{"id":288845,"date":"2026-01-08T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=288845"},"modified":"2026-01-08T16:38:30","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T15:38:30","slug":"assignment-of-icsid-awards-rejected-the-english-high-court-clarifies-international-law-limits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/01\/08\/assignment-of-icsid-awards-rejected-the-english-high-court-clarifies-international-law-limits\/","title":{"rendered":"Assignment of ICSID Awards Rejected: The English High Court Clarifies International Law Limits"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><em>Operafund v The Kingdom of Spain<\/em> [2025] EWHC 2874 (Comm)<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Paul-Alexis Saint-Antonin, <\/strong>Attorney-at-law in New York<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-9cbcaeaa atbs-tabs-21dd8cd7 atbs-tabs-dea9df16 atbs-tabs-ffa1c9f5 atbs-tabs-507cfc7d atbs-tabs-aa15e4c5 atbs-tabs-4e71e07f atbs-tabs-960ca043 atbs-tabs-ee00a60a atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-9cbcaeaa\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 10 November 2025, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (\u201cthe <strong>High Court<\/strong>\u201d) ruled in <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-operafund-eco-invest-sicav-plc-and-schwab-holding-ag-v-kingdom-of-spain-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2025-ewhc-2874-monday-10th-november-2025#decision_85337\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\"><em>OperaFund and Schwab Holding v. Spain<\/em>, [2025] EWHC 2874<\/a> that awards rendered under the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-convention-on-the-settlement-of-investment-disputes-between-states-and-nationals-of-other-states-icsid-convention-1965-thursday-18th-march-1965\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Convention (1965)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>ICSID Convention<\/strong>\u201d) or under the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-the-energy-charter-treaty-the-energy-charter-treaty-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Energy Charter Treaty (1994)<\/a> (\u201c<strong>ECT<\/strong>\u201d) are not capable of assignment to third parties.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Between July 2008 and July 2009, Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV Plc and Schwab Holding AG (altogether the \u201c<strong>Claimants<\/strong>\u201d) invested in several solar energy projects in Spain, allegedly relying on representations made by Spanish authorities concerning the stability of tariffs and incentives&nbsp;for renewable energy investments. Following subsequent legislative reforms revoking those incentives, the Claimants initiated arbitration proceedings against the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/d\/profile\/state\/es\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Kingdom of Spain<\/a> (the \u201c<strong>Defendant<\/strong>\u201d) on 31 July 2015 under the ICSID Convention pursuant to <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-the-energy-charter-treaty-the-energy-charter-treaty-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994#art_3122\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Article 26 of the ECT<\/a>. By an <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-operafund-eco-invest-sicav-plc-and-schwab-holding-ag-v-kingdom-of-spain-none-currently-available-tuesday-11th-august-2015#decision_4268?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3DOperafund%2BEco-Invest%2BSICAV%2BPlc%2Band%2BSchwab%2BHolding%2BAG%2Bv.%2BKingdom%2Bof%2BSpain%2B%26document-types%3Dtreaty%2Ccase\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">award dated 6 September 2019<\/a> (the \u201c<strong>Award<\/strong>\u201d), the arbitral tribunal found the Defendant in breach of the ECT and ordered it to pay the Claimants \u20ac29.3 million in damages. Seeking to enforce the Award in the United Kingdom, the Claimants applied on 9 August 2021 to register the Award under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 (the \u201c<strong>1966 Act<\/strong>\u201d). The application was granted <em>ex parte<\/em> later in 2021. The Defendant subsequently applied on 6 January 2023 to set aside the registration order, relying inter alia on state immunity. The determination of the application was adjourned pending the outcome of related proceedings before the United Kingdom Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 31 January 2024, the Claimants entered into an agreement purporting to assign all rights and interests under the award to Blasket Renewable Investments LLC (\u201c<strong>Blasket<\/strong>\u201d). They then applied, under r.19.2(4)(a) of the English Civil Procedure Rules (\u201c<strong>CPR<\/strong>\u201d), for Blasket to be substituted as claimant in the enforcement proceedings.