Un demandeur/entrepreneur italien a conclu des contrats avec une autorité publique d'un Etat africain (le défendeur/maître d'ouvrage) pour la construction de routes dans cet Etat. Un ingénieur allemand a été désigné pour ce projet. Le demandeur/entrepreneur a engagé une procédure d'arbitrage en dommages-intérêts pour certains problèmes dont il prétendait que le défendeur/maître d'ouvrage était responsable .

Livre rouge de la FIDIC, quatrième édition (1987). Clauses 11 et 67 .

Dans la sentence finale de l'affaire CCI n° 10619, le tribunal arbitral a examiné, entre autres :

si le défendeur/maître d'ouvrage pouvait s'appuyer sur une notification de l'intention de recourir à une procédure d'arbitrage de la part du demandeur/entrepreneur, pour être en droit de saisir le tribunal arbitral afin qu'il révise les décisions prises par l'ingénieur au titre de la clause 67 ; et

si le demandeur/entrepreneur pouvait légitimement s'appuyer sur des données relatives aux ressources locales en matériaux fournies par le défendeur/maître d'ouvrage au moment de l'offre, aux fins de la clause 11 .

Droit de se prévaloir de la notification de l'intention de recourir à une procédure d'arbitrage, faite par la partie adverse

'17. The Respondent does not dispute any more that [Claimant] was entitled to additional time as granted by the Engineer . . . Consistently therewith, he requests only that any decisions of the Engineer awarding sums to Claimant be reversed . . .

Under Clause 67.1 of the Conditions of Contract any dispute arising between the Employer and the Contractor shall have first to be referred in writing to the Engineer, with a copy to the Employer.

This is what the Claimant had done by letters of 18 October 1998, leading to the Engineer's decisions of 17 November 1998, and by letters of 9 September 1998, leading to the Engineer's decisions of 5 May 1999.

The Claimant, being dissatisfied with both the time extensions and the amount of money granted to him by the Engineer has notified the Employer and the Engineer, within the prescribed time limit, of his intention to commence arbitration and filed on 11 August 1999 the Request for Arbitration initiating this proceedings.

The only question which deserves consideration at this stage is whether the Respondent, who has not objected within the prescribed time limit to the Engineer's decisions and has not stated his intention to commence arbitration to have the same reviewed and revised, may take advantage of the notice made by the Claimant to that effect and request the Arbitral Tribunal to reverse the Engineer's decisions.

18. The answer should be in the affirmative considering that the Claimant has declared his dissatisfaction with the entire content of the Engineer's decisions. Therefore, since notification of intention to commence arbitration has been given within the prescribed time limit by the Contractor, the Engineer's decisions have not become final and binding and "the arbitrator(s) shall have full power to open up, review and revise any decision, opinion, instruction, determination, certificate or valuation of the Engineer related to the dispute" (Sub-clause 67.3). This conclusion is confirmed by Sub-clause 67.3 when the same provides that "neither party shall be limited in the proceeding before the arbitrator(s) to the evidence or arguments put before the Engineer . . .".

On the other hand, the Claimant has never disputed the Respondent's entitlement to challenge the Engineer's decisions.

However, as mentioned above [omitted from this extract], the Respondent has requested that the Engineer's decisions be reversed only insofar as sums have been awarded to the Contractor and not regarding extensions of time which have been granted.'

Le fait pour l'entrepreneur soumissionnaire de se fonder sur des rapports, fournis par le maître d'ouvrage, relatifs aux matériaux

'73. A first issue to determine in connection with the [alleged design changes] is whether the Contractor justifiably relies on the Materials Reports as a legal basis for his contention.

There is no doubt that the Materials Reports were not contractual in nature. It was said in introduction thereto that they were "not definitive and should be used as a guideline only as to what can be encountered in the projected area. It is also expected that during the construction period additional and differing materials will be encountered from those described therein". In paragraph 2.2., "Pavement materials", it was also said that "the results of the preliminary tests undertaken on these materials indicate that all sites are potential sources for natural gravel wearing course material": "potential" undoubtedly leaves a margin of uncertainty. Furthermore, in the last lines of the minutes of the pre-bid meeting held on 31 March 1994, "the Bidders attention [was] drawn to the fact, that the Materials Report [sic] does not form part of the Contract Documents, and is provided for information only". Undoubtedly that statement should have been an incentive to the bidders to carefully verify by their own means the reliability of the relevant information.

For its part, Article 11 GCC [General Conditions of Contract] requires that "the Employer shall have made available to the Contractor, before the submission by the Contractor of the tender, such data from investigations undertaken relevant to the Works, but the Contractor shall be responsible for his own interpretation thereof". The Tribunal thinks, however, that one cannot expect from a bidder, within the short period of time left for him to prepare his bid, to investigate on matters of local resources of materials over the Employer's findings which are deemed to result from lengthy prior queries in subsoil and are supported by graphs, diagrams, samples and other probatory materials; a bidder is justifiably required to interpret the data made available to him; he is not required to expedite new thorough investigations which the Employer says in good faith to have carefully carried on presumably for months if not years, in the interest of the Works. Interpreting data is one thing; undertaking new investigations in a region plus or minus close to a road of about 180 kms to check whether the required materials exist or not as described in quantity and quality, at the locations identified by the Employer, is not a thing which can reasonably be said to pertain to a bidder.'

Le tribunal arbitral, d'une part, a conclu que les renseignements fournis par le défendeur/maître d'ouvrage étaient faux et déformés et, d'autre part, a confirmé les décisions de l'ingénieur ayant accordé au demandeur/entrepreneur un délai et des frais supplémentaires .