Investment Treaty Arbitration

Last verified on Monday 11th September 2023

Investment Treaty Arbitration: Algeria

, and

Overview of investment treaty programme

1. What are the key features of the investment treaties to which this country is a party?

Algeria

 

Substantive protections

Procedural rights

BIT contracting party or MIT

Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET)

Expropriation

Protection and security

Most-favoured-nation (MFN)

Umbrella clause

Cooling-off period 

 

Local courts

Arbitration

Argentina (28 January 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Austria (1 January 2006)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

4 months

Yes

Yes

Bahrain (16 May 2008)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

No

Yes

Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union (17 October 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

No

Yes

Bulgaria (6 June 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

China (28 January 2003)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Czech Republic (not in force)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Denmark (15 July 2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

No

Yes

Arab Republic of Egypt (3 May 2000)

Yes 

Yes

Yes

Yes

 Inconclusive

6 months

Yes

Yes

Ethiopia (1 November 2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Finland (25 February 2007)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

France (27 June 2000)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 Inconclusive

6 months

Yes

Yes

Germany (30 May 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

No

Yes

Greece (21 September 2007)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Indonesia (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Inconclusive

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Islamic Republic of Iran (5 December 2005)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Italy (26 November 1993) (terminated)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Jordan (5 June 1997)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Republic of Korea (30 September 2001)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Kuwait (22 March 2004)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

No

Yes

Libya (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Malaysia (9 February 2002)

Yes

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Mali (16 February 1999)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Mauritania (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

 

 

 

Mozambique (25 July 2000)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Netherlands (1 August 2008)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

No

Yes

Niger (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Nigeria (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Oman (22 June 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Inconclusive

6 months

Yes

Yes

Portugal (8 September 2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Qatar (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Romania (30 December 1995)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Russian Federation (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months 

Yes

Yes

Serbia (25 November 2013)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months 

Yes

Yes

South Africa (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Spain (17 January 1996)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Sudan (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

 Yes

 

 

Sweden (1 April 2005)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

6 months

No

Yes

Switzerland (15 August 2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Syrian Arab Republic (not in force)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Tajikistan (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Tunisia (not in force)

Yes

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Turkey (not in force)

No

Yes

No

 Yes

No

6 months

Yes

 

Yes

United Arab Emirates (17 August 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

No

Yes

Vietnam (not in force)  

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Yemen, Republic of (not in force)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Answer contributed by , and

Qualifying criteria – any unique or distinguishing features?

2. What are the distinguishing features of the definition of “investor” in this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Issue

Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of “investor”

Broad definition

The definition of ‘investor’ under Algerian BITs, generally covers natural persons and legal entities, having the nationality or being constituted under the law of another contracting party, and which have made an investment in the territory of a contracting party in accordance with its laws.

Some BITs, however, provide definitions of the terms ‘national’ and ‘company’ instead of expressly mentioning the term 'investor’ (eg, Egypt, France and Germany) or provide such definitions as a definition of the term ‘investor’ (eg, Bahrain, BLEU, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Qatar, Russian Federation, South Africa, Yemen, etc).

Legal entities, companies and juridical person as investors

Most Algerian BITs define an ‘investor’ as a legal entity, company or juridical person incorporated or constituted under the law in force of either of the parties, having headquarters in the territory of that party and making investments in the territory of the other contracting party (eg, Netherlands and Serbia).

Some BITs require, to qualify as an investor, that a legal entity must have its head office and economic activities in the territory of the contracting state (eg, Ethiopia, Greece, Islamic Republic of Iran, Switzerland).

Under the Algeria–Kuwait BIT, the definition of ‘investor’ also covers the government, and its organs.  

Nationals as investors

All Algerian investment treaties require that a natural person be a ‘national’ or ‘has the nationality’ of one of the contracting parties in accordance with the laws of this contracting party (eg, Denmark, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Serbia, Sweden, Turkey).

Answer contributed by , and

3. What are the distinguishing features of the definition of "investment" in this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Issue

Distinguishing features in relation to the concept of “investment”

Broad definition of assets qualifying as 'investments’

Most Algerian investment treaties contain a broad definition of the term 'investment’, which is defined as ‘every kind of assets or rights relating to an investment, owned or controlled’ by an investor. In most cases, the investment treaties further provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of the type of assets that are included. For instance, movable and immovable property, shares of companies, stock and debentures, claims and rights to any performance having economic value, intellectual property rights, business concessions conferred by law or by contract are considered to be investments.