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Defendant opposed the substitution on the grounds that ICSID awards are not assignable as a matter of international law. In response, the Claimants argued that the Defendant was estopped from contesting the assignment, as the Federal Court of Australia (\u201c<strong>FCA<\/strong>\u201d) had recently decided, in a case involving these same parties, that such an assignment was permissible (see <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-9ren-holding-s-a-r-l-v-kingdom-of-spain-judgment-of-the-federal-court-of-australia-2025-fca-1028-friday-29th-august-2025?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3D%5B2025%5D%2BFCA%2B1028&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Kingdom of Spain [2025] FCA 1028<\/a><\/em>). In addition, the Claimants contended that the registration pursuant to the 1966 Act created new substantive rights under English law.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Consequently, the High Court was required to determine three primary issues in relation to the substitution application:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>First, whether the Defendant was estopped from asserting the award was unassignable;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Second, whether ICSID awards are assignable as a matter of international law; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Third, whether the registration of an ICSID award pursuant to the 1966 Act gives rise to new assignable rights.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court dismissed the substitution application and upheld the Defendant\u2019s position on all grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Regarding the issue of estoppel, the High Court held that the Defendant was not prevented from contesting the assignability of the Award. Indeed, the Judge noted that for a foreign judgment to give rise to issue estoppel under English law, it must be final and conclusive on the merits and rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction to which the defendant has submitted. The High Court found that the FCA decision did not meet these requirements: it was not yet final and remained subject to appeal, and the Defendant had only appeared to contest jurisdiction, without submitting to the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the core question of assignability under international law, the High Court determined that ICSID and ECT awards are not assignable. Since the ICSID Convention is silent on the matter, the Judge applied the principles of treaty interpretation set out in the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties-1969-vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties-friday-23rd-may-1969?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3DVienna%2BConvention%2Bon%2Bthe%2BLaw%2Bof%2BTreaties&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en&amp;contents%5B1%5D=fr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)<\/a>. He concluded that the term \u201ca party\u201d in <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-convention-on-the-settlement-of-investment-disputes-between-states-and-nationals-of-other-states-icsid-convention-1965-thursday-18th-march-1965#art_2969\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Article 54(2) of the ICSID Convention<\/a> refers exclusively to a party to the underlying arbitration. Similarly, the High Court also found that the Energy Charter Treaty does not permit assignment, noting that the specific subrogation provision in <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-the-energy-charter-treaty-the-energy-charter-treaty-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994#art_3111\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Article 15<\/a> would be redundant if awards were freely assignable. The Judge also rejected the notion that customary international law provides for assignability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the High Court rejected the argument that registration under the 1966 Act created new assignable rights. The 1966 Act is exclusively a procedural mechanism designed to give effect to ICSID awards in the United Kingdom and does not vest any new substantive rights in the award creditor. If the registration were to render an award assignable, it \u201c<em>would