Abstract

The EU's decision to withdraw from the ECT as a whole, in addition to the proclaimed purpose - the treaty's inconsistency with climate goals, is also based on other fundamental considerations: the supremacy of EU law and attempts to exclude the application of the ECT in the resolution of intra-EU disputes. The latter considerations would better explain the interference of the European Commission in arbitrations related to renewable energy sources against the Czech Republic under the ECT, when the Commission placed more emphasis on matters of the contradiction of the state's investment incentive with EU law than on considerations of energy and environmental efficiency. At the same time, we cannot ignore the reports and calls of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change together with climate activists who are filing lawsuits with the ECtHR to withdraw from the ECT due to its abuse by investors and non-compliance with the Paris Agreement. What are the legal challenges for the Czech Republic in not accepting the proposed EU-coordinated withdrawal from the ECT? Can this be considered an underestimation of the role of the ECT following the jurisprudence concerning the Czech Republic within the framework of the ECT? Given the vast literature on this topic, this analysis provides insights into how the Czech Republic’s arbitration cases and regulatory adjustments reflect broader legal and environmental challenges in EU-ECT relations. By examining the intersection of EU law supremacy, climate goals, and investor-state dispute settlements, this article aims to offer a focused analysis of the Czech Republic’s experience, addressing a gap in the literature regarding the Treaty’s future relevance.