The setting aside application brought by Poland before the Singapore court arose from an underlying ECT arbitration commenced by UK investors against Poland over a certain coal project. Key arguments made by Poland to justify setting aside the award centred around, among others, its claim that the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction over the dispute following the CJEU's decision in Republic of Moldova v Komstroy ("Komstroy"), which held that the arbitration provisions of the ECT did not apply to intra-EU investment disputes.

The SICC rejected these arguments, finding that the ruling on EU law in Komstroy was not relevant in the context of an international agreement such as the ECT. In particular, rules of EU law only have primacy within the EU system and "not on the broader international plane (ie outside the EU system)". Further, they are not relevant rules of international law for the interpretation of the ECT.

In doing so, the court aligned itself with other non-EU jurisdictions, including Switzerland, that have declined to give effect to intra-EU objections at the post-award stage. In 2024, the Swiss Supreme Court rejected a similar intra-EU objection raised by Spain to an arbitration award rendered in favour of French investor EDF under the ECT (a case on which we have previously provided an update), thereby sending a strong message that Switzerland remains a safe seat for the resolution of the investor-state disputes.

Similarly, the SICC judgment reinforces Singapore’s position as a reliable seat and enforcement forum for investment arbitration, particularly for ECT awards facing EU-law-based challenges.