Nord Stream 2 AG claims about $8B from the European Union under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), alleging the 2019 Gas Directive amendment discriminated against its pipeline. The tribunal suspended the arbitration in October 2025 over an EU ban on Nord Stream transactions and later asked the EU whether sanctions authorizations are available. In April 2026, the company also asked the General Court to annul Regulation 2026/261, which phases out Russian gas imports.
Latest development Jun 15, 2026
On June 15, 2026, the Official Journal published notice of Nord Stream 2 AG’s action in the General Court (Case T-264/26) against the European Parliament and the Council. The action, filed on April 27, 2026, seeks annulment of Regulation 2026/261, which phases out Russian gas imports, or alternatively of the provisions barring imports through its pipeline. The notice confirmed that the case was formally registered.
Why it matters
The arbitration tests whether the EU can defend an Energy Charter Treaty claim while its own sanctions restrict payments to the arbitrators and counsel. The General Court action tests whether EU measures barring use of the $11B pipeline amount to uncompensated expropriation.
Background
Nord Stream 2 AG built the twin pipeline carrying Russian gas across the Baltic Sea to Germany, an $11B project financed by Gazprom and five Western energy majors. In 2019, before the pipeline could be certified for operation, the European Union (EU) extended its Third Gas Directive to offshore pipelines from third countries. Nord Stream 2 AG says the change was designed specifically to burden its project with unbundling and third-party access rules that made the pipeline commercially unworkable. It challenged the amendment in the General Court of the European Union (Case T-526/19). On September 26, 2019, it commenced arbitration against the EU under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) registered the arbitration as Case No. 2020-07, and Ricardo Ramírez Hernández chairs the tribunal, with Philippe Sands and David Unterhalter as co-arbitrators.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 led Germany to halt certification of the pipeline and the U.S. Treasury to designate Nord Stream 2 AG a Specially Designated National. In May 2022, the Cantonal Court of Zug granted the company a composition moratorium against its creditors and extended it again in January 2025. On July 12, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) annulled the General Court’s 2020 inadmissibility order and remanded the directive challenge. The tribunal stayed the arbitration over sanctions and the insolvency and allowed it to resume in January 2024. The General Court ruled on the remanded directive challenge on November 27, 2024.
On July 18, 2025, the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation 2025/1494, which bans any transaction connected with the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. On October 13, 2025, Nord Stream 2 AG applied to the General Court to annul that ban and told the tribunal the regulation compelled it to seek a suspension. It has told the tribunal that these measures risk exposing the arbitrators, the PCA, and counsel to sanctions liability for continuing the case. On October 22, 2025, the tribunal suspended the arbitration in Procedural Order No. 18. On January 24, 2026, in Procedural Order No. 19, it asked the EU to clarify whether sanctions authorizations or licenses are available for payments to the arbitrators, counsel, and the PCA.
In 2026, the EU also adopted Regulation 2026/261 on phasing out Russian gas imports. On April 27, 2026, Nord Stream 2 AG filed Case T-264/26 in the General Court against the European Parliament and the Council. It seeks annulment of the regulation, or alternatively of the provisions barring imports through its pipeline, as an uncompensated expropriation and a misuse of powers. Notice of the action appeared in the Official Journal on June 15, 2026. The tribunal has not ruled on the merits of the ECT claim, and the General Court has not ruled on the 2026 action.
Timeline 19 events
-
FilingOfficial Journal publishes notice of Case T-264/26
The notice of Nord Stream 2 AG’s action against the European Parliament and the Council over Regulation 2026/261 confirmed that the case was formally registered. It also identified the applicant’s counsel of record.
C_202603080EN.000101.fmx.xmlNord Stream 2 challenges Regulation (EU) 2026/261 before General Court
-
FilingNord Stream 2 AG files annulment action against Regulation 2026/261
Nord Stream 2 AG asked the General Court to annul the regulation phasing out Russian gas imports, or alternatively the provisions barring imports through its pipeline. It pleaded expropriation without compensation and misuse of powers.
Nord Stream 2 challenges Regulation (EU) 2026/261 before General CourtNord Stream 2 contests ban on Russian gas imports at EU court
-
OrderTribunal issues Procedural Order No. 19 on sanctions authorizations
The tribunal pressed the EU to clarify whether sanctions authorizations or licenses are available to let the arbitration continue, including payments to the arbitrators, counsel, and the PCA.
-
OrderGAR reports second sanctions-related suspension
Press coverage confirmed that the tribunal had suspended the arbitration a second time over the EU’s Nord Stream transaction ban, consistent with Procedural Order No. 18.
-
OrderTribunal issues Procedural Order No. 18 suspending proceedings
The tribunal suspended the arbitration in light of the new EU transaction ban and the claimant’s parallel General Court application.
-
FilingNord Stream 2 AG seeks annulment of Article 5af transaction ban
Nord Stream 2 AG asked the General Court to annul the transaction-ban provision of the sanctions regulation. It told the tribunal that the regulation compelled it to seek a suspension of the arbitration.
-
OtherEU adopts Regulation 2025/1494 banning Nord Stream transactions
The Council amended Regulation 833/2014 to prohibit direct or indirect engagement in any transaction connected with the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines.
-
OrderTribunal issues Procedural Order No. 14 on insolvency and hearing postponement
The tribunal addressed the claimant’s ongoing Swiss composition moratorium and its request to postpone the scheduled hearing.
-
OtherSwiss court again extends Nord Stream 2 AG’s bankruptcy moratorium
The Cantonal Court of Zug extended the composition moratorium protecting Nord Stream 2 AG from creditors. The tribunal was separately briefed on the insolvency timeline’s effect on the arbitration in Procedural Order No. 14.
