The move comes six months after Invenergy formally notified the Polish government of its intention to seek international arbitration if the dispute was not resolved in an amicable way.

Since then, Invenergy said it had received continued denials from the Polish government. "The Polish government's lack of willingness to cooperate and denials of established facts are a major threat to the bedrocks of foreign investment and international law," Invenergy chief legal officer Michael Blazer said.

Invenergy has now issued a notice of arbitration to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law under the US-Poland bilateral investment treaty.

The US firm cited "violations of Invenergy's rights as a foreign investor and clear breaches of Poland's obligations" under the treaty.

"We of course first turned to the Polish courts for relief from these actions. But in those cases, multiple Polish state-controlled entities have openly disregarded final and binding decisions by the Polish courts, including the supreme court, leaving Invenergy helpless to enforce its rights within the Polish system," said Blazer.

"Given the disregard of fair and equitable treatment of a foreign investor in Poland, Invenergy has no choice but to seek relief through international arbitration under the bilateral investment treaty."

Invenergy claims a subsidiary of majority-state-owned utility Tauron Polska Energie "destroyed the financial viability" of Invenergy’s investments in four wind projects, with damages amounting to around $700 million (€592.17 million).

Tauron began proceedings to liquidate the subsidiary, thereby annulling any power deals, in July 2014, but this liquidation was never formally completed.

The Polish utility insisted the liquidation process was "in line with Polish law, foreign investment protection, contract loyalty principles and good trading habits".

However, Invenergy said the state firm "initiated a series of coordinated actions intended to terminate or avoid obliagations under the Invenergy contracts". </s> A US renewable energy group Invenergy said on Tuesday it had begun international arbitration against Poland, claiming it stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars (euros) after the EU country reneged on its commitments to build wind farms.

Between 2005 and 2015, Invenergy built 11 wind farms in Poland, investing "hundreds of millions of dollars of equity capital to develop and construct the projects."

They had been agreed as part of strategy to slowly wean Poland off its heavy reliance on coal and increase the share of renewables in its energy mix.

But the current new government under the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party is more favourable to the coal industry and has put the brakes on the renewables drive.

Last year, it pushed through legislation limiting existing subsidies for wind farms and imposing tight restrictions on the construction of new ones.

Critics, including Invenergy, argue such measures make it virtually impossible for wind farms to turn a profit or for new ones to be built.

Invenergy accused Warsaw of initiating "a series of coordinated actions intended to terminate or avoid obligations under the Invenergy contracts and destabilize the broader renewable energy environment for investors."

It said its 11 eleven wind farms remain operational but were not profitable. And it was putting further wind farm projects in Poland on hold.

Invenergy said it was forced to turn to international arbitration after "multiple Polish state-controlled entities openly disregarded final and binding decisions by the Polish courts, including the Supreme Court" that have ruled in the company's favour.

Neither the prime minister's office nor the energy ministry were immediately available for comment.

Both the current right-wing government and previous administrations have based their energy policy on plentiful domestic coal and taken little action to invest in or promote renewables to mitigate heavy pollution.

Smog from coal has spiked to record levels nationwide in recent years, with experts estimating there are some 50,000 premature pollution-related deaths per year in the country of 38 million people.

Poland is set to host the UN's COP 24 international conference on climate change late this year. </s> AMSTERDAM: Iran has filed a suit against the United States alleging that Washington's decision in May to impose sanctions after pulling out of a nuclear deal violates a 1955 treaty between the two countries, the International Court of Justice said on Tuesday.

President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran reached by his predecessor Barack Obama and other world powers, and ordered tough U.S. sanctions on Tehran. Under the 2015 deal, which Trump sees as flawed, Iran reined in its disputed nuclear programme under U.N. monitoring and won a removal of international sanctions in return.

The ICJ, also known as the World Court, is the United Nations tribunal for resolving international disputes. Iran's filing asks the ICJ to order the United States to provisionally lift its sanctions ahead of more detailed arguments.

"Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of U.S. contempt for diplomacy and legal obligations," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a statement on Monday with respect to Tehran's lawsuit at the ICJ.

Iran said in its filing that Trump's move "has violated and continued to violate multiple provisions" of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, signed long before the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted the U.S.-allied shah and triggered decades of hostile relations with Washington.

The U.S. State Department could not immediately be reached for comment. In a suit filed by Iran in 2016 based on the same 1955 treaty, Washington argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction. The court has scheduled hearings in that case in October.

The next step in Iran's new suit will be a hearing in which the United States is likely to contest whether it merits a provisional ruling. The court has not yet set any date, but hearings on requests for provisional rulings usually are heard within several weeks, with a decision coming within months.

Although the ICJ is the highest United Nations court and its decisions are binding, it has no power to enforce them, and countries - including the United States - have occasionally ignored them.

