On 2 June 2025, the ad
hoc Committee (‘Committee’) in Rockhopper Italia S.p.A, Rockhopper
Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration PLC v. Italian Republic (Case
No. ARB/17/14) unanimously annulled the controversial EUR 190 million award
(‘Award’) that had found Italy liable for unlawful expropriation under the
Energy Charter Treaty (‘ECT’) due to the denial of a fossil fuel production
concession. The Committee’s decision (‘Decision’) found that the Arbitral
Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) was not properly constituted pursuant to Article 52(1)(a)
of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between states and
Nationals of other states (‘ICSID Convention’). The Award was annulled because
the claimant-appointed arbitrator, Dr Charles Poncet, failed to disclose that
he had previously been criminally prosecuted by the respondent state. The
Committee found that the failure to disclose and the significance of the
undisclosed events gave rise to justifiable doubts as to Dr Poncet’s
reliability for independent judgment from the perspective of an objective
observer, irrespective of the final outcome of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the significant passage of time. This case note analyses the
Decision, with brief reference to parallel challenge decisions concerning the
same arbitrator. It focuses on the Committee’s reasoning regarding arbitrator
qualifications and the duty of disclosure, and considers implications for the
investor-state dispute settlement (‘ISDS’) framework and the field of
international arbitration more broadly.