Energy Charter Treaty

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is a plurilateral investment agreement between 53 European and Central Asian countries. It was signed in 1994 and entered into force in April 1998.

About 30 countries around the world are at different stages of joining the ECT. Burundi, Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) and Mauritania are first in line, followed by Pakistan and Uganda.

The original objective of the ECT was to overcome the political and economic divisions between Eastern and Western Europe after the demise of the Soviet Union, as well as to strengthen Europe’s energy security. European countries wanted to secure the access to fossil fuel resources of the former Soviet countries by protecting foreign energy investments in these countries.

The ECT provides for an Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism to resolve disputes between an investor and a member state. To this day, it is the world’s most widely used legal instrument for initiating ISDS arbitrations. It has been invoked by investors in 124 cases.

Critics argue that as with most other investment agreements, it places investors’ economic rights and interests over the social, ecological and economic interests of host states and their societies. The ECT imposes obligations on the host state but not on foreign investors. The ECT has also been condemned by environmental activists for protecting the fossil fuel industry and undermining serious climate action.

Spain has been subject to 45 arbitration disputes under the ECT after it implemented a series of energy reforms affecting the renewables sector, including a reduction in subsidies for producers. While some cases are still pending, Spain has already been ordered to pay over €800 million.

You can find out more about the Energy Charter Treaty on the ECT’s dirty secrets website.

Key cases include:

Vattenfall (Sweden) vs. Germany: In 2007 the Swedish energy corporation was granted a provisional permit to build a coal-fired power plant near the city of Hamburg. In an effort to protect the Elbe river from the waste waters dumped from the plant, environmental restrictions were added before the final approval of its construction. The investor initiated a dispute, arguing it would make the project unviable. The case was ultimately settled in 2011, with the city of Hamburg agreeing to the lowering of environmental standards.

Yukos (Isle of Man) vs. Russia: Yukos was a Russian oil and gas company. It was acquired from the Russian government during the controversial “loans for shares” auctions of the mid 1990s, whereby some of the largest state industrial assets were leased (in effect privatized) through auctions for money lent by commercial banks to the government. The auctions were rigged and lacked competition, and effectively became a form of selling for a very low price. In 2003, the Yukos CEO was arrested on charges of fraud and tax evasion and the following year Yukos’ assets were frozen or confiscated. In 2007 Yukos’ former shareholders filed a claim for over US$100 billion, seeking compensation for their expropriation. The dispute resulted in 2014 in the arbitrators awarding the majority shareholders over US$50 billion in damages. The investors have been trying to enforce the award in several countries since then.

NextEra (Netherland) vs. Spain: The Dutch investor filed for arbitration in May 2014, after Spain changed the regulatory framework applicable to its investment, namely the construction of two solar power plants. NextEra claimed that Spain abolished the long-term premium and tariff system, negatively affecting the profitability of the project. However, Spain alleged that NextEra should have been aware that changes could be made to the regulatory regime. In May 2019, the investor was awarded around €290 million. Spain filed for annulment in October 2019.

Photo: Marc Maes / Twitter

Last update: April 2020

EJIL: Talk! | 18-Mar-2020
While policies aiming to phase out coal are necessary to tackle climate change, they may give rise to legal claims from companies whose investments are adversely affected by the low-carbon energy transition.
Glasgow Guardian | 16-Mar-2020
Civil society activists and scientific experts denounce the unsustainable practice of investment disputes under the Energy Charter Treaty.
Murcia Economía | 3-Mar-2020
La cifra es muy inferior a los 520 millones que pedían, según el Tribunal de la Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional (Uncitral).
Kluwer Arbitration Blog | 20-Feb-2020
When it issued three interim awards for Yukos, the arbitral tribunal noted that the principle of provisional application of treaties was recognized under Russian law.
RFI | 19-Feb-2020
Un tribunal holandés confirmó en apelación la condena a Rusia a pagar 50.000 millones de dólares en indemnizaciones a los accionistas del antiguo grupo petrolero ruso Yukos, hoy desmantelado.
Libération | 18-Feb-2020
Un tribunal néerlandais a condamné en appel la Russie à verser 50 milliards de dollars d’indemnisation aux ex-actionnaires de l’ancien groupe pétrolier Ioukos, aujourd’hui démantelé.
New York Times | 18-Feb-2020
A Dutch appeals court reinstated an international arbitration panel’s order that it should pay $50 billion compensation to shareholders in former oil company Yukos.
WirtschaftsWoche | 22-Jan-2020
The energy company Vattenfall is demanding compensation from the Federal Republic of Germany. The costs for the arbitration proceedings could exceed 20 million euros this year.
Kluwer Arbitration Blog | 8-Jan-2020
This termination agreement marks the culmination of the European Commission’s and several Member States’ efforts to abolish intra-EU investment arbitration proceedings from the European legal order.
Kluwer Arbitration Blog | 8-Jan-2020
The leaked treaty for the termination of intra-EU BITs can be seen as the culmination of an ongoing effort by the EU Commission to discourage investment arbitration between Member States, reflecting a tension between public international law and EU law.