ExxonMobil’s Belgian subsidiary has brought an ICSID arbitration against the Netherlands under the Energy Charter Treaty over the closure of the Groningen gas field. It contends that billions of euros in earthquake-damage levies imposed on NAM, ExxonMobil’s joint venture with Shell, are unlawful. The Netherlands has asked the tribunal to decide its jurisdictional objections as a preliminary question, and the tribunal has not yet ruled.
Latest development Sep 18, 2026
On September 18, 2026, the Netherlands asked the tribunal to address its jurisdictional objections, including the intra-EU objection, as a preliminary question. It relied on ICSID Convention Article 41(2) and ICSID Arbitration Rule 44. The request followed ExxonMobil’s filing of its memorial on the merits on August 4, 2026. The tribunal has not yet ruled on it.
Why it matters
The claim tests the reach of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) against an EU state that has left it, including intra-EU objections and the 20-year sunset clause. Its outcome will shape whether energy companies or states bear the cost of winding down fossil-fuel fields.
Background
The Groningen gas field was operated by NAM, a joint venture owned equally by Shell and ExxonMobil. Decades of extraction caused earthquake damage that forced a wind-down. Production stopped in October 2023, and a statute closed the field definitively in April 2024. The Dutch state has billed NAM for the mounting costs of damage compensation and building reinforcement through invoices and statutory levies. NAM has paid €3.96B “under protest” across more than 40 payment demands, and contends that the demands are unlawful.
ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV, the group’s Belgian entity, filed an arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). ICSID registered the case (ARB/24/44) on October 21, 2024. The tribunal was constituted in July 2025, with Mohamed Abdel Wahab presiding alongside Stanimir Alexandrov and Jorge Viñuales. The Netherlands, which formally exited the ECT in June 2025, contests jurisdiction on intra-EU grounds. The claim rests on the treaty’s 20-year sunset clause.
The Netherlands sued in the Antwerp courts to challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction. On October 31, 2025, the tribunal partly granted provisional measures: it ordered the state to suspend the Belgian proceedings until the tribunal rules on its own jurisdiction, but declined to restrain future levies. Shell filed a parallel ICSID claim over Groningen (ARB/26/2) on December 23, 2025. The tribunal issued a further provisional-measures decision on December 24, 2025.
On February 4, 2026, the tribunal bifurcated the case. The first phase will decide liability, including whether the state’s payment demands are unlawful, with quantum reserved for a second phase. ExxonMobil filed its memorial on the merits on August 4, 2026. On September 18, 2026, the Netherlands asked the tribunal to decide its jurisdictional objections as a preliminary question under ICSID Convention Article 41(2) and ICSID Arbitration Rule 44. The tribunal has not yet ruled on that request, and related contract arbitrations between the joint venture partners and the state are also pending.
Timeline 9 events
-
FilingNetherlands seeks preliminary ruling on jurisdiction objections
The Netherlands asked the tribunal to address its objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question under ICSID Convention Article 41(2) and ICSID Arbitration Rule 44.
Case Details - ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (ARB/24/44)
-
FilingExxonMobil files memorial on the merits
ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV filed its memorial on the merits in the ICSID arbitration against the Netherlands.
Case Details - ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical BV v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (ARB/24/44)ExxonMobil v. Netherlands, Procedural Order No. 6 (Decision on the Claimant's Request for Bifurcation), 4 Feb 2026
-
OrderTribunal bifurcates case into liability and quantum phases
In Procedural Order No. 6, the tribunal ruled that the first phase will decide liability, including whether the Netherlands’ payment demands are unlawful. Quantum follows if needed.
-
OrderTribunal rules on ExxonMobil’s second provisional-measures application
The tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 5, which concerned the continuing payment demands.
-
OtherShell files parallel ICSID claim over Groningen (ARB/26/2)
-
OrderTribunal orders Netherlands to suspend Belgian anti-arbitration suit
In Procedural Orders 3 and 4, the tribunal partly granted provisional measures pending its jurisdiction ruling. It declined to restrain future levies.
-
OrderICSID constitutes arbitral tribunal
The members were Mohamed Abdel Wahab (president), Stanimir Alexandrov, and Jorge Viñuales.
-
FilingICSID registers ExxonMobil’s ECT arbitration (ARB/24/44)
-
OtherDutch law permanently closes Groningen field
Production had already stopped in October 2023. The state continued billing NAM for earthquake damage and reinforcement costs.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the ICSID tribunal in ExxonMobil v. Netherlands grant the Netherlands’ September 18, 2026, request to decide its jurisdictional objections as a preliminary question by May 31, 2027?
- Netherlands wins jurisdiction-first phase47%
- Tribunal joins objections to merits40%
- Still pending on May 31, 202710%
- ExxonMobil and Netherlands settle3%
- Resolves by
- May 31, 2027in 7 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The tribunal is slightly more likely than not to hear the Netherlands’ jurisdictional objections first (47%), with a ruling expected by early 2027. The intra-EU objection is a discrete legal question that could dispose of the whole claim, which favors a separate phase. Joinder to the liability merits remains close behind at 40%.
How it resolves. Resolves on the tribunal’s decision on the Netherlands’ Rule 44 request, as shown on the ICSID case page or in published procedural orders or reports. “Jurisdiction first” if the tribunal orders any jurisdictional objection, in whole or in part, decided in a separate preliminary phase before the liability merits. “Objections joined” if it rejects the request and joins the objections to the liability phase. “Settlement” if the case is discontinued by settlement or withdrawal before a decision. “Still pending” if none of these occurs by May 31, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. ICSID tribunal decisions on respondent requests to bifurcate jurisdictional objections: ICSID tribunals have granted roughly 40% to 50% of contested bifurcation requests on jurisdiction, with higher rates for purely legal objections that could end the case.
ICSID tribunals grant roughly 40% to 50% of contested bifurcation requests, and ICSID Rule 44 requires a decision within 30 days of the last submission on the request, so a ruling by early 2027 is likely. The intra-EU objection is largely legal, separable from the facts, and would end the case if upheld, which supports a preliminary phase. The request appears timely, filed 45 days after ExxonMobil’s memorial. Against bifurcation, the tribunal already split the case into liability and quantum, and ExxonMobil’s merits memorial is on file. A further split would delay a liability phase already underway, and the sunset-clause issue may overlap with merits facts. The tribunal’s earlier order suspending the Belgian suit until it rules on jurisdiction shows it views jurisdiction as a distinct question, but that does not dictate sequencing. The leading alternative is joinder of objections to the liability phase, perhaps with a partial preliminary track. The previous forecast asked a different question, so its numbers are not compared.
Intra-EU objection is a separable legal question · Liability phase and merits memorial already underway · Rule 44 30-day decision deadline after briefing · Prior order linking Belgian suit suspension to jurisdiction ruling · Parallel Shell claim and contract arbitrations affecting efficiency
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 4, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made