs basis.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Ian Glick President
• J. William Rowley Co-arbitrator
• Zachary Douglas Co-arbitrator

For the claimant

Torys LLP · Dentons Canada LLP

For the respondent

Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources · Directorate-General of Law and Legislation, Department of Administrative Affairs · King & Spalding LLP

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Alamos Gold
• gold mining
• Çanakkale
• Kirazlı
• Aği Daği
• Çamyurt
• Doğu Biga
• Netherlands–Türkiye BIT
• settlement
• discontinuance
• ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1)
• with prejudice
• administrative fee
• Türkiye
• mining permits

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.