Navigation

  1. Home
  2. Cases
  3. List of cases

As of 15 January 2021, the Secretariat is aware of 135 investment arbitration cases instituted under the Energy Charter Treaty (sometimes invoked together with a bilateral investment treaty). A full list with information is available here

Since parties to investment arbitration under Article 26 ECT are not obliged to notify the Secretariat of the existence or substance of their dispute, some awards (and even the existence of some proceedings) remain confidential. The Secretariat compiles information (which cannot be considered as exhaustive) from delegates and public sources (including specialized reporting services such as Global Arbitration Review (GAR), Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter) and ItaLaw). The Secretariat assumes no responsibility for eventual errors or omissions in these data and welcomes any additional information or clarification on specific cases (at legalaffairs@encharter.org or using the online contact form). Some case reports prepared by TDM/IACL can be found here. 

Advanced search

Reset

There are 136 result(s)

 AES Summit Generation Ltd. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/4 
  • > Claimant : AES Summit Generation Ltd.
  • > Nationality : UK
  • > Respondent : Hungary
  • > Procedural rules applied : ICSID
  • > Chair : Allan Philip
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Claimant : Prosper Weil
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Respondent : Francisco Orrego Vicuña
  • > Invoked instruments : ECT and BIT
  • > Case status : Settlement agreed
  • > Year of the award or agreement : 2002
  • > Year of registration : 2002

  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of Hungary's alleged failure to comply with a power purchase and sale agreement of certain State-owned power facilities
  • > BIT Invoked: Hungary-UK BIT
  • > Amount claimed: N/A
  • > Amount awarded: N/A 
  • > Costs of arbitration: N/A
  • > Award legal costs: N/A
  • > Award costs of arbitration: N/A  


View this article in full page
 Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. Latvia, SCC Case No. 118/2001 

  •                        
  • Flowchart              
  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of a dispute over the purchase price to be paid under a contract entered into between claimant's subsidiary and a State enterprise for the building of a cogeneration plant  
  • > Amount claimed: LVL 7,097,680 + specific performance
  • > Amount awarded: LVL 1,600,000 + specific performance
  • > Valuation method: discretionary amount
  • > Interest rate: "prevailing interest rate" in Latvia 
  • > Costs of arbitration: EUR 253,523
  • > Award legal costs: Claimant was awarded SEK 2,000,000
  • > Award costs of arbitration: Parties share costs equally

 

ARBITRAL DECISION

 

16 December 2003

Arbitral Award

 

30 May 2003 - First Legal Opinion of Adnan Amkhan

June 2003 - Legal Opinion of Thomas Wälde

4 September 2003 - Second Legal Opinion of Adnan Amkhan

1 August 2003 - Legal Opinion of Ove Bring and Richard Happ

 

 


View this article in full page
 Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 

  •                        
  • Flowchart               
  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of the public authorities' and agencies' alleged damage to the operation of the investor's oil refinery, as well as their refusal or delay in adopting adequate corrective measures
  • > BIT invoked: Bulgria-Cyprus BIT
  • > Amount claimed: USD 146,120,152
  • > Amount awarded: ZERO
  • > Costs of arbitration: EUR 253,523
  • > Award legal costs: USD Respondent was awarded 7,460,000
  • > Award costs of arbitration: Costs follow the award

 

ARBITRAL DECISIONS

8 February 2005

Decision on Jurisdiction

6 September 2005

Order Provisionnal Measures

27 August 2008

Arbitral Award 

 

 


View this article in full page
 Petrobart Limited v. Kyrgyz Republic, SCC Case No. 126/2003 

  •                        
  • Flowchart              
  • >  Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of the non-payment of certain deliveries under the gas supply contract, followed by the stay of execution of a debt judgment in favour of the claimant, and a presidential decree pursuant to which the investor's contractual counterparty was restructured and subsequently declared bankrupt
  • >  Amount claimed: USD 4,084,652.20
  • >  Amount awarded: USD 1,130,859 
  • >  Valuation method: discretionary amount 
  • >  Interest rate: UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 
  • >  Costs of arbitration: EUR 147,774 + SEK 16,458
  • >  Award legal costs: Each party bears its own legal costs
  • >  Award costs of arbitration: Parties share costs equally
  • >  Related award: On 13 February 2003 an arbitral tribunal constituted under the UNCITRAL Rules rendered its award on the basis of the Kyrgyz Foreign Investment Law. The award was partially annulled by the Swedish Supreme Court in 2008. This award is not related to the ECT.

