Jurisdiction of the sole arbitrator, yes/ Existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, yes/ Article 8 (3) of ICC Rules/ Jurisdiction of the ICC, yes/ Mention in the arbitration clause of the 'Chambre de Commerce Internationale de Paris'/ French designation of the International Chamber of Commerce/ Designation sufficiently clear.

'JURISDICTION

[...] the Distributorship Agreement, out of which this dispute arises, ... includes as its Article 11.F the following arbitration clause :

Any disagreement in respect of the present contract or connected therewith will be settled through arbitration in Paris, according to the rules of conciliation and arbitration of the Chambre de Commerce Internationale de Paris.

Defendant, in its Answer dated June 2, 1993, maintained that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over this dispute due to the absence in the Distributorship Agreement of an arbitration clause clearly specifying the ICC. In particular, Defendant maintained that the phrase Chambre de Commerce Internationale de Paris is ambiguous and does not clearly designate the ICC. Defendant requested that the ICC Court find, prima facie, that the ICC lacks jurisdiction.

Since Defendant had thereby raised a plea concerning the existence of an agreement to submit to ICC arbitration, the question was presented to the ICC Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the ICC Rules. The ICC Court found that it was satisfied of the prima facie existence of an agreement to submit to ICC arbitration in this matter and decided that the Arbitration shall proceed in accordance with the said Article 8 (3) of the ICC Rules. Pursuant to that decision and that Article, it is the obligation of this Tribunal to decide upon its own jurisdiction. More specifically, paragraph V (1) of the Terms of Reference requires the Tribunal to answer the following question: "Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide the claims submitted by the parties?"

There can be no doubt, and this is not seriously disputed by the Defendant, that Article 11.F. of the Distributorship Agreement evidences the intention of the parties to submit any dispute connected with the Distributorship Agreement to arbitration. It is also clear from Article 11.F. that the parties intended the arbitration to be supervised by an institution under that institution's rules. The only issue, then, is whether Article 11.F. designates with sufficient clarity the ICC and the ICC Rules as the institution and the rules which shall govern the arbitration. This, in turn, requires this Tribunal to decide whether the phrase "...the rules of conciliation and arbitration of the Chambre de Commerce Internationale de Paris" represents a sufficiently clear designation of the ICC and the ICC Rules.

In that regard, the following is to be noted: (i) the official name of the ICC in French is "Chambre de Commerce Internationale"; ( ii) there is no other institution called "Chambre de Commerce Internationale" in Paris; (iii) the ICC does have its headquarters in Paris; (iv) the phrase "Chambre de Commerce Internationale de Paris" has consistently been interpreted as referring to the ICC; (v) Defendant has submitted no evidence that another arbitral institution with a confusingly similar name exists; and (vi) "Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration" is the precise title on the cover of ICC Publication No. 4473 which contains the ICC Rules.

In light of the above, this Tribunal finds that the phrase ". . . the rules of conciliation and arbitration of the Chambre de Commerce Internationale de Paris" clearly designates the ICC and its rules.'