Abdallah Andraous v. Netherlands

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Abdallah Andraous (French-Lebanese national) v. the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Case no.: ICSID Case No. UNCT/23/3
Forum and rules: UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976) and UNCITRAL Transparency Rules; ICSID administering and acting as repository; seat Geneva, Switzerland
Treaty: Lebanon–Netherlands BIT, signed 2 May 2002, in force 1 March 2004
Tribunal: Ms. Claudia Salomon (Presiding Arbitrator), Prof. Nassib G. Ziadé, Mr. José Emilio Nunes Pinto
Sector: Insurance; financial supervision (Curaçao)
Outcome: The documents provided are procedural only. They show that the Netherlands' request for security for costs was denied and that a hearing on jurisdiction was set for 20–21 January 2025. An Award dated 20 May 2026 is listed, but its text is not included, so the outcome is not shown here.
Amount: The Netherlands sought security for costs in the form of a bank guarantee of EUR 3 million; this was denied. The claimant sought an interim costs award of GBP 64,750 against the Netherlands.

The dispute

Mr. Andraous, a French-Lebanese national who was also a Dutch national between 2000 and 2023, held a shareholding interest in Ennia Caribe Holding NV, the holding company of an insurance group in Curaçao. He was also a director of the group's companies until 4 July 2018. On that date, at the request of the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten (CBCS), the Curaçao Court of First Instance issued an Emergency Declaration under Article 60 of the National Insurance Supervision Ordinance, and the CBCS took control of the group. The CBCS later sold Banco di Caribe and planned to sell the Mullet Bay property. The group, now under CBCS control, sued the former directors, and the Curaçao courts held Mr. Andraous liable. He claims that the Netherlands breached the BIT and seeks restoration of his proprietary rights, compensation, and orders halting the sale of assets. The Netherlands objects to jurisdiction on three grounds: his dominant and effective nationality was Dutch; his 1% indirect shareholding, allotted as compensation for his work, involved no contribution and so is not an investment; and his salary and pension rights are not investments either.

Key holdings

The Tribunal has power to order security for costs. Article 26 of the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules and Article 183 of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (the seat is Geneva) give it broad powers to ensure that its rulings and costs awards are effective. The BIT is silent on the point. PO 3 ¶¶ 114–118
Security for costs is an exceptional measure. The applicant must give convincing evidence of exceptional circumstances showing a significant risk that the other party is unable or unwilling to pay an adverse costs award. Otherwise investors could routinely be blocked from access to justice. PO 3 ¶¶ 121–125
The necessity requirement was not met, so the Tribunal did not need to decide whether prima facie success or urgency are also required. There was no evidence that the claimant had shifted assets to avoid costs exposure, failed to pay costs orders or former counsel, or acted in bad faith. He had paid his advances on costs and had retained counsel without third-party funding. PO 3 ¶¶ 120, 126–127
The Curaçao court rulings could not carry the request. They are still subject to appeal, and only USD 316,044 is final and immediately enforceable. The claimant also contests their findings in this arbitration, so the Tribunal cannot accept them at face value at this stage. PO 3 ¶¶ 128–131
The Tribunal declined the claimant's request to exclude from the record the factual background in the Netherlands' Statement of Defence on Jurisdiction. Factual determinations in the security-for-costs decision are made prima facie and pro tem only. PO 3 ¶¶ 16–18
The proceedings were bifurcated, with jurisdiction to be decided first. The dispute is governed by the Lebanon–Netherlands BIT and international law, and the Tribunal may seek guidance from the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence (2020). PO 1 ¶¶ 39–40, Annex I