Summary

Source: icsid.worldbank.org

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On 31 July 2025, ICSID received an application from a Belgian non-profit organisation, the Climate Action Network Europe ("CAN Europe"), in ICSID Cases Nos. ARB(AF)/23/1 ("EU Arbitration"), ARB/23/48 ("Denmark Arbitration"), and ARB/23/49 ("Germany Arbitration") (collectively, the "Three Arbitrations"), requesting that the Tribunal (a) authorise its filing of a written submission on the merits as a non-disputing party ("NDP"); (b) grant it access to the redacted Memorial and Counter-Memorial on the merits; and (c) make no order for costs against it (the "Application").

...

V. TRIBUNAL'S ANALYSIS

21. The Tribunal has carefully considered CAN Europe's Application and the Parties' Observations as summarised above, against Rule 67 of the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules and Rule 77 of the 2022 ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules, even if it does not address each and every submission made by CAN Europe or the Parties.

22. For the reasons explained below, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to dismiss CAN Europe's Application with an order that CAN Europe and each Party shall bear their own costs.

A. CAN EUROPE'S REQUEST TO FILE A WRITTEN SUBMISSION

23. Rule 67(2) of the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules and Rule 77(2) of the 2022 ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules require the Tribunal to "consider all relevant circumstances", including the criteria set out in Rules 67(2)(a) to (e), and 77(2)(a) to (e). The Tribunal finds that CAN Europe has not satisfied the first three criteria and declines to grant CAN Europe permission to file a proposed submission.

...

B. CAN EUROPE'S REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO THE REDACTED MEMORIALS

43. CAN Europe's request for access to the redacted Memorial and Counter-Memorial is moot since the Tribunal has declined to grant CAN Europe permission to file a written submission. In any event, even if CAN Europe had permission to file a written submission, the Tribunal would not grant it access to the redacted Memorial and Counter-Memorial since both the Claimants and Respondents have objected to the same.

...

C. CAN EUROPE'S REQUEST FOR NO ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST IT

45. Given the Tribunal's decision to deny CAN Europe permission to file a written submission, CAN Europe's submissions on costs, which are premised on the assumption that it is permitted to file a written submission, and the Claimants' submission on costs if the Application were permitted (including its request for security for costs), are moot.72

...

VI. DECISION

49. In the premises, the Tribunal orders that:

a. CAN Europe's Application is dismissed; and

b. CAN Europe and each Party shall bear their own costs.

On behalf of the Tribunal,

...