 

ARBITRAL DECISION

25 March 2005

Arbitral Award 

18 December 2004 - Supplementary Opinion of Adnan Amkhan

30 October 2004 - Legal Opinion of Adnan Amkhan

 

 


ANNULMENT PROCEEDINGS

19 January 2017 

Judgment of Svea Court of Appeal (unofficial translation)

 


View this article in full page
 Alstom Power Italia SpA and Alstom SpA v. Mongolia, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/10 
  • > Claimant : Alstom Power Italia SpA, Alstom SpA
  • > Nationality : Italy, Italy
  • > Respondent : Mongolia
  • > Procedural rules applied : ICSID
  • > Chair : Marc Lalonde
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Claimant : Jan Paulsson
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Respondent : Anthony Mason
  • > Invoked instruments : ECT and BIT
  • > Case status : Settlement agreed
  • > Year of the award or agreement : 2006
  • > Year of registration : 2004

  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of disagreements between the investor and local authorities over works to be performed under a contract for the refurbishment of a thermal electric station 
  • > BIT invoked: Italy-Mongolia BIT
  • > Amount claimed: N/A
  • > Amount awarded: N/A
  • > Costs of arbitration: N/A
  • > Award legal costs: N/A
  • > Award costs of arbitration: N/A


View this article in full page
 Yukos Universal Limited v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227 
  • > Claimant : Yukos Universal Limited
  • > Nationality : UK (Isle of Man)
  • > Respondent : Russian Federation
  • > Procedural rules applied : UNCITRAL (PCA)
  • > Chair : Yves Fortier
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Claimant : Charles Poncet
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Respondent : Stephen Schwebel
  • > Invoked instruments : ECT
  • > Articles mentioned : Article 21 (1)
  • , Article 26 (1)
  • , Article 26 (6)
  • , Article 26 (8)
  • , Article 21 (7)
  • , Article 21 (5)
  • , Article 17 (1)
  • , Article 10 (7)
  • , Article 10 (3)
  • , Article 10 (1)
  • , Article 7 (10)
  • , Article 1 (2)
  • , Article 1 (6)
  • , Article 1 (7)
  • , Article 13
  • , Article 32
  • , Article 39
  • , Article 45
  • > Breaches alleged :  
  • > Breaches found : (13.1) Indirect expropriation
  • > Case status : Award rendered
  • > Year of the award or agreement : 2014
  • > Follow-on proceedings : Pending national court decision on annulment
  • > Year of registration : 2005

  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged illegal expropriation of claimant’s investments in Yukos Oil Company
  • > Amount claimed: USD 114,174 billion (Yukos Universal Limited v. Russian Federation, Hulley Enterprises Limited v. Russian Federation, and Veteran Petroleum Limited v. Russian Federation combined)
  • > Amount awarded: USD 1,846,000,687
  • > Valuation method: hybrid approach (market-based approach (comparable companies - RTS Oil & Gas Index) + discounted cash flow)
  • > Interest rate: US Treasury bonds (10-year)
  • > Costs of arbitration: EUR 156,476
  • > Award legal costs: Claimant was awarded USD 2,214,277
  • > Award costs of arbitration: Costs follow the award

 

ARBITRAL DECISIONS

30 November 2009 

Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

18 July 2014

Final Award        

ANNULMENT PROCEEDINGS

20 April 2016 

Judgment of the Hague District Court

25 September 2018

Ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal - Dutch | English (unofficial translation)

18 February 2020

Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal - Dutch | English (unofficial translation)

ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS (Belgium - France - United Kingdom - United States)

Belgium:

24 June 2016 - Decision of Antwerp Court of First Instance

9 December 2016 - Judgment of the Brussels Francophone Court of First Instance

27 April 2017 - Decision of Belgian Consitutionnal Court

20 February 2018 - Decision Brussels Court Appeal on Enforcement I

20 February 2018 - Decision Brussels Court Appeal on Enforcement II


France:

10 February 2017 - Decision of the Tribunal of Grande Instance d'Ivry


United States:

