Summary

Source: icsid.worldbank.org

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The present Decision concerns the Request for Bifurcation ("Req. Bif.") made on 9 June 2025 by the Respondent in the present arbitration, which was commenced by Suomi Power Networks TopCo B.V. ("SPN"), Supernova II Bidco BV ("Supernova") and AMF Tjänstepension AB ("AMF") (together, the "Claimants") against the Republic of Finland (the "Respondent" or "Finland") in respect of the Claimants' investment in Caruna, a Finnish group of companies engaged in the distribution of electricity in Finland ("Caruna").

2. The arbitration has been commenced under Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty ("ECT") in respect of Finland's alleged violation of Article 10 of the ECT and Finland's obligations under the applicable rules and principles of international law.

3. The ICSID Acting Secretary-General registered the case on 23 August 2024, and the Tribunal was constituted on 14 February 2025.

4. On 16 April 2025, the Tribunal issued Procedural Orders Nos. 1 and 2 in this proceeding (respectively, "PO1" and "PO2").

5. In accordance with the procedural calendar set forth in PO1, the Claimants submitted a Memorial in support of their claims on 22 May 2025 ("Memorial").

6. The Memorial was then followed by a Request for Bifurcation, which the Respondent submitted on 9 June 2025 on the basis of Rule 43(4) of the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules (the "Rules"), which provides that "the Tribunal may address a preliminary objection in a separate phase of the proceeding or join the objection to the merits." In its Request for Bifurcation, the Respondent advanced three preliminary objections (as described below), which the Respondent considers warrant bifurcation in accordance with Rule 44(2) of the Rules, which directs the Tribunal, when deciding whether to bifurcate, to "consider all relevant circumstances, including whether: (a) bifurcation would materially reduce the time and cost of the proceeding; (b) determination of the preliminary objection would dispose of all or a substantial portion of the dispute; and (c) the preliminary objection and the merits are so intertwined as to make bifurcation impractical."

7. By an Answer on Bifurcation, dated 27 June 2025 ("Answer"), the Claimants submitted that the Tribunal should "reject Finland's Request for Bifurcation, and awards [sic] the Claimants their full costs incurred for this phase of the proceedings."1

8. The Respondent then submitted a Reply on Bifurcation on 7 July 2025 ("Reply"), which was followed by the Claimants' Rejoinder on Bifurcation on 17 July 2025 ("Rej. Bif.").

9. Following its review of the above submissions, the Tribunal has deliberated and agreed upon the decision set forth in Section V below. The Tribunal emphasizes that it has carefully reviewed and considered all of the arguments presented by the Parties, whether or not specifically described in this Procedural Order. The Tribunal summarizes the Parties' arguments below only to the extent that it considers it helpful to do so for the purpose of providing context for its decision.

...

V. DECISION

106. For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent's request for bifurcation is dismissed and the arbitration shall proceed in accordance with the Scenario 1 timetable set forth in the Schedule at Annex B of Procedural Order No. 1 dated 16 April 2025.

107. The Tribunal reserves its decision concerning the costs incurred in respect of the bifurcation request for its Final Award.

...

Footnotes omitted