Conditions FIDIC, 3e édition / Litige entre l'entrepreneur et le sous-traitant / Application de la Clause 67 aux litiges relatifs au sous-contrat / Interprétation et adaptation de la Clause aux litiges issus du sous-contrat / Absence d'ingénieur agissant dans le cadre du sous-contrat / Obligation de soumettre le litige à l'ingénieur préalablement à l'introduction de la procédure d'arbitrage non applicable.

Le défendeur est entrepreneur principal pour la construction d'une centrale de production d'énergie. Il a sous-traité une partie des travaux de génie cevil au demandeur (sous-traitant). Le demandeur réclame le remboursement de surcoûts générés par divers retards ainsi que des sommes convenues au contrat prétendument retenues par l'entrepreneur, défendeur. Ce coucrt extrait de la sentence partielle sur la compétence aborde la question de l'application de la Clause 67 à des litiges relatifs aux sous-contrats. Cf. aussi la sentence partielle sur la compétence dans l'affaire 6611.

'[…]

The problem here is twofold: that the Sub-contractor is not a nominated subcontractor in the terms of Clause 69 of the Main Contract and apart from being approved under Clause 4 by the Engineer under the Main Contract is not under the direct control of the Engineer, and that the Engineer has no duties or powers in connection with the sub-contract. There is therefore no Engineer to refer to.

In order to resolve this issue we must go to Clause 28 of the sub-contract. I quote: "In effect the Sub-Contractor shall observe, perform and comply with all the provisions of the Main Contract on the part of the Contractor to be observed, performed and complied with so far as they relate and apply to the sub-contract works (or any part of the same) AND ARE NOT REPUGNANT TO OR INCONSISTENT WITH the express provisions of this sub-contract as if all the same were severally set out hereon" (Emphasis is mine).

I construe this to mean that the sub-contract, setting out the equivalent dispute clause to Clause 67, would be redrafted to remove the inconsistencies, to identify the Contractor and the Sub-Contractor as the proper parties, to identify the Sub-Contract and the Sub-Contract works and to omit requirements for adjudication by "The Engineer."

Accordingly I RULE that Clause 67 of the Main Contract as so adapted is applicable to the resolution of disputes under the Sub-Contract […].'