30 September 2016 - Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

18 August 2017 - Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

9 December 2017 - Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia


View this article in full page
 Hulley Enterprises Limited v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 226 
  • > Claimant : Hulley Enterprises Limited
  • > Nationality : Cyprus
  • > Respondent : Russian Federation
  • > Procedural rules applied : UNCITRAL (PCA)
  • > Chair : Yves Fortier
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Claimant : Charles Poncet
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Respondent : Stephen Schwebel
  • > Invoked instruments : ECT
  • > Articles mentioned : Article 21 (1)
  • , Article 26 (1)
  • , Article 26 (6)
  • , Article 26 (8)
  • , Article 21 (7)
  • , Article 21 (5)
  • , Article 17 (1)
  • , Article 10 (7)
  • , Article 10 (3)
  • , Article 10 (1)
  • , Article 7 (10)
  • , Article 1 (1)
  • , Article 1 (2)
  • , Article 1 (7)
  • , Article 13
  • , Article 32
  • , Article 39
  • , Article 45
  • > Breaches alleged :  
  • > Breaches found : (13.1) Indirect expropriation
  • > Case status : Award rendered
  • > Year of the award or agreement : 2014
  • > Follow-on proceedings : Pending national court decision on annulment
  • > Year of registration : 2005

  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged illegal expropriation of claimant’s investments in Yukos Oil Company
  • > Amount claimed: USD 114,174 billion (Yukos Universal Limited v. Russian Federation, Hulley Enterprises Limited v. Russian Federation, and Veteran Petroleum Limited v. Russian Federation combined)
  • > Amount awarded: USD 39,971,834,360
  • > Valuation method: hybrid approach (market-based approach (comparable companies - RTS Oil & Gas Index) + discounted cash flow)
  • > Interest rate: US Treasiry bond (10-year)
  • > Costs of arbitration: EUR 3,388,197
  • > Award legal costs: Claimant was awarded USD 47,946,190
  • > Award costs of arbitration: Costs follow the award

 

ARBITRAL DECISIONS

30 November 2009 

Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

18 July 2014

Final Award        

ANNULMENT PROCEEDINGS

20 April 2016 

Judgment of the Hague District Court

25 September 2018

Ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal - Dutch | English (unofficial translation)

18 February 2020

Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal - Dutch | English (unofficial translation)

ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS (Belgium - France - United Kingdom - United States)

Belgium:

24 June 2016 - Decision of Antwerp Court of First Instance

9 December 2016 - Judgment of the Brussels Francophone Court of First Instance

27 April 2017 - Decision of Belgian Consitutionnal Court

20 February 2018 - Decision Brussels Court Appeal on Enforcement I

20 February 2018 - Decision Brussels Court Appeal on Enforcement II


France:

10 February 2017 - Decision of the Tribunal of Grande Instance d'Ivry


United States:

30 September 2016 - Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

18 August 2017 - Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

9 December 2017 - Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia


View this article in full page
 Veteran Petroleum Limited v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228 
  • > Claimant : Veteran Petroleum Limited
  • > Nationality : Cyprus
  • > Respondent : Russian Federation
  • > Procedural rules applied : UNCITRAL (PCA)
  • > Chair : Yves Fortier
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Claimant : Charles Poncet
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Respondent : Stephen Schwebel
  • > Invoked instruments : ECT
  • > Articles mentioned : Article 21 (1)
  • , Article 26 (1)
  • , Article 26 (6)
  • , Article 26 (8)
  • , Article 21 (7)
  • , Article 21 (5)
  • , Article 17 (1)
  • , Article 10 (7)
  • , Article 10 (3)
  • , Article 10 (1)
  • , Article 1 (2)
  • , Article 1 (6)
  • , Article 1 (7)
  • , Article 13
  • , Article 32
  • , Article 39
  • , Article 45
  • > Breaches alleged :  
  • > Breaches found : (13.1) Indirect expropriation
  • > Case status : Award rendered
  • > Year of the award or agreement : 2014
  • > Follow-on proceedings : Pending national court decision on annulment
  • > Year of registration : 2005

  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of the Government’s alleged illegal expropriation of claimant’s investments in Yukos Oil Company
  • > Amount claimed: USD 114,174 billion (Yukos Universal Limited v. Russian Federation, Hulley Enterprises Limited v. Russian Federation, and Veteran Petroleum Limited v. Russian Federation combined)
  • > Amount awarded: USD 8,203,032,751
  • > Valuation method: hybrid approach (market-based approach (comparable companies - RTS Oil & Gas Index) + discounted cash flow)
  • > Interest rate: US Treasury securities
  • > Costs of arbitration: EUR 695,327
  • > Award legal costs: Claimant was awarded USD 9,839,533
  • > Award costs of arbitration: Costs follow the award

