Micula and others (Respondents/Cross-Appellants) v Romania (Appellant/Cross-Respondent)

Judgment given

Case summary
Judgment details
Appeal
Watch hearings
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2018/0177

Parties

Appellant(s)

Romania

Respondent(s)

(1) Mr Viorel Micula

(2) Mr Ioan Micula

(3) SC European Food SA

(4) SC Starmill SRL

(5) SC Multipack SRL

Intervener(s)

European Commission

Issue

Does the High Court have the power to stay the enforcement of an award given in accordance with the procedure in the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID)?

Facts

The dispute between the parties began with an arbitration commenced pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty that Romania had entered into with Sweden. On 11 December 2013, an ICSID Tribunal issued an award in favour of the investors against Romania. The European Commission, which also intervened in the arbitration and each stage of the present proceedings, issued a decision on 30 March 2015 that, amongst other things, declared that the payment of the Award would constitute new State aid contrary to Article 107(1) of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union and prohibited Romania from making any payment under the Award. At the time, the Award had already been registered by the English High Court. Romania thus applied to set aside the order registering the award or, in the alternative, for a stay of its enforcement. The investors cross-applied for security. The High Court granted Romania a stay of enforcement and dismissed the investors’ cross-application. The investors appealed both the grant of the stay (“Stay Appeal”) and the dismissal of their application for security (“Security Appeal”). The Court of Appeal dismissed the Stay Appeal but upheld the Security Appeal and ordered Romania to provide security of GBP 150 million. Romania has already been granted permission to appeal the Security Appeal.