Bankruptcy moratorium for Nord Stream 2 pipeline operator extended until May 9
-
JudgmentGeneral Court rules on remanded Gas Directive challenge
In Case T-526/19 RENV, the General Court’s Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) ruled on Nord Stream 2 AG’s challenge to the 2019 Gas Directive amendment. The Court of Justice had remanded the case.
Nord Stream 2 v. EU, Judgment of the General Court of the European Union
-
OrderTribunal allows arbitration to resume after suspension
The tribunal let the case move forward after the earlier stay prompted by sanctions and insolvency. The claimant filed further merits submissions later that year.
-
OrderTribunal rules on impossibility and stay of the arbitration
In Procedural Order No. 11, the tribunal considered whether U.S. sanctions made it impossible for Nord Stream 2 AG to pursue the case. It also addressed the EU’s damages arguments.
-
JudgmentCJEU partially overturns dismissal of Gas Directive challenge
The Grand Chamber held Nord Stream 2 AG’s action against the 2019 Gas Directive amendment partially admissible and annulled the General Court’s 2020 inadmissibility order. It referred the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits.
-
OrderTribunal issues Procedural Order No. 8 amid insolvency proceedings
The tribunal, composed of Ricardo Ramirez Hernandez, Philippe Sands and David Unterhalter, addressed the procedural background including the Swiss composition moratorium.
-
OrderSwiss court grants Nord Stream 2 AG provisional stay of bankruptcy
The Cantonal Court of Zug suspended Nord Stream 2 AG’s bankruptcy proceedings, giving it a composition moratorium as it sought to restructure amid Western sanctions.
Swiss court grants provisional stay of bankruptcy to Nord Stream 2 operator
-
OtherU.S. designates Nord Stream 2 AG a Specially Designated National
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. Treasury designated Nord Stream 2 AG a Specially Designated National (SDN). Germany halted certification of the pipeline, undermining the company’s ability to pursue the arbitration.
-
OrderTribunal issues Procedural Order No. 4 on bifurcation request
The tribunal ruled on the EU’s request to bifurcate the proceedings and hold a preliminary jurisdictional phase.
-
OrderTribunal decides EU’s challenge to arbitrator Peter Rees QC
The EU challenged Peter Rees QC, an arbitrator appointed by Nord Stream 2 AG, citing a financial interest in Royal Dutch Shell, a project investor.
Nord Stream 2 v. EU, Decision on the Challenge to Mr. Peter Rees QC
-
FilingNord Stream 2 AG files notice of arbitration against the EU
Nord Stream 2 AG commenced UNCITRAL arbitration against the European Union under Article 26(4)(b) of the Energy Charter Treaty, later registered with the PCA as Case No. 2020-07.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the General Court rule on Nord Stream 2 AG’s October 2025 action to annul the EU ban on Nord Stream transactions (Article 5af of Regulation 833/2014, added by Regulation 2025/1494) by June 30, 2028?
- General Court upholds Nord Stream ban57%
- Still pending on June 30, 202820%
- General Court annuls ban in whole or part9%
- Action dismissed as inadmissible8%
- Nord Stream 2 AG discontinues action6%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2028in 20 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The General Court will most likely dismiss Nord Stream 2 AG’s challenge to the EU Nord Stream transaction ban on the merits by June 30, 2028 (57%). EU courts give the Council wide discretion over sectoral Russia sanctions and have rarely annulled such measures. This ruling largely determines whether the suspended $8 billion ECT arbitration can resume.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first General Court judgment or order ending the action Nord Stream 2 AG filed on October 13, 2025, against the Article 5af transaction ban, as published on the CURIA website or in the Official Journal. “Annuls” means the ban is annulled in whole or in part as it applies to Nord Stream 2 AG. “Upholds” means the action is dismissed on the merits. “Inadmissible” means the action is dismissed without a merits ruling. “Withdrawn” means the case is removed from the register after discontinuance, including through insolvency. Any later appeal to the Court of Justice does not change the resolution. If no such decision has issued by June 30, 2028, the outcome is “still pending.”
Reasoning
Starting point. Direct annulment actions in the EU General Court against Russia-related sanctions measures, especially sectoral or general prohibitions rather than individual asset-freeze listings.: Individual sanctions listings are annulled in roughly 10% to 25% of challenges. Challenges to sectoral prohibitions (for example Rosneft and the 2014 capital-market measures) have almost always failed. Direct actions in the General Court take about 18 to 24 months on average.
The arbitration has been suspended since Procedural Order No. 18 in October 2025, and its revival depends mainly on the fate of the Article 5af ban. The General Court action filed on October 13, 2025, is therefore the next decisive step. At average General Court durations, a judgment is likely around mid-2027, so the June 30, 2028, date leaves a margin. About 20% is kept for delay from a stay, a joinder with the T-264/26 challenge, or slow written procedure. On the merits, EU courts review sectoral sanctions only for manifest error and proportionality and accept broad foreign-policy aims. Challenges to general Russia measures have almost always failed. Nord Stream 2 AG’s best argument is that a ban aimed at one named asset works like an individual measure and blocks its treaty claim without compensation. That argument supports admissibility more than annulment, so outright inadmissibility is a lesser risk at 8%. Partial annulment, for example of any effect on dispute-resolution payments, is the leading alternative to dismissal at 9%. The company’s Swiss composition moratorium and U.S. SDN status add a modest risk that the action is discontinued.
Wide Council discretion over sectoral Russia sanctions · Near-uniform failure of prior sectoral sanctions challenges · General Court average duration of 18 to 24 months · Ban targets named pipelines, which strengthens admissibility · Claimant’s insolvency moratorium could end the litigation
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 24, 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