Clarification Requests 2026

Teams who have received their Team Alias may submit requests for clarification of the case, e.g. of factual ambiguities, if the States have ratified a particular convention, etc. The case committee will be reluctant to respond to requests that ask for a legal conclusion. There are two (2) rounds of clarifications, Round 1 in June and Round 2 in August (please observe the deadlines on the schedule). In each round, each team may submit up to five (5) requests. Each request may contain one (1) question only. Please review below the requests submitted by all teams to avoid duplicate questions (and conserve your team's five requests).

Round 20261

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 412 Subject Matter of FTA
Does the FTA between Equatoriana and Danubia govern the same subject matter as the treaty between Equatoriana and Danubia which has been terminated?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 285 FTA Travaux Preparatoires
Under Statement of Uncontested Facts ¶44, it states that ‘after clarifying several points, Equatoriana and Danubia entered into a new Agreement called the FTA’. What are the travaux preparotoires or the reasoning behind the making of the FTA?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 287 Treatment toward Danubian renewable energy investors
Equatoriana owed more favorable obligations to Danubian renewable energy investors than to investors from Mediterraneo. Under Article 2(1) of the Equatoriana–Danubia BIT, the host State is required to: (i) provide investors with written notice of the proposed measure and the factual and legal grounds therefor; (ii) afford investors a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence or arguments before a competent authority; and (iii) ensure that any such proceedings are fair, transparent, and conducted without undue delay. No equivalent obligations exist under the Mediterraneo–Equatoriana BIT. Accordingly, Equatoriana, as the host State, is not obligated under that treaty to accord Mediterraneo investors with the same protections. The question, therefore, is whether any Danubian renewable energy investors have in fact been granted more favorable treatment pursuant to Article 2 of the Danubia–Equatoriana BIT.

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 335 Danubian Investor in Equatoriana
Is there any Danubian investor that made their investments in Equatoriana before termination of the Equatoriana Danubia Agreement 1995?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 270 An indication of the legal framework
Is the historical relationship between Danubia and Equatoriana -in the energy sector- considered a uniquely state-to-state political cooperation framework, rather than a standard commercial market relationship?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 292 Scope of application clause of EDA and FTA
What is the scope of application of the EDA and the FTA?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 293 Transition Clause of FTA
Does the FTA have a transition clause to deal with the replacement of EDA? If so, what does it say?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 294 FET Clause of FTA
Does the FTA have a FET clause? If so, what does it say?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 296 Conclusion date and member State of the new FTA
Paragraph 44 of the Facts and the text in Exhibit R-1 both say that Danubia and Equatoriana entered into the new FTA on 28 Feburary 2024, but the title of Exhibit R-1 says "the FTA between Mediterraneo and Danubia of 28 January 2024". Is this a typographical error?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 299 FTA Clauses and Supersession of Investment Agreement
If Equatoriana is also a contracting party of Mediterraneo-Danubia FTA, is there any dispute settlement clause enshrined in it?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 302 Request for Further Information on Investment Provisions of FTA
We respectfully request you to provide a more detailed Investment Chapter in Mediterraeno-Danubia FTA, especially concerning the obligations of the host state and the rights of investors.

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 303 Inquiry on Evidence for BIT Termination and Related Negotiations
Is there any evidence such as diplomatic notes or other forms of documents to prove that Equatoriana and Danubia have jointly terminated Equatoriana-Danubia BIT?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 289 Merits
Does Equatoriana's domestic law, including but not limited to the Green Energy Strategy Act 2019 (Exhibit C-2) and the Green Energy Strategy Amendment Act 2023 (Exhibit C-6), contain any provision equivalent to the procedural guarantees set out in Article 2 of the Equatoriana Danubia BIT (Exhibit C-9), namely written notice, an opportunity to be heard, and fair and transparent proceedings before the termination of a renewable energy agreement?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 307 Advance Written Notice to GreenHydro Before PSA Termination
Prior to issuing the PSA termination letter dated 29 February 2024, did ERenPow or any authority of Equatoriana send GreenHydro any written notice informing it of the proposed termination of the PSA and the factual and legal grounds for that measure?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 284 Clarification regarding parties to the Mediterraneo-Danubia FTA
Para 15 of the Response to Notice of Arbitration states that agreement (FTA) between government of Mediterraneo and Danubia, has superseded the earlier BIT. It is given the name of Equatoriana Danubia FTA in the same line. The parties are different in the name given in the brackets in para 15, and in the Exhibit R-1.