Direct or indirect investment

Most Algerian treaties refer to investments without specifying whether they are direct or indirect investments. Some treaties specifically mention that they cover both direct and indirect investments (eg, Austria BLEU, Egypt, Finland, Sweden).

Accordance with local laws

Some Algerian BITs explicitly require that assets be invested in accordance with the laws of the contracting state in whose territory the investment is taking place (eg, Ethiopia, Denmark, Greece, Serbia, Sweden).

Changes in the form of the investment

Some Algerian investment treaties provide that an alteration or change in the form in which assets are invested shall not affect their character as investments (eg, Bahrain, BLEU, Bulgaria, Denmark, Egypt, Indonesia, Mauritania, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey).

Answer contributed by , and

Substantive protections – any unique or distinguishing features?

4. What are the distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Issue

Distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard

Fair and Equitable Standard

Nearly all Algerian BITs provide that each contracting party shall ensure fair and equitable treatment of investors and their investments.

Certain BITs (eg, Egypt and France) provide that such measure is applicable within the parties’ territory and maritime zone, while others (eg, Syria Arab Republic) are restricted to parties' territories. Some measures included in BITs (eg, Finland, France, Kuwait, Nigeria, Serbia and Sweden) provide that FET protection will ensure investors’ enjoyment of their rights is not hindered.

The Algeria–Turkey BIT mentions the FET standard in the preamble. Algeria’s BITs with the Islamic Republic of Iran and Italy do not provide for FET measures.

Principles of International law

Only a few Algerian investment instruments provide that FET must be implemented in accordance with the principles of international law (eg, BLEU, France, Oman).

Non-impairment

Some Algerian BITs impose upon the contracting parties an obligation not to impair the operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of investments through unreasonable or discriminatory measures (eg, Austria, BLEU, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Korea, Libya, Netherlands, Nigeria, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Sweden).

Answer contributed by , and

5. What are the distinguishing features of the protection against expropriation standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “expropriation” standard

Scope of protection against expropriation and exceptions

The protection against expropriation is guaranteed in every Algerian BITs.

Algerian BITS provide that investments of investors of contracting parties shall benefit from full and complete protection and security and that the contracting party shall not take any measures for the expropriation, nationalisation or other measures entailing expropriation. There are exceptions that include measures taken for lawful purposes or for the public interest or benefit, in a non-discriminatory manner, in accordance with due process of law, and against prompt, appropriate and effective compensation based on the real (market) value on the eve of the day of the measure.

Indirect expropriation

Some Algerian investment instruments specifically refer to indirect expropriation (eg, Argentina, Egypt, Finland, Kuwait, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Qatar, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey) while others only mentions measures having an effect equivalent to expropriation or nationalisation (eg, Austria, China, Germany, Islamic Republic of Iran, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Africa).

Algeria-Yemen BIT does not mention indirect expropriation or other equivalent measures.

Compensation at real market value/valuation date

Most BITs provide for the payment of  adequate compensation in the case of expropriation of the investment. More specifically, compensation shall be equivalent to the real market value of the expropriated investment on the day before  (eg, Ethiopia, Greece, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen), immediately before (eg, Bahrain, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Republic of Korea), at the time (eg, Czech Republic, Kuwait, Libya, South Africa) or on the eve of the day (eg, Argentina, Jordan), the measure of dispossession was taken, announced or became public knowledge. The compensation shall be paid without delay.

Interest

Some of Algeria’s treaties provide that compensation with regard to expropriation, nationalisation or measure having similar effects, should include adequate interest, running from the date of expropriation or from the moment of recognition of the right to compensation, at a normal commercial rate (eg, Austria, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Jordan, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Serbia, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Yemen).

Review

Certain expropriation clauses in BITs also provide the investor with a right of review, by a judicial or independent authority of its case and valuation of its investment (eg, Austria, Bahrain, Denmark, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Serbia, South Africa and Tunisia).