The spectre of new U.S. sanctions, particularly those meant to block oil exports that are the lifeline of Iran's economy, has caused a rapid fall in the Iranian currency and triggered street protests over fears economic hardships will soon worsen.

Trump's administration has indicated it wants a new deal with Iran that would cover the Islamic Republic's regional military activities and ballistic missile programme.

Iran has said both are non-negotiable and the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal including major European allies Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, remain committed to it. </s> AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Iran has filed a lawsuit against the United States alleging that Washington’s decision in May to impose sanctions after pulling out of a nuclear deal violates a 1955 treaty between the two countries, the International Court of Justice said on Tuesday.

FILE PHOTO: An Iranian flag flutters in front of the United Nations headquarters, during an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors meeting, in Vienna, March 4, 2015. REUTERS/Heinz-Peter Bader

A State Department official said the application was without merit and the United States would fight it in the court.

“While we cannot comment on the specifics, Iran’s application is baseless and we intend to vigorously defend the United States before the ICJ,” a State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters.

President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran reached by his predecessor Barack Obama and other world powers, and ordered tough U.S. sanctions on Tehran. Under the 2015 deal, which Trump sees as flawed, Iran reined in its disputed nuclear program under U.N. monitoring and won a removal of international sanctions in return.

The ICJ, which is based in The Hague and is also known as the World Court, is the United Nations tribunal for resolving international disputes. Iran’s filing asks the ICJ to order the United States to provisionally lift its sanctions ahead of more detailed arguments.

“Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of U.S. contempt for diplomacy and legal obligations,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a tweet on Monday, referring to Tehran’s lawsuit at the ICJ.

Iran said in its filing that Trump’s move “has violated and continued to violate multiple provisions” of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, signed long before the 1979 Islamic Revolution that ousted the U.S.-allied shah and triggered decades of hostile relations with Washington.

In a lawsuit filed by Iran in 2016 based on the same 1955 treaty, Washington argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction. The court has scheduled hearings in that case in October.

The next step in Iran’s new lawsuit will be a hearing in which the United States is likely to contest whether it merits a provisional ruling. The court has not yet set a date, but hearings on requests for provisional rulings usually are heard within several weeks, with a decision coming within months.

Although the ICJ is the highest United Nations court and its decisions are binding, it has no power to enforce them, and countries - including the United States - have occasionally ignored them.

The specter of new U.S. sanctions, particularly those meant to block oil exports that are the lifeline of Iran’s economy, has caused a rapid fall in the Iranian currency and triggered street protests over fears economic hardships will soon worsen.

The Trump administration has indicated it wants a new deal with Iran that would cover the Islamic Republic’s regional military activities and ballistic missile program.

Iran has said both are non-negotiable, and the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal including major European allies Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, remain committed to it. </s> WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland should decide how it manages one of Europe’s last ancient forests in the years ahead, not the EU’s top court, environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk said, setting up a possible confrontation in one of a series of disputes with Brussels.

The European Court of Justice is due to rule in April on an EU complaint that Warsaw’s decision in 2016 to allow more commercial logging in Bialowieza Forest broke the bloc’s laws.

Greenpeace and other campaign groups have said the logging allowed by Warsaw is threatening the UNESCO world heritage site and its populations of European bison, lynx and rare birds.

Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party - already at odds with Brussels over judicial reforms - has said it has the right to manage its own resources and the logging is needed to control a beetle infestation.

Kowalczyk told Reuters he expected the court ruling would focus only on how Poland, the EU’s biggest eastern member, had managed the forest up to now.

The court “will not, however, indicate precisely future methods to protect (the forest), because it would be a transgression beyond its competence,” told Reuters in an interview.

If the court made any specific recommendations about the forest’s future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he added.

Warsaw wanted to draw up its own protection plan for the forest, he said. “I expect that it will be a compromise between active and passive protection,” he added, without spelling out how many trees would be removed under an “active” scheme.

An adviser to the EU court said in February that Poland’s decision to increase logging in the forest did break EU law. While judges are not obliged to follow the adviser’s recommendation, they do so in most cases.

CLIMATE BALANCE

Separately, Kowalczyk said he was seeing some support in Europe and beyond for plans, backed by Warsaw, to let nations balance out their carbon dioxide emissions with absorption of greenhouse gases by forests.

The plan would be discussed, he said, at U.N. climate talks that Poland will host in December in its southern city of Katowice - the center of the coal-producing Silesia region.

“The issue of absorbing emissions has its opponents, which is why we realize that these talks will not be easy. We will discuss this - first within the European Union,” Kowalczyk said.

Many countries want to focus more on cuts in emissions, reckoning the idea of absorption is a sideshow favored by coal-dependent states such as Poland.

