Lies, damned lies, and ksmyth.11 Apr 2026 23:19
@ksmyth categorically states that PRD cannot bring their case under the ECT, and that they cannot us no-win, no-fee financing since this involves Ireland. When others point out that he/she is wrong, he/she demands references from them, but provides none of his own, relying instead on his "40 years legal experience in the City". Thank god the companies that I have worked for have never used him/her for legal advice. Here is the real situation.
Energy Charter Treaty.
ECT tribunals heavily emphasise the protection of an investor's legitimate expectations. If a European state created a regulatory environment encouraging investment, accepted applications, and then stalled without explanation, an investor could argue that its reasonable expectations of a timely decision were frustrated.
Article 10(1) protects foreign investors in the energy sector against host state conduct that breaches the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standard or
is unreasonable or discriminatory. These protections are NOT limited to outright refusals — they apply equally to how a state administers the licensing process. The FET standard has been consistently interpreted by ECT tribunals to include an obligation to act within a reasonable timeframe. A state dragging out a licensing decision without legitimate justification can breach this standard, particularly where: * The investor has made substantial expenditure in anticipation of the licence. * The delay is procedurally opaque or unexplained. * There is evidence of political interference or regulatory bad faith. * The delay effectively renders the investment unviable.
Additionally, under Article 13, if a delay is prolonged and severe enough to substantially deprive an investor of the economic value of their investment, it can amount to indirect (or "creeping") expropriation even without formal refusal. Tribunals look at the economic impact, not the legal form of the measure.
Third party funding.
International investment arbitration — including ECT cases — is governed by international procedural rules, not domestic litigation funding rules. Ireland's prohibition on contingency/no-win-no-fee arrangements in domestic litigation is therefore irrelevant to an ECT arbitration. The applicable procedural framework depends on the arbitral rules chosen under ECT Article 26(4): either ICSID (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes), UNCITRAL Rules, or SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce). None of these rule sets prohibit third-party funding or contingency arrangements, take a look at Eurogas Inc. & Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14, and in particular, ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration 2018.
Now please go away.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