give rise to the entirely undesirable possibility that the effect of registration might permit assignment in some jurisdictions but not others<\/em>,\u201d undermining the uniform purpose of the ICSID Convention. As a result, the underlying award remained unassignable after registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the Biberon Newsletter on <em>Wednesday January 8, 2026,<\/em> with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/BIBERON-82-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Read It<\/strong> <strong>Here<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Paul-Alexis Saint-Antonin<\/strong> is a member of the New York State Bar with a strong international background in dispute resolution. After completing a&nbsp;Master\u2019s in International Business Law&nbsp;and an LL.M. at UCLA School of Law, he pursued a career focused on litigation and international arbitration. His professional experience spans leading legal environments in California, Paris, and Singapore.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-9cbcaeaa\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>La cessibilit\u00e9 des sentences CIRDI \u00e9cart\u00e9e : la High Court pr\u00e9cise les limites du droit international<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><em>Operafund v The Kingdom of Spain<\/em> [2025] EWHC 2874 (Comm)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Par un arr\u00eat en date du 10 novembre 2025, dans l\u2019affaire <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-operafund-eco-invest-sicav-plc-and-schwab-holding-ag-v-kingdom-of-spain-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2025-ewhc-2874-monday-10th-november-2025#decision_85337\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">OperaFund et Schwab Holding c. \u00c9spagne, [2025] EWHC 2874<\/a>, <\/em>la Haute Cour de justice d\u2019Angleterre et du pays de Galles (\u00ab la <strong>Haute Cour<\/strong> \u00bb) a jug\u00e9 que les sentences rendues en application de la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-convention-on-the-settlement-of-investment-disputes-between-states-and-nationals-of-other-states-icsid-convention-1965-thursday-18th-march-1965\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Convention du Centre international pour le r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends relatifs aux investissements (1965)<\/a> (\u00ab <strong>Convention<\/strong> <strong>CIRDI<\/strong> \u00bb) ou du <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-the-energy-charter-treaty-the-energy-charter-treaty-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Trait\u00e9 sur la Charte de l\u2019\u00c9nergie (1994)<\/a> (\u00ab <strong>TCE<\/strong> \u00bb) ne sont pas cessibles \u00e0 des tiers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Entre juillet 2008 et juillet 2009, Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV Plc et Schwab Holding AG (les \u00ab <strong>Demandeurs<\/strong> \u00bb) ont investi dans plusieurs projets d\u2019\u00e9nergie solaire en Espagne, s\u2019appuyant sur de&nbsp;pr\u00e9tendues d\u00e9clarations des autorit\u00e9s espagnoles relatives \u00e0 la stabilit\u00e9 des tarifs et des incitations applicables aux investissements dans les \u00e9nergies renouvelables. \u00c0 la suite de r\u00e9formes l\u00e9gislatives ult\u00e9rieures supprimant ces incitations, les Demandeurs ont engag\u00e9, le 31 juillet 2015, une proc\u00e9dure d\u2019arbitrage contre le Royaume d\u2019Espagne (ci-apr\u00e8s le \u00ab <strong>D\u00e9fendeur<\/strong> \u00bb) en vertu de la Convention CIRDI, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-the-energy-charter-treaty-the-energy-charter-treaty-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994#art_3122\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">l\u2019article 26 du TCE<\/a>. Par une <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-operafund-eco-invest-sicav-plc-and-schwab-holding-ag-v-kingdom-of-spain-none-currently-available-tuesday-11th-august-2015#decision_4268?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3DOperafund%2BEco-Invest%2BSICAV%2BPlc%2Band%2BSchwab%2BHolding%2BAG%2Bv.