Kowalczyk said he had received a “clear declaration” from China’s special representative on climate change that Beijing was interested in the scheme.

The minister reiterated that Poland wanted to reduce the share of coal in its electricity production to around 50 percent by 2050 from around 80 percent now.

“We will be moving slowly from coal to other sources, but it is important that it is not too abrupt,” he added. </s> WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland should decide how it manages one of Europe's last ancient forests in the years ahead, not the EU's top court, environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk said, setting up a possible confrontation in one of a series of disputes with Brussels.

 The European Court of Justice is due to rule in April on an EU complaint that Warsaw's decision in 2016 to allow more commercial logging in Bialowieza Forest broke the bloc's laws.

 Greenpeace and other campaign groups have said the logging allowed by Warsaw is threatening the UNESCO world heritage site and its populations of European bison, lynx and rare birds.

 Poland's ruling Law and Justice party - already at odds with Brussels over judicial reforms - has said it has the right to manage its own resources and the logging is needed to control a beetle infestation.

 Kowalczyk told Reuters he expected the court ruling would focus only on how Poland, the EU's biggest eastern member, had managed the forest up to now. 

 The court "will not, however, indicate precisely future methods to protect (the forest), because it would be a transgression beyond its competence," told Reuters in an interview. 

 If the court made any specific recommendations about the forest's future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he added.

 Warsaw wanted to draw up its own protection plan for the forest, he said. "I expect that it will be a compromise between active and passive protection," he added, without spelling out how many trees would be removed under an "active" scheme.

 An adviser to the EU court said in February that Poland's decision to increase logging in the forest did break EU law. While judges are not obliged to follow the adviser's recommendation, they do so in most cases.

 

 CLIMATE BALANCE

 Separately, Kowalczyk said he was seeing some support in Europe and beyond for plans, backed by Warsaw, to let nations balance out their carbon dioxide emissions with absorption of greenhouse gases by forests.

 The plan would be discussed, he said, at U.N. climate talks that Poland will host in December in its southern city of Katowice - the center of the coal-producing Silesia region.

 "The issue of absorbing emissions has its opponents, which is why we realize that these talks will not be easy. We will discuss this - first within the European Union," Kowalczyk said. 

 Many countries want to focus more on cuts in emissions, reckoning the idea of absorption is a sideshow favored by coal-dependent states such as Poland.

 Kowalczyk said he had received a "clear declaration" from China's special representative on climate change that Beijing was interested in the scheme.

 The minister reiterated that Poland wanted to reduce the share of coal in its electricity production to around 50 percent by 2050 from around 80 percent now. 

 "We will be moving slowly from coal to other sources, but it is important that it is not too abrupt," he added. 

 

 (Editing by Andrew Heavens) </s> WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland should decide how it manages one of Europe’s last ancient forests in the years ahead, not the EU’s top court, environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk said, setting up a possible confrontation in one of a series of disputes with Brussels.

The European Court of Justice is due to rule in April on an EU complaint that Warsaw’s decision in 2016 to allow more commercial logging in Bialowieza Forest broke the bloc’s laws.

Greenpeace and other campaign groups have said the logging allowed by Warsaw is threatening the UNESCO world heritage site and its populations of European bison, lynx and rare birds.

Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party - already at odds with Brussels over judicial reforms - has said it has the right to manage its own resources and the logging is needed to control a beetle infestation.

Kowalczyk told Reuters he expected the court ruling would focus only on how Poland, the EU’s biggest eastern member, had managed the forest up to now.

The court “will not, however, indicate precisely future methods to protect (the forest), because it would be a transgression beyond its competence,” told Reuters in an interview.

If the court made any specific recommendations about the forest’s future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he added.

Warsaw wanted to draw up its own protection plan for the forest, he said. “I expect that it will be a compromise between active and passive protection,” he added, without spelling out how many trees would be removed under an “active” scheme.

An adviser to the EU court said in February that Poland’s decision to increase logging in the forest did break EU law. While judges are not obliged to follow the adviser’s recommendation, they do so in most cases.

Separately, Kowalczyk said he was seeing some support in Europe and beyond for plans, backed by Warsaw, to let nations balance out their carbon dioxide emissions with absorption of greenhouse gases by forests.

The plan would be discussed, he said, at U.N. climate talks that Poland will host in December in its southern city of Katowice - the center of the coal-producing Silesia region.

“The issue of absorbing emissions has its opponents, which is why we realize that these talks will not be easy. We will discuss this - first within the European Union,” Kowalczyk said.

Many countries want to focus more on cuts in emissions, reckoning the idea of absorption is a sideshow favored by coal-dependent states such as Poland.

Kowalczyk said he had received a “clear declaration” from China’s special representative on climate change that Beijing was interested in the scheme.

