The Singapore International Commercial Court has dismissed Poland’s attempt to set aside an arbitral award rendered under the Energy Charter Treaty (the “<span class="news-text_medium">ECT</span>”) in favour of UK investors. The judgment confirms that EU law does not displace treaty-based arbitration agreements before non-EU courts and aligns Singapore’s approach with that taken in other leading arbitration jurisdictions.
In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DNZ v DOA and another [2026] SGHC(I) 1</span>, the Singapore International Commercial Court rejected Poland’s application to set aside an arbitral award issued under the ECT in an intra-EU investment dispute. The arbitration arose out of investments made in Poland by UK subsidiaries of an Australian parent company, GreenX. The UK investors commenced arbitration under the ECT, while GreenX pursued a parallel claim under the Australia–Poland bilateral investment treaty. The same arbitral tribunal found Poland liable in both proceedings.
Poland sought to annul the ECT award in Singapore, arguing that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the intra-EU nature of the dispute and advancing a number of additional challenges. Poland relied heavily on the primacy of EU law and recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which have held that intra-EU investment treaty arbitration is incompatible with EU law. The Court rejected this submission, holding that the principle of EU law primacy operates only within the EU legal order. As a multilateral treaty governed by public international law, the ECT’s arbitration provisions were not overridden by EU law when considered by courts of third states such as Singapore.
The Court also observed, obiter, that any jurisdictional objection based on the intra-EU character of the dispute would in any event have been cured by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Further, the Court dismissed Poland’s argument that the UK investors lacked a qualifying “Investment” under the ECT and that additional criteria derived from ICSID jurisprudence (including the Salini test) should apply. The Court held that the ECT contains its own broad and autonomous definition of “Investment”, which was satisfied on the facts.
Poland’s reliance on the ECT’s fork-in-the-road provision was also rejected. The Court found that the provision applies only where the same investor submits the same dispute to multiple fora, which was not the case here, as the bilateral investment treaty arbitration had been brought by a different investor, GreenX. Finally, the Court dismissed Poland’s public policy and natural justice challenges. It reaffirmed the narrow scope of the public policy exception under Singapore law, which is not engaged merely because an award is inconsistent with foreign law or policy, including EU law, unless enforcement would “shock the conscience” or offend basic notions of justice.
The Court also found that Poland had been afforded a full opportunity to present its case. The decision provides authoritative guidance on the treatment of intra-EU ECT awards in non-EU jurisdictions and confirms that Singapore courts will hold EU member states to their arbitration commitments under international investment treaties.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DNZ v DOA and another [2026] SGHC(I) 1</span> (9 January 2026).