%2BKingdom%2Bof%2BSpain%2B%26document-types%3Dtreaty%2Ccase\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">sentence rendue le 6 septembre 2019<\/a> (la \u00ab <strong>Sentence<\/strong> \u00bb), le tribunal arbitral a constat\u00e9 une violation du TCE par le D\u00e9fendeur et l\u2019a condamn\u00e9 \u00e0 verser aux Demandeurs la somme de 29,3 millions d\u2019euros au titre de dommages et int\u00e9r\u00eats. Souhaitant obtenir l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de la Sentence au Royaume-Uni, les Demandeurs ont sollicit\u00e9, le 9 ao\u00fbt 2021, son enregistrement en application de l\u2019<em>Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966<\/em> (la \u00ab <strong>loi de 1966<\/strong> \u00bb). Cette demande a \u00e9t\u00e9 accord\u00e9e ex parte en 2021. Le 6 janvier 2023, le D\u00e9fendeur a demand\u00e9 l\u2019annulation de l\u2019ordonnance d\u2019enregistrement, en invoquant notamment l\u2019immunit\u00e9 de juridiction de l\u2019\u00c9tat. L\u2019examen de cette demande a \u00e9t\u00e9 ajourn\u00e9 dans l\u2019attente de l\u2019issue d\u2019une proc\u00e9dure connexe pendante devant la Cour supr\u00eame du Royaume-Uni.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le 31 janvier 2024, les Demandeurs ont conclu un accord visant \u00e0 c\u00e9der l\u2019ensemble de leurs droits et int\u00e9r\u00eats d\u00e9coulant de la Sentence \u00e0 Blasket Renewable Investments LLC (\u00ab <strong>Blasket<\/strong> \u00bb). Ils ont ensuite demand\u00e9, sur le fondement de la r\u00e8gle 19.2(4)(a) des R\u00e8gles de proc\u00e9dure civile anglaises (\u00ab <strong>CPR<\/strong> \u00bb), la substitution de Blasket en qualit\u00e9 de demandeur dans la proc\u00e9dure d\u2019ex\u00e9cution en cours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Le D\u00e9fendeur s\u2019est oppos\u00e9 \u00e0 cette substitution, soutenant que les sentences CIRDI ne sont pas cessibles en droit international. En r\u00e9ponse, les Demandeurs ont fait valoir que le D\u00e9fendeur \u00e9tait emp\u00each\u00e9 de contester la cession, en raison d\u2019une d\u00e9cision r\u00e9cente de la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale d\u2019Australie ayant admis une cession similaire dans une affaire impliquant les m\u00eames parties (voir <em><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-9ren-holding-s-a-r-l-v-kingdom-of-spain-judgment-of-the-federal-court-of-australia-2025-fca-1028-friday-29th-august-2025?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3D%5B2025%5D%2BFCA%2B1028&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Blasket Renewable Investments LLC c. Royaume d\u2019Espagne [2025] FCA 1028<\/a><\/em>). Ils ont en outre soutenu que l\u2019enregistrement de la Sentence en vertu de la loi de 1966 faisait na\u00eetre de nouveaux droits substantiels cessibles en droit anglais.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Haute Cour a ainsi \u00e9t\u00e9 appel\u00e9e \u00e0 se prononcer sur trois questions principales :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Le D\u00e9fendeur \u00e9tait-il emp\u00each\u00e9, en vertu du principe de l\u2019estoppel, de contester la cessibilit\u00e9 de la Sentence ;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Les sentences CIRDI sont-elles cessibles en droit international ; et<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>L\u2019enregistrement d\u2019une sentence CIRDI en vertu de la loi de 1966 conf\u00e8re-t-il de nouveaux droits cessibles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Haute Cour a rejet\u00e9 la demande de substitution et a statu\u00e9 en faveur du D\u00e9fendeur sur l\u2019ensemble des moyens soulev\u00e9s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">S\u2019agissant de l\u2019estoppel, la Haute Cour a jug\u00e9 que le D\u00e9fendeur n\u2019\u00e9tait pas emp\u00each\u00e9 de contester la cessibilit\u00e9 de la Sentence. Elle a rappel\u00e9 qu\u2019en droit anglais, un jugement \u00e9tranger ne peut produire un effet d\u2019estoppel que s\u2019il est d\u00e9finitif, tranche le fond du litige et \u00e9mane d\u2019une juridiction \u00e0 la comp\u00e9tence de laquelle le d\u00e9fendeur s\u2019est soumis. Or, la d\u00e9cision de la Cour f\u00e9d\u00e9rale d\u2019Australie ne remplissait pas ces conditions : elle n\u2019\u00e9tait pas d\u00e9finitive, demeurait susceptible d\u2019appel, et le D\u00e9fendeur n\u2019y avait comparu que pour contester la comp\u00e9tence juridictionnelle, sans s\u2019y soumettre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Sur la question centrale de la cessibilit\u00e9 en droit international, la Haute Cour a jug\u00e9 que les sentences CIRDI rendues en application du TCE ne sont pas cessibles. La Convention CIRDI \u00e9tant muette sur ce point, le juge a appliqu\u00e9 les principes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des trait\u00e9s issus de la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties-1969-vienna-convention-on-the-law-of-treaties-friday-23rd-may-1969?