International Arbitration in the Energy Sector
description
Transcript of International Arbitration in the Energy Sector
International Arbitration in the Energy Sector
Maxi SchererQueen Mary University of London &
WilmerHaleVilnius 21 November 2013
Overview
I. Importance of Energy Disputes
II. Specificities of Energy Disputes
III. Energy Charter Treaty Disputes
I. IMPORTANCE OF ENERGY DISPUTES
Why is Energy 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)• 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)
Percentage of cases involving StatesSource: ICC Statistical Report 2010
Number of Disputes (3)
Source: ICSID Statistical Report 2013
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• 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 Users
Source: Corporate Choices in International Arbitration, Queen Mary / PWC 2013 Survey http://www.arbitrationonline.org/research/2013/
II. SPECIFICITIES 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
• 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
15
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
16
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.”
17
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.
18
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
19
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)
20
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:o National courtso Previously-agreed dispute settlement procedureo Treaty arbitration:
- ICSID - Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)- ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules
21
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
22
ECT Statistics (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%)
23
ECT Statistics (2)
Cases according to industry sectors:• Generation and sale of electricity 14• Oil and gas exploration and production 10• Downstream petroleum industry 3• Nuclear energy 4• Mining 1• Others or not publicly available 5TOTAL 37
24
ECT Statistics (3)
Red designates Claimants’ countries Blue designates Respondents’ countriesGreen designates countries that are both Claimant and Respondent
Many thanks !Dr Maxi SchererPhD (Sorbonne), LLM (Cologne), MA (Sorbonne) (Hons)Senior Lecturer in International Arbitration and EnergyDirector Paris LLM Queen Mary, University of London67-69 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3JB, UKhttp://www.ccls.qmul.ac.uk/staff/scherer.htmlWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP49 Park Lane, London W1K 1PS, UKhttp://www.wilmerhale.com/maxi_scherer/ [email protected]