International arbitration in the energy sector
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 25

International Arbitration in the Energy Sector PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 54 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

International Arbitration in the Energy Sector. Maxi Scherer Queen Mary University of London & WilmerHale Vilnius 21 November 2013. Overview. Importance of Energy Disputes Specificities of Energy Disputes Energy Charter Treaty Disputes. i. Importance of Energy DISPUTES.

Download Presentation

International Arbitration in the Energy Sector

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


International arbitration in the energy sector

International Arbitration in the Energy Sector

Maxi Scherer

Queen Mary University of London & WilmerHale

Vilnius 21 November 2013


Overview

Overview

  • Importance of Energy Disputes

  • Specificities of Energy Disputes

  • Energy Charter Treaty Disputes


I importance of energy disputes

i. Importance of Energy DISPUTES


Why is energy arbitration important

WhyisEnergy Arbitration Important ?

  • Energy is one of the most important sectors in International Arbitration in terms of

    • number of disputes

    • amounts in dispute

  • Complex Issues

  • High-profile disputes

  • Growing sector


Number of disputes 1

Number of Disputes (1)

  • Institutional Caseloads:

    • ICC: 13% (2010), 12.5% (2011), 15% (2012)

    • ICSID: 37% of all cases ever (2013); 30% of new cases (2013)

  • UNCTAD: Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) second most used investment treaty in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

  • Investment treaty arbitration: 9% of all new cases yearly over the last decade concern energy


Number of disputes 2

Number of Disputes (2)

Percentage of cases involving States

Source: ICC Statistical Report 2010


Number of disputes 3

Number of Disputes (3)

Source: ICSID Statistical Report 2013


Amounts in dispute

Amounts in Dispute

  • AAA:600% increase in largest energy claim in just three years, from $60 million (2008) to $360 million (2011)

  • Mega Cases:

    • $100 billion: The “Yukos Cases”

    • $10 billion: Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Turkey

    • €1.4 billion: Vattenfall v. Germany


Satisfaction of users

Satisfaction of Users

  • How well adapted is arbitration to the energy sector?

    • 78% well-suited

    • 56% preferred dispute resolution mechanism

      “Construction and Energy are industries where arbitration is perceived as the preferred mechanism of dispute resolution. It is often said that the enhanced technical nature of disputes in these sectors favours a process where the parties can select the person who will decide the claims.”

      Source: Corporate Choices in International Arbitration, Queen Mary / PWC 2013 Survey http://www.arbitrationonline.org/research/2013/


Satisfaction of users1

Satisfaction of Users

Source: Corporate Choices in International Arbitration, Queen Mary / PWC 2013 Survey http://www.arbitrationonline.org/research/2013/


Ii specificities of energy disputes

iI. Specificities of Energy Disputes


Common features of energy disputes

Common Features of Energy Disputes

  • Large amount in dispute

  • Complex legal and factual issues

  • Long-term contracts (heavy investment in capital and technology)

  • Highly political (sovereignty of national resources)

  • Cyclical market-dependent environment

  • Role of the State in ownership and regulation of natural resources


Typology of energy disputes

Typology of Energy Disputes

  • State v State: boundary disputes (maritime and land)

  • Company v State: investment disputes

  • Company v Company: commercial disputes

  • Individual v Company: tort, negligence, etc in particular human / environmental rights


Iii energy charter treaty disputes

iII. Energy Charter Treaty Disputes


Historical background

Historical Background

European Energy Charter signed in 1991

  • Sets out principles and objectives to govern East/West negotiations on energy issue

  • Political declaration

  • Context: End of Cold War

  • Originally European focus but now global interest

  • Currently 58 signatory parties

    Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) signed in 1994

  • Entry into force 16 April 1998

  • Currently 53 signatory parties

15


Purpose of ect

Purpose of ECT

  • One of the most significant multilateral investment treaties in force

  • Economically important industry sector

  • Politically sensitive area

  • Purpose:

    Article 2: “to establish a legal framework in order to promote long-term cooperation in the energy field.”

    Preamble: encourage economic growth through the adoption of “measures to liberalise investment and trade in energy.”

16


Signatories observers of the ect

Signatories / Observers of the ECT

Countries marked in green are signatories to the Energy Charter Treaty, and members of the Energy Charter Conference.

The countries marked in blue are observers.  

