1. Brussels International Energy Charter Forum
Is There A Need To Revise The ECT’s Substantive Investment Protections?
Dr. Claudia Annacker
May 12, 2017

2. Article 10(1) – Treatment Standards
[emphases added]

3. Article 10(1), First Sentence – Directly Opposite Outcomes In Remington v. Ukraine and AMTO v. Ukraine
S. Jagusch, A. Sinclair, P. Devenish, The Energy Charter Treaty: The Range of Disputes and Decisions in: D. Bishop, G. Kaiser (eds.), The Guide to Energy Arbitrations (Global Arbitration Review, 2015), p. 44; AMTO LLC v. Ukraine, SCC Case No 080/2005, Final Award of March 26 March 2008, ¶¶ 113, 115
[emphases added]

4. Article 10(1) – AES v. Kazakhstan: First Sentence Does Not Provide For An Independent Standard Of Protection
AES Corporation and TAU Power B.V. v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/16, Award of November 1, 2013, ¶¶
[emphases added]

5. Article 10(1) – Most Constant Protection And Security Clause
[emphasis added]

6. Article 10(1) – Liman v. Kazakhstan: Most Constant Protection And Security Standard Is Limited To Protection From Physical Harm
Liman Caspian Oil BV and NCL Dutch Investment BV v. Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/14, Award of June 22, 2010, ¶ 289
[emphasis added]

7. Article 10(1) – Al-Bahloul v
Article 10(1) – Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan: Suggests That Most Constant Protection And Security Standard Could Extend To Legal Security
Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan, SCC Case No 064/2008, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability of September 2, 2009, ¶ 246; K. Hobér, Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol. 1, No. 1 (2010), p. 158
[emphases added]

8. Article 10(1) – Umbrella Clause
[emphasis added

9. Article 10(1) – Plama v. Bulgaria And Liman v
Article 10(1) – Plama v. Bulgaria And Liman v. Kazakhstan: Suggest That Umbrella Clause Could Encompass Statutory Obligations
Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award of August 27, 2008, ¶ 186; Liman Caspian Oil BV and NCL Dutch Investment BV v. Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/14, Award of June 22, 2010, ¶ 448
[Emphases added]

10. Article 10(1) – Al-Bahloul v
Article 10(1) – Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan: Umbrella Clause Does Not Encompass “General Obligations Of The State Arising As A Matter Of Law”
[emphasis added]
Al-Bahloul v Tajikistan, SCC Case No 064/2008, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability of September 2, 2009, ¶ 257

11. Article 10(12) – Obligation To Ensure Effective Means For The Assertion Of Claims
[emphasis added]

12. Article 10(12) – Petrobart v
Article 10(12) – Petrobart v. Kyrgyzstan: Effective Means Clause Protects Against Individual Failure
Petrobart Limited v. Kyrgyzstan, SCC Case No 126/2003, Award of March 29, 2005, p. 77
[emphasis added]

13. Article 10(12) – AMTO v. Ukraine: Effective Means Clause Protects Only Against Systemic Failure
AMTO LLC v. Ukraine, SCC Case No 080/2005, Final Award of March 26 March 2008, ¶ 88
[emphases added]

14. Article 10(7) – National Treatment And Most Favored Nation Standards
[emphasis added]

15. Article 10(7) – Does MFN Treatment Extend To Individual Investment Agreements?
C.P. Andrews-Speed, T. Wälde, Will the Energy Charter Treaty help international energy investors?, Transnational Corporations Vol. 5 (1996), p. 44
[emphasis added]

16. Article 10(1) – Obligation To Create “Stable, Equitable, Favourable And Transparent Conditions”
[emphasis added]

17. Article 10(1) – Does The Obligation To Create “Stable, Equitable, Favourable And Transparent Conditions” Apply At All Stages Of The Investment?
T. Wälde, International Investment under the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty, Journal of World Trade, vol. 29 (1995), p. 30; Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award of August 27, 2008, ¶ 172
[emphases added]

18. Article 10(1) – Fair And Equitable Treatment Standard
[emphasis added

19. Article 10(1) – Obligation Not To Accord “Treatment Less Favourable Than That Required By International Law, Including Treaty Obligations”
[emphases added]

20. Article 10(1) - Does The Obligation To Accord Treatment No Less Favorable Than Required By International Law Apply To Treaty Obligations That Do Not Give Rise To Individual Causes Of Action?
T. Roe, M. Happold, Settlement of Investment Disputes under the Energy Charter Treaty (2011), p. 119; Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability of November 30, 2012, ¶¶
[emphases added]

21. Article 10(1) – Does The Umbrella Clause In Conjunction With Article 22 ECT Elevate Contractual Breaches By State Enterprises To ECT Violations?
[emphases added]

22. Article 10(1) – Does The Umbrella Clause In Conjunction With Article 22 ECT Elevate Contractual Breaches By State Enterprises To ECT Violations?
K. Hobér, Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2010), p. 159
[emphases added]

23. Article 10(1) – AMTO v. Ukraine: No State Responsibility For Contractual Breaches By State Enterprises
AMTO LLC v. Ukraine, SCC Case No 080/2005, Final Award of March 26, 2008, ¶¶
[emphases added]