The minister reiterated that Poland wanted to reduce the share of coal in its electricity production to around 50 percent by 2050 from around 80 percent now.

“We will be moving slowly from coal to other sources, but it is important that it is not too abrupt,” he added. </s> LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - The European Union’s highest court ruled on Tuesday that Poland broke environmental laws with large-scale logging in the ancient Bialowieza forest, one of a raft of flashpoint issues between the eurosceptic Polish government and the bloc.

In a final ruling in Luxembourg, judge Marek Safjan of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said the logging in Bialowieza, a World Heritage site and home to the rare European bison, had endangered many birds and insects.

For months, Poland ignored environmentalists’ protests and an ECJ order last July to stop logging immediately, further fuelling concerns that it was backpedaling on democratic standards under the nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party.

Warsaw said earlier this year it had stopped the logging, part of a broader campaign to improve ties with the EU after two years of bitter feuds - including on judicial independence and migration - since PiS won power in 2015.

Environment minister Jan Szyszko, who was responsible for the increased logging quotas, has since been dismissed, and the ministry said on Tuesday that it would respect the ruling.

“Poland will observe the ruling,” the current Environment Minister Henryk Kowalczyk said in a statement.

The ministry added it would send the EU’s executive new proposals for on a possible protection plan for the forest.

“We still need to stand up for the Bialowieza forest in Poland and abroad,” said environmental group Greenpeace. “The Polish state’s holding company still sees a cash-grab instead of a delicate old-growth forest.”

Back in 2016, Poland had tripled logging quotas and said spruce and pine trees that were more than 100 years old had to be felled because of a beetle infestation. The ECJ said on Tuesday that was not justified.

While the case has since lost some of its political prominence amid a push for a deal between Warsaw and the bloc in the broader dispute over the rule of law, environmental groups say damage has already been done to the delicate habitat.

Logging quotas to 2021 had already been reached and in one part of the forest an expanded quota, declared illegal by the bloc’s executive European Commission, had been more than half fulfilled.

“The decisions that allowed logging must be withdrawn. Then, the Polish government should also consider enlarging the national park,” said James Thornton, head of the environmental campaign group ClientEarth.

“This is the only way to guarantee that devastation of the forest will not happen again.” </s> WARSAW, March 28 (Reuters) - Poland should decide how it manages one of Europe's last ancient forests in the years ahead, not the EU's top court, environment minister Henryk Kowalczyk said, setting up a possible confrontation in one of a series of disputes with Brussels.

The European Court of Justice is due to rule in April on an EU complaint that Warsaw's decision in 2016 to allow more commercial logging in Bialowieza Forest broke the bloc's laws.

Greenpeace and other campaign groups have said the logging allowed by Warsaw is threatening the UNESCO world heritage site and its populations of European bison, lynx and rare birds.

Poland's ruling Law and Justice party - already at odds with Brussels over judicial reforms - has said it has the right to manage its own resources and the logging is needed to control a beetle infestation.

Kowalczyk told Reuters he expected the court ruling would focus only on how Poland, the EU's biggest eastern member, had managed the forest up to now.

The court "will not, however, indicate precisely future methods to protect (the forest), because it would be a transgression beyond its competence," told Reuters in an interview.

If the court made any specific recommendations about the forest's future management, particularly if it banned any logging, then the government would have to discuss it, he added.

Warsaw wanted to draw up its own protection plan for the forest, he said. "I expect that it will be a compromise between active and passive protection," he added, without spelling out how many trees would be removed under an "active" scheme.

An adviser to the EU court said in February that Poland's decision to increase logging in the forest did break EU law. While judges are not obliged to follow the adviser's recommendation, they do so in most cases.

Seperately, Kowalczyk said he was seeing some support in Europe and beyond for plans, backed by Warsaw, to let nations balance out their carbon dioxide emissions with absorption of greenhouse gases by forests.

The plan would be discussed, he said, at U.N. climate talks that Poland will host in December in its southern city of Katowice - the centre of the coal-producing Silesia region.

"The issue of absorbing emissions has its opponents, which is why we realize that these talks will not be easy. We will discuss this - first within the European Union," Kowalczyk said.

Many countries want to focus more on cuts in emissions, reckoning the idea of absorption is a sideshow favoured by coal-dependent states such as Poland.

Kowalczyk said he had received a "clear declaration" from China's special representative on climate change that Beijing was interested in the scheme.

The minister reiterated that Poland wanted to reduce the share of coal in its electricity production to around 50 percent by 2050 from around 80 percent now.

"We will be moving slowly from coal to other sources, but it is important that it is not too abrupt," he added. (Editing by Andrew Heavens)
United States energy developer Invenergy files for arbitration against Poland with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law over a dispute following construction of four wind power projects in the country. Invenergy claims Polish authorities are ignoring binding rulings by local courts.