Summary

I. THE PARTIES

A. The Claimants
B. The Respondent

IL THE DISPUTE

III. THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE

IV. ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

VI. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

A. The Claimants' Requests for Relief
B. The Respondent's Requests for Relief

VII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Policy with regard to Solar Energy
B. Characteristics of Solar Energy Production
C. Spain's Regulatory framework for solar energy and photovoltaic facilities
D. The Claimants' investment in the Spanish electricity market
E. Measures challenged by the Claimants

VIII. JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY

SECTION A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Basis ofjurisdiction
B. Overview of objections to jurisdiction and admissibility
C. The Tribunal determines its jurisdiction ex officio

SECTION B. THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION

SECTION C. GENERAL OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION RATIONE PERSONAE

A. The Respondent's arguments
B. The Claimants' arguments
C. The Commission's Amicus Curiae Brief
D. The Tribunal's decision

SECTION D. GENERAL OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION RATIONE VOLUNTATIS
A. The Respondent's arguments
B. The Claimants' arguments
C. The Commission's Amicus Curiae brief
D. The Tribunal's decision

SECTION E. PARTIAL OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY

IX. COSTS

X. DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

...

II. THE DISPUTE

The current dispute pertains to different investments in photovoltaic plants ("PV plants') in the Spanish solar energy market. The relevant investments were made between 2008 and 2011, and allegedly intended to profit from the applicable regulatory framework providing, inter alia, a favourable tariff regime based on State subsidies. As a result of different factors, the Respondent adopted several measures between 2010 and 2014 which altered this regulatory framework. The Claimants argue that these alterations violated the Respondent's obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty ("ECT") and international law and impacted its investments in the Spanish energy market. The Claimants accordingly claim payment of compensation.

II. THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE

6. The Claimants have started the present arbitration proceedings by their Request for Arbitration of 8 September 2016, submitted to the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce ('SCC'), and referring to Article 26 of the ECT, which entered into force for both, the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Spain, on 16 April 1998. Article 26(4)(c) ECT provides for 'arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Institution of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce'.

IV. ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

7. The Arbitration Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), appointed under Article 13 of the SCC Arbitration Rules ('SCC Rules'), consists of:

Prof. Dr. Hans van Houtte
...
Dr. Inka Hanefeld
...
Prof. Dr. Jorge E. Viñuales ...

...

X. DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

493, The Tribunal hereby:

(i) Declares that it has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims;

(ii) Dismisses the Claimants' claims;

(iii) Dismisses the Respondent's Claim to dismiss the Claimants' claims as to the merits and for damages;

(iv) Dismisses the Parties' claims that the other Party pays for the costs and expenses of the arbitration proceedings;

(v) Orders the Claimant Green Power to pay 25 % of the costs of arbitration as specified supra in para. 482.

(vi) Orders the Claimant SCE to pay 25 % of the costs of arbitration as specified supra in para. 482.

(vii) Orders the Respondent, Kingdom of Spain, to pay 50 % of the costs of arbitration as specified supra in para. 482.

(viii) Orders that each Party bears the costs of its legal representation and other expenses to conduct the arbitration proceedings.

Seat: Stockholm

Date: 16 June 2022