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 394 Free Trade Agreement
Does the newly signed Free Trade Agreement between Mediterraneo and Danubia (signed 28 February 2024) contain an express provision, preamble, or exchange of diplomatic notes that formally extinguishes the survival/sunset clause of the 1995 Equatoriana-Danubia Agreement?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 388 Termination of Equatoriana-Danubia Agreement
The Equatoriana-Danubia Agreement was terminated on 29 October 2023, but was terminated unilaterally by a six-months’ notice under Article 10(1) of Equatoriana-Danubia Agreement , or by mutual written agreement under Article 10(2) of Equatoriana-Danubia Agreement?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 346 "Concluded" in art. 11.2 of Equatoriana-Danubia BIT
How one should understand the term "concluded" from art. 11.2 of Equatoriana-Danubia BIT - does the process of conclusion contain the treaty entering into force?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 347 Dispute resolution mechanism in FTA
Does FTA include any dispute resolution mechanism?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 326 H
H

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 352 PO2 Stage 1 Scope
In light of Procedural Order No. 2, could the Committee clarify whether the additional claim and the provisional-measures request are to be addressed in the Stage 1 written submissions and oral hearings?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 314 The grounds to seek for set-aside of the FAI-award
what are the specific legal grounds relied upon by the Claimant before domestic courts to seek to the set-aside of the FAI Award?Is the application grounded on substantive issues or procedural issues?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 334 ICSID Membership
When did Mediterraneo become a member of ICSID?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 271 Reasonableness of proceedings
⁠⁠Was there any attempt by the parties to settle the dispute amicably during the six-month period between the issuance of the FAI award and the filing of the Notice of Arbitration?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 272 Domestic legal concept
Are Equatoriana, Danubia, and Mediterraneo considered common law jurisdictions or civil law jurisdictions?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 406 EUR 1,000,000 in FAI Award
Based on the FAI Award, Exhibit C-8, page 43, the tribunal orders ERenPow to pay GreenHydro EUR 1,000,000 for the costs incurred in connection with the PSA. Is there any further detail on what is included in the cost incurred?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 409 Transfer Technology
Based on Request for Arbitration Paragraph 16 and FAI Award Paragraph 132, did the Claimant actually transfer the patent technology to the Respondent in this project?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 332 Article 1 of BIT of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo
Whether Equatoriana has any law providing that the use of public funds for a purpose other than that for which they were allocated or released constitutes an offence, such as misappropriation of public funds or a similar offence?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 290 Set aside of FAI Award
What are the provisions concerning the setting aside of an award under the Vindobona Arbitration Act? What are the applicable circumstances and time limits?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 383 Scope of Respondent’s Requested Relief
Paragraph 31 of the Response to the Request for Arbitration, under “Relief Sought,” requests a declaration that Claimant is “not entitled to any damages.” Could the Committee please clarify whether this requested relief is intended to correspond to a jurisdictional objection, an admissibility objection, or another basis, given that its legal effect is not specified in the relief sought?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 297 Request for Specific Information on Annex 4
Could you provide any specific details of Annex 4?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 322 High Court of Vindobona
Vindobona is described throughout the problem as the seat of arbitration under the PSA (Article 30 of PSA) and is located in Danubia (Art. 30(a): "The seat of arbitration shall be in Vindobona, Danubia"). Yet the insolvency/winding-up petition and the set-aside application are both filed before the "High Court of Vindobona" with the seal of Equatoriana. Whether or not the High Court of Vindobona is a court of Equatoriana is not clear. If not a court of Equatoriana, how does a Danubian court have jurisdiction over insolvency/winding-up proceedings against Volta Transformer, a company incorporated in Equatoriana?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 306 Article 10(2) Written Notice to Equatoriana Before FAI Filing
Prior to initiating the FAI arbitration against ERenPow on 31 July 2024, did GreenHydro deliver a written notice of an investment dispute to the Government of the Republic of Equatoriana as a sovereign State, pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Equatoriana-Mediterraneo Agreement?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 353 FTA Parties
Is the Free Trade Agreement referred to in [44] of the Statement of Uncontested Facts concluded between (a) the Government of Equatoriana and the Government of Danubia, or (b) the Government of Mediterraneo and the Government of Danubia?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 354 Green Energy Strategy Act
Had the Green Hydrogen Plant been formally approved, licensed, or commissioned as a ‘Green Energy Project’ within the meaning of the Green Energy Strategy Act prior to the enactment of the Green Energy Strategy Amendment Act?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 355 Winding up proceedings
Is the High Court of Vindobona applying foreign legislation? In which State’s jurisdiction are the insolvency proceedings pending?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 356 Jurisdiction materiae
Is the question of jurisdiction ratione materiae part of Issue 1 ("Whether the Claimant is precluded from claiming damages for the termination of the PSA")

