- SCC arbitral tribunal accepts jurisdiction over intra-EU BIT arbitration, but dismisses claims on merits (Sun Reserve Luxco Holdings v Italy)
- What are the practical implications of this award?
- What was the background?
- Factual background
- Issues before the tribunal
- The Achmea issue
- What did the court decide?
- Tribunal’s finding on jurisdiction
- Tribunal’s findings on liability
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: The investor’s claims in this case arose out of the respondent Italy’s changes to the feed-in tariff for renewable energy producers. The arbitral tribunal hearing those claims against Italy under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), and pursuant to the 2010 Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), accepted that it had jurisdiction over most of the claimant’s claims, despite the Achmea decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and declarations by EU Member States to the contrary. However, it rejected the claims on the merits, finding that the investors did not have any legitimate expectations that the feed-in tariff would not change. The tribunal found that the investors only had a legitimate expectation of ‘fair remuneration’ in relation to one of their plants and that they continued to receive such ‘fair remuneration’ despite the tariff reduction. Evgeniya Rubinina, partner, at Enyo Law LLP reflects on the tribunal’s award and its implications for investment treaty arbitration practitioners.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial