CELEX: 62019CA0741
Language: en
Date: 2021-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-741/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Energy Charter Treaty — Article 26 — Inapplicability between Member States — Arbitration Award — Judicial review — Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State — Dispute between a third-State operator and a third State — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 1(6) of the Energy Charter Treaty — Concept of ‘investment’)

25.10.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 431/21
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians
      (Case C-741/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Energy Charter Treaty - Article 26 - Inapplicability between Member States - Arbitration Award - Judicial review - Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State - Dispute between a third-State operator and a third State - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 1(6) of the Energy Charter Treaty - Concept of ‘investment’)
      (2021/C 431/20)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Cour d’appel de Paris
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Republic of Moldova
      
         Defendant: Komstroy LLC, successor in law to the company Energoalians
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 1(6) and Article 26(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty, signed at Lisbon on 17 December 1994, approved on behalf of the European Communities by Council and Commission Decision 98/181/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 23 September 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition, by an undertaking of a Contracting Party to that treaty, of a claim arising from a contract for the supply of electricity, which is not connected with an investment, held by an undertaking of a third State against a public undertaking of another Contracting Party to that treaty, does not constitute an ‘investment’ within the meaning of those provisions.
      
         (1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.