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 389 Factual Matters
Regarding the FAI Award - in para 202, page 42, the termination of the PSA was triggered by "the enactment of the Green Energy Strategy Act". However, based on the case file, it seems that the reasonable cause should be that of the Green Energy Strategy Amendment Act. Clarification is sought as to whether this is a typographical error.

Jurisdiction (Succession to BIT)/Req. No: 262 BIT Succession upon State Merger
Is State C bound by the BIT previously concluded by State A, given that State A ceased to exist upon its merger with State B to form State C, and the BIT contains no succession clause and State C has made no public statement on treaty succession?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 327 Classification of Issues and Presentation Order
Should Issue (ii) regarding MFN clause be classified as a procedural/jurisdictional issue? If Issues (i), (ii), and (iv) are all considered procedural, should these three issues be presented first by the Respondent, or will the Claimant still open the hearing on all issues?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 328 Sequence of the Hearing
Should the issue regarding provisional measures—Issue (iv)—be presented as the first issue in the hearing? If so, is the following allocation of issues between the two oralists permissible/standard under the rules: First Oralist: Issue (iv) (Provisional Measures) and Issue (i) (Preclusion of damages for PSA termination). Second Oralist: Issue (ii) (MFN clause) and Issue (iii) (Violation of Article 3 of the Equatoriana-Mediterraneo Agreement).

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 397 Tip-Off Date vs. Winding-Up Timeline Inconsistency
“Exhibit C-10 — Excerpt from the Decision of the High Court of Vindobona on preliminary objection dated 24 July 2026” (page 74 of the case file) Paragraph 21, found on page 75 of the case file, states that the Claimant discovered that Green Hydro was in severe financial distress around 17 July 2026 via tip-off. We note that this date does not appear to align with other dates referenced in the case file in relation to the winding-up petition. Could you please provide more details on the content of this tip-off, or is this a chronological inconsistency.

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 341 Issue Bifurcation
Can you Please tell how many merit and procedural issues are in Problem?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 382 Green Energy Strategy Bill
We request more information regarding the Green Energy Strategy (Act) Bill. For example; (a) when was the Green Energy Strategy Act first proposed or introduced in Parliament; (b) who formally proposed the bill; and (c) whether the bill encountered any significant parliamentary opposition or resistance prior to its adoption.

