Version du Règlement : 1988

Demandeur : vendeur (Turquie)

Défendeur : acheteur (Egypte)

Les parties conclurent un contrat de vente stipulant la fourniture d'une garantie de bonne fin par le demandeur. Quatre mois plus tard, le défendeur réclama le paiement du montant de la garantie de bonne fin à la banque qui l'avait émise en sa faveur, alléguant que le demandeur avait manqué aux obligations lui incombant aux termes du contrat de vente. Le demandeur, rejetant cette allégation, sollicita auprès du tribunal de commerce d'Istanbul une injonction préjudicielle afin d'empêcher le paiement par sa banque du montant de la garantie de bonne fin. Le demandeur déposa une demande d'arbitrage par laquelle il demandait (i) que l'injonction préjudicielle soit élargie ; (ii) que la lettre de garantie par laquelle la banque du demandeur donnait pour instruction à son correspondant égyptien d'émettre la garantie de bonne fin en faveur du défendeur soit levée ou déclarée nulle ; (iii) qu'il soit ordonné au défendeur de rembourser le montant de la garantie majorée du montant des intérêts, dans le cas où le montant de la lettre de garantie serait payé, et de rembourser toute commission bancaire payée jusqu'à la levée de la lettre de garantie et tous autres frais supportés par le demandeur ; et (iv) que le défendeur soit condamné aux frais de l'arbitrage. L'arbitre unique, au regard des preuves produites, jugea que le demandeur avait pleinement exécuté les obligations lui incombant aux termes du contrat de vente et que l'appel de la garantie de bonne fin était donc injustifié. Il considéra alors les mesures sollicitées par le demandeur.

'Having found that Claimant has fulfilled the Sales/Purchase Agreement and that the calling of the performance bond by Respondent was improper, the Sole Arbitrator now has to decide whether to grant the specific relief requested by Claimant in its Request for Arbitration and confirmed in the Terms of Reference.

By so doing, the Sole Arbitrator must take the relief as requested by Claimant and does not have the power to grant another relief than the one that was specifically asked for. He has therefore to decide on the request[s] as they are submitted to him in the Request for Arbitration and confirmed in the Terms of Reference.

They shall now be examined in the order presented by Claimant.

1. Request for an extension of the interlocutory injunction

This request must be rejected for the following reason:

The injunction by the Commercial Court of Istanbul is a judicial order addressed to [Claimant's Turkish bank]. This Bank, however, is not party to the Sale/Purchase Agreement and to the arbitration convention contained therein, and its obligation to make a payment in a specific given situation is based on the guarantee supplied as appendix 2. More specifically, [Claimant's Turkish bank] did act based on an undertaking of its own and not based on the Sales/Purchase Agreement.

Accordingly, the Sole Arbitrator does not have any jurisdiction over [Claimant's Turkish bank]. If it cannot address an order to [Claimant's Turkish bank], then it cannot extend an order that the competent court has issued to such bank.

Hence, the request no. 1 must be rejected.

. . . '

L'arbitre rejeta ensuite la seconde demande du demandeur, au motif qu'il n'avait pas compétence à l'égard des banques et qu'il outrepasserait ses pouvoirs s'il ordonnait au défendeur la levée de la lettre de garantie, puisque le demandeur ne l'avait pas demandée. En ce qui concerne la demande de remboursement en cas de paiement de la lettre de garantie, l'arbitre se prononça comme suit :

'This request shall be granted for the following reasons:

As stated above, it has been found that Claimant has fulfilled the Sale/Purchase Agreement while Respondent improperly attempted to collect the performance bond guarantee. So far, Respondent's endeavour has not been successful, apparently because of the injunction issued by the Commercial Court of Istanbul to [Claimant's Turkish bank].

In the event that the guarantee would still have to be paid, and that cannot be excluded with certainty, Respondent would be unjustly enriched in the amount of . . . and Claimant would have a corresponding claim for repayment.

The question arises whether the Sole Arbitrator should issue a conditional award for the event that the guarantee should still be collected. Given the prior history of this case, it can at least not be excluded that the interlocutory injunction may be lifted and that Respondent may still attempt to collect the performance bond guarantee. It is therefore proper to grant Claimant a corresponding right of reimbursement if such should take place.

Claimant asked for interest in the event that such performance bond guarantee should be called, although without specifying its rate. Given that the contract is subject to Swiss law and that Art. 73 of the Swiss Code of Obligations provides for the rate of 5% per annum if no other agreement has been entered into, it seems proper for the Sole Arbitrator to award such interest rate. The interest should start upon collecting the performance bond guarantee.'

S'agissant du remboursement de la commission bancaire, l'arbitre accorda ce remboursement pour la période commençant à courir à compter de l'appel injustifié de la garantie bancaire jusqu'à sa levée.

Sur les frais de l'arbitrage :

'From the foregoing, it appears that Claimant has been successful in substance but not all its Requests are granted. Applying the principle that the costs follow the event, it appears to be reasonable to award the costs at the rate of 5/6 to be borne by Respondent and at the rate of 1/6 to be borne by Claimant.'