Answer contributed by , and

6. What are the distinguishing features of the national treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “national treatment” and/or “most favoured nation” standard

Scope of the most favoured nation-clause (MFN)

Most Algerian BITs include a most-favoured-nation clause (MFN). Under this standard, the host state may provide treatment no less favourable to the investor than that accorded to its own investors or to investors of any third party.

Certain BITs’ MFN clause protects both the investor and its investment (eg, Bahrain, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Malaysia, Oman, Republic of Korea, Yemen).

Others also guarantee the standard of treatment to the investments’ returns (eg, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and Switzerland). Algeria’s BIT with Tajikistan, which is not in force, does not include an MFN.

Scope of the national treatment-clause (NT)

Algerian BITs with Serbia and Finland included, from the outset, NT provisions whereby each contracting party shall, subject to its national legislation, accord to investments made by investors of the other contracting party, treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own investors’ investments.

However, certain NT measures were implemented after the introduction of the BIT (eg, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mali, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen, etc).

Algeria’s BITs with China and Malaysia do not include any NT provision.

Limitations

Most BITs entered into by Algeria exclude, from the scope of the MFN or NT clauses, depending on their wording, privileges granted through agreements relating to free trade area, future or existing customs union, common market, taxation, any other form of regional economic organisation or similar international agreements (eg, Bahrain, BLUE, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Romania, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen).

Answer contributed by , and

7. What are the distinguishing features of the obligation to provide protection and security to qualifying investments in this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “protection and security” standard

Extent of obligation/language used

Most of the Algerian BITs include protection and security provisions.

Some BITs, provide that the host state shall provide 'full protection and security' (eg, Austria, Bahrain, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, Kuwait, Mozambique, Niger, Republic of Korea, Sudan, United Arab Emirates).

Other BITs use different terms, such as, ‘constant’ (eg, BLUE, Finland, Greece), ‘full and complete’ (eg, France, Greece, Jordan, Mali, Mauritania, Qatar, Soudan), ‘fair and equitable’ (eg, Bulgaria, Tunisia) or ‘full and adequate’ (eg, Malaysia).

Certain BITs provide such as the one with China, Ethiopia, Libya, Netherlands, Nigeria, Romania, Russian Federation and South Africa provide for ‘protection’ or ‘full protection’ only.

Treaties not including protection and security provisions

Algeria's BITs with the Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Yemen do not include provisions regarding protection and security. None of these treaties were signed after 2003.

Answer contributed by , and

8. What are the distinguishing features of the umbrella clauses contained within this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Issue

Distinguishing features of any “umbrella clause”

Scope of protection

More than half of Algerian BITs do not contain any umbrella clause.

The BITs that have an umbrella clause provide that each contracting party shall fulfil any obligation it may have entered into in its territory with regard to investments by investors of the other contracting party (eg, Denmark and Switzerland).

Answer contributed by , and

9. What are the other most important substantive rights provided to qualifying investors in this country?

Algeria

Issue

Other substantive protections

Armed conflict/State of national emergency/revolt/insurrection/riot

Most Algerian BITs provide a right to compensation for investors in the event of armed conflict, revolution or emergency. A contracting party shall provide the affected investor with restitution, indemnification, compensation or other settlement with treatment no less favourable than that provided to its own investors or to investors of any third state. 

Some BITs only provide for a relative right to compensation through MFN and NT clauses (eg, Argentina, Ethiopia, Portugal, Russian Federation, Sudan, Switzerland, Tunisia etc) while others provide for an absolute right to compensation in certain circumstances (Austria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, etc).

Non-impairment

Some Algerian BITs include a provision prohibiting contracting parties from impairing  the operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of investments through unreasonable or discriminatory measures (eg, Austria, BLEU, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Libya, Netherlands, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, Sweden).

Free transfer of payments

Most Algerian BITs guarantee the free transfer of all payments relating to investments and returns, although the wording may vary (eg, Austria, Mauritania, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Serbia, Tunisia).

For instance, some Algerian BITs require parties to permit free transfers of payment related to investment in convertible currency ‘without undue delay’ (eg, Serbia) or to be ‘fully realisable’ and ‘paid without restriction or delay’ (eg, Finland and South Africa).

Answer contributed by , and

10. Do this country’s investment treaties exclude liability through carve-outs, non-precluded measures clauses, or denial of benefits clauses?