 

ARBITRAL DECISIONS

30 November 2009 

Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

18 July 2014

Final Award        

ANNULMENT PROCEEDINGS

20 April 2016 

Judgment of the Hague District Court

25 September 2018

Ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal - Dutch | English (unofficial translation)

18 February 2020

Judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal - Dutch | English (unofficial translation)

ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS (Belgium - France - United Kingdom - United States)

Belgium:

24 June 2016 - Decision of Antwerp Court of First Instance

9 December 2016 - Judgment of the Brussels Francophone Court of First Instance

27 April 2017 - Decision of Belgian Consitutionnal Court

20 February 2018 - Decision Brussels Court Appeal on Enforcement I

20 February 2018 - Decision Brussels Court Appeal on Enforcement II


France:

10 February 2017 - Decision of the Tribunal of Grande Instance d'Ivry


United States:

30 September 2016 - Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

18 August 2017 - Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

9 December 2017 - Memorandum Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia


View this article in full page
 Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18 
  • > Claimant : Ioannis Kardassopoulos
  • > Nationality : Greece
  • > Respondent : Georgia
  • > Cases : Interest rate
  • > Procedural rules applied : ICSID
  • > Chair : Yves Fortier
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Claimant : Francisco Orrego Vicuña
  • > Arbitrator appointed by Respondent : Vaughan Lowe (Arthur Watts replaced)
  • > Invoked instruments : ECT and BIT
  • > Articles mentioned : Article 45 (2)
  • , Article 45 (1)
  • , Article 26 (8)
  • , Article 1 (2)
  • , Article 1 (6)
  • , Article 1 (7)
  • , Article 13
  • , Article 26
  • , Article 44
  • > Breaches alleged :  
  • > Breaches found : (13.1) Direct expropriation
  • (10.1) Fair and equitable treatment
  • > Case status : Award rendered
  • > Year of the award or agreement : 2010
  • > Follow-on proceedings : ICSID annulment & revision proceedings discontinued
  • > Year of registration : 2010

  •                        
  • Flowchart               
  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Government's decree cancelling the concession rights of an investment vehicle, in which the investor held interests, devoted to the development of an oil pipeline to transport oil and gas from Azerbaijan to the Black Sea
  • > BIT invoked: Georgia-Greece BIT
  • > Amount claimed: USD 15,850,137.901
  • > Amount awarded: USD 15.1 million
  • > Valuation method: hybrid approach (market-based approach (comparable arm's length transactions) + discounted cash flow)
  • > Interest rate: LIBOR + 4%
  • > Costs of arbitration: Not specified 
  • > Award legal costs: Claimant was awarded total USD 7,942,297 (including arbitration costs)
  • > Award costs of arbitration: Costs follow the award

 

ARBITRAL DECISIONS

 

6 July 2007

Decision on Jurisdiction

 

3 March 2010

Arbitral Award 

 

 

ANNULMENT PROCEEDINGS

21 March 2011

Decision to Suspend the Annulment Proceeding


ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

10 November 2011 - Claimants request for the recognition and enforcement of Arbitral Award

19 January 2011 - Decision to terminate the stay of the enforcement proceeding

12 November 2010 - Decision to stay the enforcement of the award

 


View this article in full page
 Limited liability company Amto v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 080/2005 

  •                        
  • Flowchart              
  • > Subject matter of the dispute: Claims arising out of the bankruptcy of the Zaporozhskaya nuclear power plant and its default under contracts to claimant's subsidiary for maintenance works carried out at such plant; particularly, the alleged prevention by Ukrainian bankruptcy law and the conduct of these bankruptcy proceedings from enforcing several court orders obtained by claimant's subsidiary against the State-owned company 
  • > Amount claimed: EUR 15,594,096
  • > Amount awarded: ZERO
  • > Costs of arbitration: EUR 371,175.75
  • > Award legal costs: Each party bears its own legal costs
  • > Award costs of arbitration: Each party bears its own legal costs

 

ARBITRAL DECISION

 

26 March 2008

Final Award 

 


View this article in full page

Page 1 of 14.