Energy Charter Treaty

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is a plurilateral investment agreement between 53 European and Central Asian countries. It was signed in 1994 and entered into force in April 1998.

About 30 countries around the world are at different stages of joining the ECT. Burundi, Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) and Mauritania are first in line, followed by Pakistan and Uganda.

The original objective of the ECT was to overcome the political and economic divisions between Eastern and Western Europe after the demise of the Soviet Union, as well as to strengthen Europe’s energy security. European countries wanted to secure the access to fossil fuel resources of the former Soviet countries by protecting foreign energy investments in these countries.

The ECT provides for an Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism to resolve disputes between an investor and a member state. To this day, it is the world’s most widely used legal instrument for initiating ISDS arbitrations. It has been invoked by investors in 124 cases.

Critics argue that as with most other investment agreements, it places investors’ economic rights and interests over the social, ecological and economic interests of host states and their societies. The ECT imposes obligations on the host state but not on foreign investors. The ECT has also been condemned by environmental activists for protecting the fossil fuel industry and undermining serious climate action.

Spain has been subject to 45 arbitration disputes under the ECT after it implemented a series of energy reforms affecting the renewables sector, including a reduction in subsidies for producers. While some cases are still pending, Spain has already been ordered to pay over €800 million.

You can find out more about the Energy Charter Treaty on the ECT’s dirty secrets website.

Key cases include:

Vattenfall (Sweden) vs. Germany: In 2007 the Swedish energy corporation was granted a provisional permit to build a coal-fired power plant near the city of Hamburg. In an effort to protect the Elbe river from the waste waters dumped from the plant, environmental restrictions were added before the final approval of its construction. The investor initiated a dispute, arguing it would make the project unviable. The case was ultimately settled in 2011, with the city of Hamburg agreeing to the lowering of environmental standards.

Yukos (Isle of Man) vs. Russia: Yukos was a Russian oil and gas company. It was acquired from the Russian government during the controversial “loans for shares” auctions of the mid 1990s, whereby some of the largest state industrial assets were leased (in effect privatized) through auctions for money lent by commercial banks to the government. The auctions were rigged and lacked competition, and effectively became a form of selling for a very low price. In 2003, the Yukos CEO was arrested on charges of fraud and tax evasion and the following year Yukos’ assets were frozen or confiscated. In 2007 Yukos’ former shareholders filed a claim for over US$100 billion, seeking compensation for their expropriation. The dispute resulted in 2014 in the arbitrators awarding the majority shareholders over US$50 billion in damages. The investors have been trying to enforce the award in several countries since then.

NextEra (Netherland) vs. Spain: The Dutch investor filed for arbitration in May 2014, after Spain changed the regulatory framework applicable to its investment, namely the construction of two solar power plants. NextEra claimed that Spain abolished the long-term premium and tariff system, negatively affecting the profitability of the project. However, Spain alleged that NextEra should have been aware that changes could be made to the regulatory regime. In May 2019, the investor was awarded around €290 million. Spain filed for annulment in October 2019.

Last update: April 2020

Out-Law | 24-Sep-2020
Investors in renewable energy projects in Ukraine are considering legal action after feed-in tariffs for solar and onshore wind power plants were reduced retroactively to 2015, according to an expert.
El Diario | 23-Sep-2020
El Gobierno ve en la limitación de los arbitrajes de inversión entre Estados miembros de la Unión Europea una posible vía para evitar en el futuro el pago de las indemnizaciones reclamadas por inversores europeos por el recorte a las energías renovables.
CEO | 22-Sep-2020
The Energy Charter Treaty, which hardly anyone knows about, is a powerful instrument for fossil fuels companies to prevent climate protection.
CIAR Global | 18-Sep-2020
La segunda ronda de negociaciones sobre la modernización del Tratado de la Carta de la Energía (TCE) tuvo lugar entre el 8 y el 11 de septiembre de 2020 y uno de los protagonistas del debate fue la “Solución de controversias”, el sistema de arbitraje contemplado en el tratado.
AFTINET | 17-Sep-2020
A written submission from Japan published by the ECT secretariat rejected language on the “right to regulate” and changes to the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism.
Climate Home News | 16-Sep-2020
Negotiators have ruled out an overhaul of private courts that allow energy companies to sue national governments when climate change policies hurt their profits.
Climate Home News | 10-Sep-2020
A British oil and gas company is using a controversial energy treaty to sue Slovenia, after being required to carry out an environmental impact assessment
First News | 10-Sep-2020
Australian mining firm Prairie Mining has launched international arbitration proceedings against Poland, claiming damages for the alleged hindering of the development of its two coal mines located in the country.
Equal Times | 8-Sep-2020
¿Podemos incrementar la urgencia (y acción) climática y al mismo tiempo proteger los combustibles fósiles que provocan el cambio climático?
Novethic | 8-Sep-2020
Le Traité sur la charte de l’énergie, signé en 1994 par l’Europe et les pays de l’ancien bloc soviétique, donne aux investisseurs la possibilité d’attaquer les gouvernements qui modifieraient leur politique énergétique.

0 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | ... | 230