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Flang%3Den%26query%3DVienna%2BConvention%2Bon%2Bthe%2BLaw%2Bof%2BTreaties&amp;contents%5B0%5D=en&amp;contents%5B1%5D=fr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Convention de Vienne sur le droit des trait\u00e9s (1969)<\/a> et a estim\u00e9 que la notion de \u00ab <em>party <\/em>\u00bb figurant \u00e0 <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-convention-on-the-settlement-of-investment-disputes-between-states-and-nationals-of-other-states-icsid-convention-1965-thursday-18th-march-1965#art_2969\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">l\u2019article 54(2) de la Convention CIRDI<\/a> vise exclusivement une partie \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage concern\u00e9. De m\u00eame, la Haute Cour a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que le TCE ne permet pas la cession, relevant que la disposition sp\u00e9cifique relative \u00e0 la subrogation pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-the-energy-charter-treaty-the-energy-charter-treaty-1994-saturday-17th-december-1994#art_3111\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">l\u2019article 15<\/a> serait priv\u00e9e d\u2019effet utile si les sentences \u00e9taient librement cessibles. Le juge a \u00e9galement \u00e9cart\u00e9 l\u2019argument tir\u00e9 du droit international coutumier.<br>Enfin, la Haute Cour a rejet\u00e9 l\u2019argument selon lequel l\u2019enregistrement pr\u00e9vu par la loi de 1966 cr\u00e9erait de nouveaux droits cessibles. Elle a consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que cette loi instaure exclusivement un m\u00e9canisme proc\u00e9dural destin\u00e9 \u00e0 donner effet aux sentences CIRDI au Royaume-Uni, sans conf\u00e9rer de droits substantiels nouveaux au cr\u00e9ancier de la sentence. Admettre le contraire \u00ab<em>ouvrirait la possibilit\u00e9 tout \u00e0 fait ind\u00e9sirable que l\u2019effet de l\u2019enregistrement permette la cession dans certaines juridictions mais pas dans d\u2019autres<\/em> \u00bb, ce qui porterait atteinte \u00e0 l\u2019objectif d\u2019uniformit\u00e9 poursuivi par la Convention CIRDI. En cons\u00e9quence, la Sentence demeure non cessible apr\u00e8s son enregistrement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans la newsletter Biberon le jeudi 8 janvier, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/BIBERON-82-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Lire dans le Biberon<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Paul-Alexis Saint-Antonin<\/strong> is a member of the New York State Bar with a strong international background in dispute resolution. After completing a&nbsp;Master\u2019s in International Business Law&nbsp;and an LL.M. at UCLA School of Law, he pursued a career focused on litigation and international arbitration. His professional experience spans leading legal environments in California, Paris, and Singapore.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A UK ruling limits award monetisation by holding that ICSID awards remain non-assignable, even after registration for enforcement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":288848,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"168","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"Assignment of ICSID Awards Rejected: The English High Court Clarifies International Law Limits","fb_description":"A UK ruling limits award monetisation by holding that ICSID awards remain non-assignable, even after registration for enforcement.","fb_image":"288850","twitter_title":"Assignment of ICSID Awards Rejected: The English High Court Clarifies International Law Limits","twitter_description":"A UK ruling limits award monetisation by holding that ICSID awards remain non-assignable, even after registration for enforcement.","twitter_image":"288850"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,167,208,188,276,168,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-288845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-europe","category-investor-state-arbitration","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-united-kingdom","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288845","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=288845"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288845\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":288861,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288845\/revisions\/288861"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=288845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=288845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=288845"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=288845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}