Algeria

Issue

Other substantive protections

Public health and environment/public policy exceptions

Few Algerian BITs contain general exceptions.

The Algeria–United Arab Emirates BIT for instance, expressly indicates that contracting parties are allowed to adopt legal measures to protect legitimate public welfare objectives such as public health, public safety and the environment.

Answer contributed by , and

Procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties

11. Are there any relevant issues related to procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Issue

Procedural rights

Scope of disputes

 

The scope of disputes in Algerian BITs is broadly defined. In fact, most BITs, using more or less the same wordings, refer to disputes concerning investment between a contracting party and an investor of the other contracting party relating to an investment.

Cooling-off periods

All Algerian BITs that are in force include a cooling-off period during which amicable settlement will be sought. Most Algerian BITs provide for a cooling period of six months (eg, Argentina, Bahrain, BLUE, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Serbia, Switzerland, etc). Only Austria grants a shorter cooling-off period of four months.

Whether investors are given a choice of dispute resolution

Algerian BITs specify that disputes should be resolved amicably if possible (eg, Mauritania, Serbia, Switzerland, etc).

In situations where parties are unable to resolve their dispute amicably, some BITs arrange for disagreements to be resolved through arbitration only (eg, Bahrain, BLUE, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Kuwait, Netherlands, Niger, Spain, Sudan, Sweden etc).

Other BITs offer both arbitration and competent courts of the contracting party whose territory the investment is made (eg, Argentina, Austria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Yemen, etc).

Whether investors are given a choice among multiple arbitration options

 

Some BITs give a choice between ad hoc (UNCITRAL unless otherwise agreed) or institutional arbitrations (ICSID) (eg, Bulgaria, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Mali, Romania, Serbia, Tunisia etc).

Algeria-Austria BIT include the ICC as a choice of institution, in addition to the ad hoc and ICSID options.

BITs with Austria, Kuwait and Sudan offer to rely on rules agreed upon by parties.

Certain BITs only provide for ICSID rules' implementation (eg, BLUE, Netherlands, Oman etc). Some BITs offer specific rules to be followed in the formation of ad hoc tribunals (eg, China, Jordan, Libya, Mozambique, etc).

Recourse to local remedies

Algerian BITs do not include mandatory recourse to local courts. They provide the investors with a right to choose between bringing the claim to local courts or investment arbitration.

Fork-in-the-road and no-U-turn clauses

Some Algerian BITs provide that arbitration proceedings may only be commenced if the investor did not submit the dispute to a national court (eg, Finland, Oman, Serbia).

Furthermore, certain BITs provide that once the investor has made a choice between the competent courts of the contracting party in whose territory the investment is made, international arbitration and other options provided, it is irreversible and final (eg, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Serbia, South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey and Yemen).

Answer contributed by , and

12. What is the approach taken in this country’s investment treaties to standing dispute resolution bodies, bilateral or multilateral?

Algeria

Recent BITs do not include provisions replacing traditional ad hoc arbitration with a permanent investment court. BITs usually provide for the dispute to be resolved through arbitral institutions (ICSID and ICC) or under ad hoc arbitration (UNCITRAL rules).

Answer contributed by , and

13. What is the status of this country’s investment treaties?

Algeria

Algeria has not signed any BIT recently. The last bilateral investment treaty entered into by Algeria was in 2012, with Serbia.

Algeria has not made any major announcement with regard to the renewal of its investment treaties or their renegotiation. It is, however, important to note that Algeria has recently taken measures to cut off trade with Spain following some political disagreement between the two countries. Algeria has suspended its treaty of friendship, good neighbourliness and cooperation with Spain. Nevertheless, Algeria–Spain BIT is still in force.

Answer contributed by , and

Practicalities of commencing an investment treaty claim against this country

14. To which governmental entity should notice of a dispute against this country under an investment treaty be sent? Is there a particular person or office to whom a dispute notice against this country should be addressed?

Algeria

Government entity to which claim notices are sent

There is no specific officially designated government entity to which a dispute under an investment treaty must be sent.

Answer contributed by , and

15. Which government department or departments manage investment treaty arbitrations on behalf of this country?

Algeria

Government department that manages investment treaty arbitrations

Investment treaty arbitrations are managed by the Ministry of Finance and more specifically the Director of the Judicial Agency of Treasury (Agence Judiciaire du Trésor).

