Summary

THE PARTIES
BACKGROUND
THE PARTIES' CASES
JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION 1: THE INTRA-EU OBJECTION
THE STATE'S CASE ON THE INTRA-EU OBJECTION
WHETHER THE ECT DISPUTE IS AN INTRA-EU DISPUTE
WHAT LAW APPLIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT APPLIES TO THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION?
Is there an express choice of law that makes EU law applicable?
Is there an implied choice of law that makes EU law applicable?
DOES ART 26 OF THE ECT APPLY TO AN INTRA-EU DISPUTE?
Article 16 of the ECT
Article 31 of the VCLT
Article 30 of the VCLT
WHETHER THE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (IF ANY) WAS CURED BY THE TIME OF THE ECT AWARD
JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION 2: THE SUBJECT-MATTER OBJECTION
THE DEFINITION OF AN "INVESTMENT" UNDER THE ECT
WHETHER THE SALINI CRITERIA NEED TO BE SATISFIED
JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION 3: THE FORK-IN-THE-ROAD OBJECTION
THE STATE'S CASE ON THE FORK-IN-THE-ROAD OBJECTION
WHETHER "THE INVESTOR" HAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED "THE DISPUTE" IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY "APPLICABLE, PREVIOUSLY AGREED DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE"
PUBLIC POLICY
BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE
CONCLUSION

Arbitration -- Award -- Recourse against award -- Setting aside -- GreenX Metals (formerly Prairie) v. Poland (II) GreenX Metals Limited (formerly Prairie Mining Limited) v. Republic of Poland (PCA Case No. 2021-06) -- ECT -- Energy Charter Treaty

Introduction

The claimant ("State") applied to set aside the Final Award dated 7 October 2024 ("ECT Award") issued by the arbitral tribunal ("Tribunal") constituted under the Energy Charter Treaty (17 December 1994), 2080 UNTS 95 (entered into force 16 April 1998) ("ECT") in PCA Case No 2021-06 ("ECT Arbitration"). This is our judgment on that application.

...

Conclusion

182 For the above reasons, we dismissed the State's application to set aside the ECT Award. Unless the parties can agree on costs, they are to file and exchange costs submissions by 30 January 2026, the text of such submissions being limited to 12 pages (excluding any schedule of disbursements).

...