Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

italaw180971 - Smart Energy and Ukrgazvydobutok v. Ukraine, Decision on Interim Relief Application, February 16, 2026

16 Feb 2026
Smart Energy B.V. and PJSC Ukrgazvydobutok v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/25/38
Document provided by: ICSID
Decision on Interim Relief Application
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Decision on Interim Relief Application
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Decision on Interim Relief Application
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is the Tribunal's decision on the Claimants' urgent request for temporary interim relief, made pending the full determination of their broader Application for Provisional Measures. The Claimants sought an immediate order to prevent Ukraine from interfering with the assets of PJSC Ukrgazvydobutok (UGV), arguing that recent actions by the Respondent created an urgent risk of irreparable harm that could not await the completion of the briefing schedule on the main application.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging its authority under Article 47 of the ICSID Convention to grant such relief in appropriate circumstances, declined to issue the requested temporary order at this stage. It reasoned that the matters raised did not currently warrant granting relief before the Tribunal had the opportunity to consider the Respondent's forthcoming Rejoinder and all other written submissions. The decision was made without prejudice to the Tribunal's ultimate ruling on the main Application for Provisional Measures. However, the Tribunal ordered both parties to immediately inform the Tribunal and each other of any steps taken that might alter the ownership of the assets in question or affect access to evidence, and reminded them of their duty not to aggravate the dispute.