Answer contributed by , and

16. Are internal or external counsel used, or expected to be used, by the state in investment treaty arbitrations? If external counsel are used, does the state normally go through a formal public procurement process when hiring them?

Algeria

Internal/external counsel

Algeria uses external counsels in investment treaty arbitration (Algerian lawyers and/ or foreign law firms).

In practice, Algeria goes through a formal public procurement process in order to hire a law firm on the basis of restricted consultations.

Nevertheless, Algerian procurement regulations also allow not to comply with these regulations for the choice of lawyers.

Answer contributed by , and

Practicalities of enforcing an investment treaty claim against this country

17. Has the country signed and ratified the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965)? Please identify any legislation implementing the Washington Convention.

Algeria

Washington Convention implementing legislation

Algeria is a contracting state to the Washington Convention on Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965). The Convention was signed on 17 April 1995 and ratified by Presidential Decree No. 95-346 on 30 October 1995. The Convention came into force on 22 March 1996.

Answer contributed by , and

18. Has the country signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (the New York Convention)? Please identify any legislation implementing the New York Convention.

Algeria

New York Convention implementing legislation

Algeria acceded to the New York Convention with reciprocity and commercial reservations. Decree No. 88-223 of 5 November 1988 implemented the Convention, which came into force on 8 May 1989.

The reciprocity reservation means that the Convention only applies to the recognition and enforcement of awards rendered in a Contracting State. Commercial reservation means that the Convention only applies to disputes arising out of legal relationships (contractual or non-contractual) that are considered commercial under national law.

On top of the provisions included in Decree No. 88-223, the Algerian Civil and Administrative Procedure Code comprises provisions on recognition and enforcement, in Algeria, of international awards rendered in contracting and non-contracting state to the Convention (articles 1006 to 1061). Article 1045 of the Algerian Civil and Administrative Procedure Code provides that Algerian courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of a case once the arbitration proceedings are pending, or when there is a valid arbitration agreement that has been invoked by one of the parties. Additionally, as per article 1051 of the Algerian Civil and Administrative Procedure Code, international arbitration awards shall be recognised in Algeria if their existence is established by the party invoking them and if such recognition is not contrary to international public policy.

Answer contributed by , and

19. Does the country have legislation governing non-ICSID investment arbitrations seated within its territory?

Algeria

Legislation governing non-ICSID arbitrations

Algeria has no specific legislation governing non-ICSID investment arbitration seated within its territory.

Nevertheless, such arbitration would be governed by the general provision of the Algerian Civil and Administrative Procedure Code (articles 1006 to 1061) relating to the arbitration matter in Algeria and the recognition and enforcement, in Algeria, of international awards.

Answer contributed by , and

20. Does the state have a history of voluntary compliance with adverse investment treaty awards; or have additional proceedings been necessary to enforce these against the state?

Algeria

Compliance with adverse awards

To the best of our knowledge, to date,  Algeria voluntarily complies with adverse investment treaty awards without additional proceedings.

Answer contributed by , and

21. Describe the national government’s attitude towards investment treaty arbitration.

Algeria

Attitude of government towards investment treaty arbitration

Algeria has not issued any recent statements or announcements regarding its position on investment treaty arbitrations. Algeria does not reject arbitration provisions in investment treaties.

Answer contributed by , and

22. To what extent have local courts been supportive and respectful of investment treaty arbitration, including the enforcement of awards?

Algeria

Attitude of local courts towards investment treaty arbitration

To the best of our knowledge, in the absence of precedent in this matter, there is no substantial evidence demonstrating the local courts’ approach to investment treaty arbitration.

Answer contributed by , and

National legislation protecting inward investments

23. Is there any national legislation that protects inward foreign investment enacted in this country? Describe the content.

