1
Slovak Republic v. Achmea B.V., CJEU (Case C-284/16).

2
'Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters', done at Lugano on 16 September 1988.

3
RWE AG and RWE Eemshaven Holding II BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (ICSID Case No. ARB/21/4) and Uniper SE, Uniper Benelux Holding B.V. and Uniper Benelux N.V. v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (ICSID Case No. ARB/21/22).

4
A few weeks prior, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar had issued a non-binding opinion concluding that the ISDS mechanism in the ECT was incompatible with EU law. Following the conference, on 2 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the EU predictably decided that intra-EU arbitration under the ECT was incompatible with EU law (Case C‑741/19, Republic of Moldova v Komstroy).

5
The Constitutional Court clarified that a court cannot set aside an arbitral award on the basis that it does not refer to each piece of evidence, or because the arbitrator has not expressly dealt with all arguments put forward. The court only needs to satisfy itself that the award contains reasons that link the facts with the evidence and the conclusions. See Elena Gutierrez García de Cortázar, ‘The Constitutional Court Narrows Judicial Scrutiny of Arbitral Awards’, ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin, issue 2021-2 (https://library.iccwbo.org/).

6
Tribunal Federal, 4A_248/2019, 4A_398/2019, 25 Aug. 2020. Caster Semenya has filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) on 18 Feb. 2021.

7
Federal Law No. 171-FZ dated 8 June 2020, introducing the new sanctions-related amendments to the Russian Commercial (Arbitrazh) Procedure Code.

8
PESA v. UralTransMash, Russian Supreme Court, 28 May 2021; E. Rubibina, 'All Bark and No Bite? The Russian Supreme Court’s Refusal to Grant an Anti-Arbitration Injunction to a Sanctioned Company' (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 30 July 2021).

9
Avia FED Service v. SJSHC Artem, Resolution of the Supreme Court, 9 Jan. 2020, case No. 761/46285/16-ц; Avia FED Service v. SJSHC Artem, Resolution of the Supreme Court, 13 Feb. 2020, case No. 824/100/19. See Olga Kokoz, 'Is There Room for Sanctions in Public Policy? Opposite Approaches in The Recent Case Law of the Ukrainian Supreme Court' (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 Apr. 2020)

10
Code of Best Practices in Arbitration (2019), available at https://www.clubarbitraje.com/en/.

11
The dispute arose out of insurance claims relating to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The parties were unable to agree on the selection of the president of the arbitral tribunal which was appointed by the English High Court. Chubb then went on to nominate that same individual as its own party-appointed arbitrator in a second arbitration involving the same oil spill.

12
Halliburton Company v. Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48. Five arbitral institutions intervened before the Supreme Court, including ICC which raised concerns that the Court of Appeal’s decision was out of step with internationally accepted standards and practices. See the ‘Written Submission in Support of Intervention by the ICC International Court of Arbitration, 12 November 2019’, published in ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin, issue 2020-1 and S.J. Rowe, G. Petrova, ‘Halliburton Company v. Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd: Failure to Disclose but No Bias’, ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin, issue 2021-1 (https://library.iccwbo.org/).

13
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf

14
The Hague Rules are based on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, ‘with modifications needed to address certain issues likely to arise in the context of business and human rights disputes’, see The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, Introduction, https://www.cilc.nl/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Hague-Rules-on-Business-and-Human-Rights-Arbitration_CILC-digital-version.pdf