Navigation

  1. Home
  2. Provisions
  3. Part VI: Transitional Provisions
  4. Article 29: Interim Provisions on Trade-Related Matters
  5. 29(2)

(a) Trade in Energy Materials and Products and Energy-Related Equipment between Contracting Parties at least one of which is not a member of the WTO shall be governed, subject to subparagraph (b) and to the exceptions and rules provided for in Annex W, by the provisions of the WTO Agreement, as applied and practised with regard to Energy Materials and Products and Energy-Related Equipment by members of the WTO among themselves, as if all Contracting Parties were members of the WTO.

(b) Such trade of a Contracting Party which is a state that was a constituent part of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may instead be governed, subject to the provisions of Annex TFU, by an agreement between two or more such states, until 1 December 1999 or the admission of that Contracting Party to the WTO, whichever is the earlier.

Notwithstanding the listing of paragraph 6 of article XXIV of the GATT 1994 in Annex W (A)(1)(a)(i), any signatory affected by an increase in customs duties or other charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation referred to in the first sentence of that paragraph, is entitled to seek consultations in the Charter Conference.

(a) Where a provision of [WTO]1 referred to in this paragraph provides for joint action by [Members of the WTO]2, it is intended that the Charter Conference take such action.3

 

1Editor's note: original "GATT 1947 or a Related Instrument", adapted by editors.

2Editor's note: original "parties to the GATT", adapted by editors.

3Editor's note: part (b) of the Understanding became irrelevant following the entry into force of the Amendment to the Trade-Realted Provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty.

On sait depuis longtemps que travailler avec du texte lisible et contenant du sens est source de distractions, et empêche de se concentrer sur la mise en page elle-même. L'avantage du Lorem Ipsum sur un texte générique comme 'Du texte. Du texte. Du texte.' est qu'il possède une distribution de lettres plus ou moins normale, et en tout cas comparable avec celle du français standard. De nombreuses suites logicielles de mise en page ou éditeurs de sites Web ont fait du Lorem Ipsum leur faux texte par défaut, et une recherche pour 'Lorem Ipsum' vous conduira vers de nombreux sites qui n'en sont encore qu'à leur phase de construction. Plusieurs versions sont apparues avec le temps, parfois par accident, souvent intentionnellement (histoire d'y rajouter de petits clins d'oeil, voire des phrases embarassantes).

JKX Oil & Gas, Poltava Gas B.V. and Poltava Petroleum Company v. Ukraine, SCC

  • >Claimant : JKX Oil & Gas, Poltava Gas B.V., Poltava Petroleum Company
  • >Nationality : UK, Netherlands, Ukraine
  • >Respondent : Ukraine
  • >Procedural rules applied : SCC
  • >Chair : James Crawford
  • >Arbitrator appointed by Claimant : Bernard Hanotiau
  • >Arbitrator appointed by Respondent : Michael Reisman
  • >Invoked instruments : ECT
  • >Case status : Discontinued
  • >Year of registration : 2015

  • >Subject matter of the dispute: Alleged discriminatory State measures, including legislation that temporarily raised royalties on gas production as well as regulations that required private companies to purchase gas from state entity Naftogaz while placing restrictions on other sellers 
  • >Amount claimed: USD 180 million
  • >Amount awarded: N/A
  • >Costs of arbitration: N/A
  • >Award legal costs: N/A
  • >Award costs of arbitration: N/A


RELATION BETWEEN THREE CASES AND EMERGENCY ARBITRATION

On 7 January 2015, the claimants initiated three separate arbitral proceedings against Ukraine: (i) SCC arbitration under the ECT; (ii) ICSID arbitration under the Netherlands-Ukraine BIT; and (iii) UNCITRAL arbitration under the UK-Ukraine BIT. On 14 January 2015, an emergency arbitrator appointed under the SCC Arbitration Rules issued an emergency award ordering Ukraine to refrain from imposing royalties on the production of gas by JKX’s Ukrainian subsidiary in excess of the rate of 28%.

The three proceedings were subsequently consolidated under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. However, by the end of the proceedings, the only claimant which remained was JKX under the UK-Ukraine BIT. It is not clear whether the arbitral tribunal found no jurisdiction under the ECT or the claims under the ECT were withdrawn by the claimants themselves (see IAReporter). A final award was rendered on 6 February 2017 under the UK-Ukraine BIT awarding JKX damages of approximately USD 11.8 million plus interest and costs of USD 0.3 million in relation to subsidiary claims. The award was upheld on 27 October 2017 by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS - EMERGENCY ARBITRATION (Ukraine)

8 June 2015 - Resolution of Pechersk District Court (Ukranian)

17 September 2015 - Resolution of Kyiv Court of Appeal (Ukrainian) 

24 February 2016 - Resolution of the Specialised Higher Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases (English)

17 May 2016 - Resolution of Kyiv Court of Appeal (Ukrainian)

2 October 2016 - Resolution of the Specialised Higher Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases (Ukrainian)

12 December 2016 - Resolution of Kyiv Court of Appeal (Ukrainian)

19 September 2018 - Decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (Ukrainian)