Algeria

National

legislation

Substantive protections

Procedural rights

FET

Expropriation

Other

Local courts

Arbitration

Law No. 22-18 of 24 July 2022 on investment

Yes

Yes

National Treatment

Yes

Yes (only if provided for in bilateral or multilateral treaties)

According to Law No. 22-18:

  • Foreign investors and Algerian investors will receive the same treatment.
  • Are covered by Law No. 22-18, investments performed by the means of (i) the acquisition of assets as part of the creation of new activities, the extension of production capacity and/or the refurbishment of production facilities, (ii) the participation in a company's capital in the form of cash or in-kind contributions, and (iii) the relocation of activities from abroad.
  • An investor is defined as any natural or legal person, national or foreign, resident or non-resident, within the meaning of foreign exchange regulations, who makes an investment in accordance with the provisions of this law (see article 5).
  • Investments will not be governed by arbitrary or discriminatory decisions.
  • Investors have access to incentive regimes during the realisation and operation phases of the investments.
  • Article 3 of the law emphasises the following principles:
  • The freedom of invest: any investor wishing to invest in Algeria is free to make decisions regarding his investments as long as they comply with the laws and regulations in force;
  • the transparency and equality in the treatment of investments.
  • The realised investments can only be requisitioned by administrative means in the cases provided by the law.
  • To be eligible for the investment and revenue transfer guarantee, at least 25% of the investment will need to come from the foreign investor’s own funds.

In addition, it has to be noted that Presidential Decree No. 22-296 of 4 September 2022 implemented an administrative appeal for investors before the High National Commission for an appeal linked to investment (Haute commission national des recours liés à linvestissement).

Pursuant to article 6 of Decree No. 22-296, an investor may lodge an appeal with the Commission for any litigation linked to its investment and notably against a decision refusing to grant advantages of incentive regime or to deliver administrative documents or authorisations.

Answer contributed by , and

National legislation protecting outgoing foreign investment

24. Does the country have an investment guarantee scheme or offer political risk insurance that protects local investors when investing abroad? If so, what are the qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and the means by which an investor can invoke the protections?

Algeria

Relevant guarantee scheme

Qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and practical considerations

Extensive BIT network

There is no specific investment guarantee scheme or political risk insurance of Algerian investors investing abroad.

The guarantee scheme implemented is the extension BIT network of Algeria, which has signed nearly 50 BITs. These BITs provide the main framework of protection for Algerian investors investing abroad.

Answer contributed by , and

Awards

25. Please provide a list of any available arbitration awards or cases initiated involving this country’s investment treaties.

Algeria

Awards

Société des Parcs d'Alger and Emirates International Investment Company LLC v People's Democratic Republic Of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/11), Award dated 9 May 2023

United Agencies Limited SA v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/1), Award dated 25 July 2022

Ortiz Construcciones y Proyectos S.A. v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/1), Award dated 29 April 2020

SAUR and STEREAU v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/44), Order taking not of discontinuance of the proceedings dated 7 February 2020

Consutel Group S.p.A. in liquidazione v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (PCA No. 2017-33), Award dated 3 February 2020

Orascom TMT Investments S.à r.l. v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/35), Award dated 31 May 2017

Orascom Telelcom Holding S.A.E v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (PCA Case No. 2012-20), Award dated 12 March 2015

Gelsenwasser AG v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/32), Order taking not of discontinuance of the proceedings dated 27 February 2015

Maersk Olie, Algeriet A/S v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/14), Order taking not of discontinuance of the proceedings dated 30 September 2013

LESI S.p.A. and Astaldi, S.p.A. v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3), Award dated 12 November 2008

Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I.- DIPENTA v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/08), Award dated 10 January 2005

Pending proceedings

Qalaa Holdings and ASEC Cement v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (PCA 2021)

Answer contributed by , and

Reading List

26. Please provide a list of any articles or books that discuss this country’s investment treaties.

Algeria

Article/Book

Céline van Zeebroeck, "Algeria: A new set of laws in Algeria to attract foreign investors", October 2022

Alessandro Bacci, "How Does Algeria Protect Foreign Investors in the Hydrocarbon Sector?", 25 March 2022

Nasr-Eddine Lezzar, 'Chapter 4.1: Algeria', in Lise Bosman (ed), Arbitration in Africa: A Practitioner's Guide (Second Edition), Volume 2nd edition (© Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2021), pp. 413 –420

Middle East and North Africa Investment Policy Perspectives. France, OECD Publishing, 2021

ICSID Reports: Volume 18. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2020

Answer contributed by , and

Unlock unlimited access to all Global Arbitration Review content