- 66 -
from taking the English version into account10 and examining the
intent of the parties as an aid to interpretation. In so
stating, we note that, in a 1984 case, Judgment of Aug. 26, 1984
(Agypetco v. Minister of Petroleum), Ct. Admin. Justice, Egyptian
State Council, the Administrative Court of the Egyptian State
Council, in describing a concession agreement between EGPC, the
Minister of Petroleum and a private contractor, stated that the
agreement provided that the provisions of the agreement have the
force of law, and shall be in force notwithstanding the
provisions of any legislation contrary thereto. Notwithstanding
that statement, the court considered both the intent of the
parties and the customary practice in the petroleum industry in
rendering its opinion.
We see no purpose to be served by regurgitating the evidence
as to who said what to whom at the time of the original
negotiations in 1975 or at the time of the subsequent discussions
relative to changes in the MCA during the 1980's. Those details
have been set forth at length in our findings of fact.
10 Under Article XXIII of the MCA, any dispute between the ARE
and EGPC or Amoco Egypt is to be referred to the courts of the
ARE. Before the courts of the ARE, Article XXVI provides that
the Arabic version shall be referred to in construing or
interpreting the MCA.
In the event of a dispute between Amoco Egypt and EGPC,
Article XXIII provides the matter is to be settled by
arbitration. In any such arbitration, Article XXVI provides that
the Arabic version, and also the English version, shall be used
to construe or interpret the MCA.
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011