17


Structure ect 1

Structure ECT (1)

“Untidy, user-unfriendly package”

Treaty: Preamble, 8 Parts, 14 Annexes

5 Decisions, 22 Understandings, 8 Declarations (adopted at the same time than the Treaty to assist in its interpretation and application)

Institutional Structure

Energy Charter Conference

Energy Charter Process

Energy Charter Secretariat

18


Structure ect 2

Structure ECT (2)

Trade Provisions (Part II)

Develop open and competitive international market

Transit (Art 7)

Investment Promotion and Protection (Part III)

Pre-Investment: best endeavour

Post-Investment: enforceable obligations including:

Fair-equitable treatment (Art 10(1))

Non-discriminatory treatment (Art 10(1))

Umbrella Clause (Art 10(1))

Full compensation following expropriation (Art 13)

Dispute Settlement (Part V)

19


Dispute settlement options

Dispute Settlement Options

Disputes between Contracting States, Art 27

Disputes between Investor and State, Art 26

Cooling-Off period: 3 months

Investor’s choice of forum:

National courts

Previously-agreed dispute settlement procedure

Treaty arbitration:

ICSID

Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)

ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRALRules

20


Decided pending cases

Decided & Pending Cases

  • AES Summit Generation Ltd. (UK subsidiary of US-based AES Corporation) v. Hungary

  • Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB (Sweden) v. Latvia

  • Plama Consortium Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Bulgaria

  • Petrobart Ltd. (Gibraltar) v. Kyrgyzstan

  • Alstom Power Italia SpA, Alstom SpA (Italy) v. Mongolia

  • Yukos Universal Ltd. (UK – Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation

  • Hulley Enterprises Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation

  • Veteran Petroleum Trust (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation

  • Ioannis Kardassopoulos (Greece) v. Georgia

  • Amto (Latvia) v. Ukraine

  • Hrvatska Elektropriveda d.d. (HEP) (Croatia) v. Republic of Slovenia

  • Libananco Holdings Co. Limited (Cyprus) v. Republic of Turkey

  • Azpetrol International Holdings B.V., Azpetrol Group B.V. and Azpetrol Oil Services Group B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Azerbaijan

  • Barmek Holding A.S. (Turkey) v. Azerbaijan

  • Cementownia "Nowa Huta" S.A. (Poland) v. Republic of Turkey

  • Europe Cement Investment and Trade S.A. (Poland) v. Republic of Turkey

  • Liman Caspian Oil B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Republic of Kazakhstan

  • Electrabel S.A. (Belgium) v. Republic of Hungary

  • AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erőmű Kft. (UK) v. Republic of Hungary

  • Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul (Austria) v. Tajikistan

  • Mercuria Energy Group Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Republic of Poland

  • Alapli Elektrik B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Republic of Turkey

  • Remington Worldwide Limited (UK) v. Ukraine

  • Vattenfall AB, Vattenfall Europe AG, Vattenfall Europe Generation AG & Co. KG (Sweden) v. Federal Republic of Germany

  • EDF International S.A. (France) v. Republic of Hungary

  • EVN AG (Austria) v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  • AES Corporation and Tau Power B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Kazakhstan

  • Ascom S.A. (Moldova) v. Kazakhstan

  • Khan Resources B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Mongolia

  • Türkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortaklığı (Turkey) v. Kazakhstan

  • The PV Investors v. Spain

  • Slovak Gas Holding B.V. (the Netherlands) et al v. Slovak Republic

  • Vattenfall AB (Sweden) et al v. Germanyan Caspian Oil B.V. (the Netherlands) and NCL Dutch Investment ---

21

21


Ect statistics 1

ECTStatistics (1)

Total of 37 cases brought under ECT

6 settlements

15 final awards

16 pending

Claimant successful in approx. 20% of cases

Other cases:

Settlement (approx. 30%)

Denied on jurisdiction

Denied on the merits

Clear preference for ICSID (> 50%)

22


Ect statistics 2

ECT Statistics (2)

Cases according to industry sectors:

Generation and sale of electricity 14

Oil and gas exploration and production10

Downstream petroleum industry3

Nuclear energy4

Mining1

Others or not publicly available5

TOTAL37

23


Ect statistics 3

24

ECT Statistics (3)

Red designates Claimants’ countries

Blue designates Respondents’ countries

Greendesignates countries that are both Claimant and Respondent


Many thanks

Manythanks !

Dr Maxi Scherer

PhD (Sorbonne), LLM (Cologne), MA (Sorbonne) (Hons)

Senior Lecturer in International Arbitration and Energy

Director Paris LLM

Queen Mary, University of London

67-69 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3JB, UK

http://www.ccls.qmul.ac.uk/staff/scherer.html

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

49 Park Lane, London W1K 1PS, UKhttp://www.wilmerhale.com/maxi_scherer/

[email protected]


  • Login