On January 9, 2026, the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) upheld an arbitration award in favor of two British investors, rejecting an attempt by the Republic of Poland to overturn the award. In DNZ v. DOA, [2026] SGHC(I) 1, Poland argued that recent European Union (“EU”) legal developments should block enforcement of the award.[i] The SICC disagreed, ruling that EU law does not override Poland’s obligations under international law in a Singapore court.[ii] This outcome is a positive signal for investors as it confirms that despite uncertainty within the EU, courts outside the EU remain committed to enforcing international treaty protections granted to investors.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from the Jan Karski coal project in Poland. The British investors claimed that Polish authorities unfairly obstructed the project, and in response the investors commenced an arbitration against Poland under the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”).[iii] The ECT is a multilateral agreement between dozens of countries (including, at relevant times, Poland and the UK)[iv] aimed at protecting cross-border investments in the energy sector. In 2024, an international arbitral tribunal agreed with the investors and awarded them significant damages for Poland’s treaty violations. Poland, however, sought to annul (cancel) that award. Because the arbitration took place in Singapore, Poland filed annulment proceedings in Singapore courts.
Poland’s legal argument rested on changes in EU law that significantly curtailed the right of investors to arbitrate claims they may have against an EU country. Poland contended that a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice—known as the Komstroy decision (2021)[v]—made intra-EU ECT arbitration (arbitration between an EU investor and an EU member state) incompatible with EU law.[vi] Poland further claimed that, because the British investors filed their claim for arbitration during the UK’s transitional period post-Brexit, EU law remained applicable to this dispute and prevented this arbitration.[vii] Following the Komstroy case, many EU member states have taken steps to withdraw from the ECT or terminate intra-EU investment treaties.[viii] Courts within the EU have largely followed the European Court of Justice’s lead, refusing to enforce arbitration awards arising from intra-EU investment treaties on the basis that they conflict with EU law.[ix]
Courts outside the EU have taken a different stance. For instance, in 2024, a Swiss court affirmed that the treaty-based arbitration agreement of the ECT remains valid under international law despite EU objections.[x] Similarly, courts in the United Kingdom, United States, Australia—and now Singapore—have upheld awards under the ECT.[xi] These courts emphasize that EU law does not extend beyond the EU’s legal borders, and an EU member state can still be held to its international treaty obligations when enforced in a non-EU country’s courts.
The SICC Decision and Its Implications
In its decision, the SICC sided with the investors and the arbitral tribunal. The court held that Poland remained bound by the ECT under international law, regardless of Poland’s EU membership. Simply put, an EU country can’t use its own law (EU law) to escape a promise it made in an international treaty when that promise is being enforced in a foreign (non-EU) court. The SICC noted that EU law does not invalidate an international treaty (like the ECT) in jurisdictions outside the EU.[xii] The SICC also rejected Poland’s assertion that enforcing the award in Singapore would violate Singapore’s public policy. Any conflict between Poland’s EU obligations and its ECT obligations, the judges observed, was of Poland’s own making.[xiii]
By rejecting Poland’s challenge, the SICC aligned itself with the growing trend of non-EU courts enforcing intra-EU awards. The decision underscores that a country’s commitments under treaties like the ECT will be respected by courts abroad, even if those commitments are challenged in the EU. This outcome is a reassuring development as it bolsters confidence that investment treaty awards can be enforced outside the EU, despite the legal uncertainty currently swirling within the EU itself.
This Singapore decision also comes as similar issues continue to be tested in other major jurisdictions, which could further influence the landscape. In the United States, the Supreme Court is currently being asked to review decisions upholding enforcement of several arbitration awards against Spain stemming from intra-EU disputes.[xiv] Meanwhile, in the UK, the Supreme Court is expected to rule in 2026 on Infrastructure Services Luxembourg SARL v. Kingdom of Spain, a case in which Spain has argued that EU law shields it from paying the award.[xv] The outcomes of these proceedings will be closely watched and will likely shape the future of intra-EU investment arbitration enforcement.
* * *
[i] DNZ v. DOA, [2026] SGHC(I) 1, ¶¶ 11-15. While the details are anonymized in the judgment, they were reported publicly. See Sebastian Perry, Singapore Court Rejects Intra‑EU Objection to ECT Award, Global Arb. Rev. (Jan. 9, 2026), https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/singapore-court-rejects-intra-eu-objection-ect-award.
[ii] DNZ v. DOA, [2026] SGHC(I) 1, ¶¶ 45-60.
[iii] GreenX Metals, GreenX Wins Compensation and Interest Totaling $490 Million in Successful Arbitration Outcome (Oct. 8, 2024), https://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1826499.pdf. The investors were also awarded compensation under the Australia-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty in relation to the same project. Id.
[iv] Poland and the UK withdrew from the ECT on December 27, 2022 and December 26, 2024, respectively. Despite such withdrawal, the protections of the ECT extend to qualifying pre-withdrawal investments “for a period of 20 years from” the effective date of the withdrawals. Energy Charter Treaty, Art. 47(3).
[v] See Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy, CJEU Case C-741/19, Judgment, ¶ 66 (2 September 2021). The Komstroy judgment caused a significant shift by ruling that the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause in the Energy Charter Treaty is incompatible with EU law for disputes between an EU investor and an EU Member State (intra-EU disputes).
[vi] DNZ v. DOA, [2026] SGHC(I) 1, ¶ 30.
[vii] DNZ v. DOA, [2026] SGHC(I) 1, ¶ 15.
[viii] European Commission, SA.54155 (2021/NN), C(2025) 1781 (March 24, 2025), at 4 n.22 (listing EU member states that have withdrawn from the ECT).
[ix] See, e.g., Paris Court of Appeal, No. 20-13085 (April 19, 2022); Paris Court of Appeal, No. 20-14581 (April 19, 2022); Svea Court of Appeal, No. T 4658-18 (December 13, 2022); Swedish Supreme Court, No. T 1569-19 (December 14, 2022).
[x] EDF Energies Nouvelles S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, PCA Case No. AA613, Judgment of the Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_244/2023 (April 3, 2024). It will be recalled that Switzerland is not a member state of the EU.
[xi] See, e.g., Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Spain, [2025] FCA 1028, ¶ 212 (Australia Fed. Ct. Aug. 29, 2025) (confirming that intra-EU arbitration awards against Spain and issued under Convention of the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID Convention”) are enforceable in Australia and noting that “Spain is obliged to the other Contracting States to the ICSID Convention to comply with the ICSID awards against it; it is no answer, on the international plane, for Spain to say that to do so would be in conflict with its EU obligations (including as to State aid).”); Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, [2023] EWHC 1226 (Comm) (England High Court) (enforcing intra-EU award, finding that the CJEU “is not the ultimate arbiter . . . under the ECT”); NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, 112 F.4th 1088, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (holding U.S. courts have jurisdiction to enforce intra-EU ECT awards under FSIA’s arbitration exception, despite Komstroy).
[xii] DNZ v. DOA, [2026] SGHC(I) 1, ¶¶ 34-35.
[xiii] DNZ v. DOA, [2026] SGHC(I) 1, ¶ 139 (“It is not for the Singapore court to relieve the State of the consequences that may flow from the treaty obligations the State has entered into.”).
[xiv] See, e.g., Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Invs., LLC, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari, No. 24‑1130 (U.S. May 1, 2025). This case raises key issues about the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and U.S. obligations under international treaties.
[xv] Case UKSC/2024/0155. This dispute raises significant issues regarding state immunity in the enforcement of arbitration awards.
Related Insights