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 377 Other Hydrogen Plant Projects
Who were the counterparties to the other hydrogen plant projects?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 379 Equatoriana’s Net-Zero 2040 goal.
When and why was the Equatoriana's Net-Zero 2040 goal established?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 323 Decision of the High Court of Vindobona on preliminary objection of 24 July 2026
Whether the Court who rendered the Decision on Preliminary Objection was High Court in Equatoriana instead of the High Court of Vindobona, Danubia? Or do there exist cities with the same name of Vindobona, in Equatoriana and Danubia?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 324 Investors protected under the EDA
Whether the investor involved in the 50 MW alkaline electrolysis project qualifies as an investor protected under the EDA?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 407 Investments of Claimant in Equatoriana
What is the current status of the two smaller renewable energy contracts with other government entities of Equatoriana as on the date of the arbitration proceedings?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 330 Request for Clarification on Inconsistent Facts Regarding the Tip-off indicating GreenHydro's Financial Difficulties
Around 17 July 2026, ErenPow discovered that Green Hydro was in severe financial distress and intended to sell Volta’s assets to pay creditors. （ P. 75, Exhibit C-10, para. 21）Before 3 July 2026, ERenPow received a tip-off indicating that GreenHydro was experiencing financial difficulties. (P. 96, Statement of uncontested facts, para. 54) Do these two pieces of information conflict with each other?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 329 Location of the City of Vindobona
Line 391 of Exhibit C-1 states that “The seat of arbitration shall be in Vindobona, Danubia,” indicating that Vindobona is located in Danubia. However, Paragraph 51 of the Uncontested Facts states that on 29 December 2025, “GreenHydro applied to the High Court of Vindobona, Equatoriana, to set aside the FAI Award,” implying that Vindobona is located in Equatoriana. Could the Committee clarify whether Vindobona is located in Danubia or Equatoriana?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 311 Content of Two FTA
What are the preambles and additional provisions of the Equatoriana–Danubia Agreement of 1 November 1995 and the FTA between Equatoriana and Danubia of 28 January 2024, for the clarification of the contracting objectives, regulated subject matters and other relevant contents of the two treaties?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 312 the effect of Respondent's admission on attribution
Pursuant to Page 48, Paragraph 5: “For the sake of clarity, and solely for the purposes of this Dispute, the Respondent does not contest that ERenPow acted as its designated entity for the implementation of its policy objectives. The actions of ERenPow may therefore be attributed to Equatoriana.” Does this clause signify that the Respondent concedes attribution of ERenPow’s conduct to the home State and is barred from asserting that partial activities of ERenPow as a commercial entity amount to purely commercial acts?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 313 specific terms of Equatoriana–Danubia Agreement
Article 10 of Exhibit C-9 (Excerpt from the Equatoriana – Danubia Agreement of 1 November 1995) stipulates that the contracting parties shall terminate the relevant BIT via a written agreement. What specific terms are contained in such written termination agreement governing the arrangements reached between Equatoriana and Danubia?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 282 FAI Compensation
It is stated in Exhibit C-8 (FAI Award), Page 43, Line 995 that the tribunal orders Equatoriana RenPower to pay GreenHydro EUR 1,000,000 for the costs incurred in connection with the PSA. Has this amount actually been paid?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 336 Factual Inconsistency
The facts uses “Vindobona” in two different places, First, the FAI arbitration is seated in Vindobona, Danubia, as indicated in Exhibit C‑8 (FAI Award). Later, the Statement of Uncontested Facts states that “On 29 December 2025, GreenHydro applied to the High Court of Vindobona, Equatoriana, to set aside the FAI Award” (FDI Problem, p. 96, para. 51). This raises the question whether the problem intends there to be two cities named Vindobona—one in Danubia (the contractual seat of arbitration) and one in Equatoriana (where the High Court sits) or whether “High Court of Vindobona, Equatoriana” is a shorthand description for the competent court of the seat in Danubia

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 269 An indication to the election proceedings in Equatoriana
How frequently has the ENP experienced significant electoral rises or declines in circumstances where the bellwether state historically determined or accurately predicted national election outcomes?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 408 Patent of PEM-Elecytrolysis
Based on the PEM-Elecytrolysis patent that the Claimant had, is the patent registered internationally or locally in Mediteranneo?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 342 Regarding how many issues over all and skeleton format for citation and foot notes
In light of the Tribunal's acceptance of the additional claim, could the Organising Committee clarify the total number and scope of issues to be addressed during the Stage I Hearing? Are teams expected to argue only the four issues apparent from the proposition, or are additional issues arising from the admitted claim also to be considered? Skeleton Submissions – Citation and Formatting Clarification The Rules specify the contents to be included in the Skeleton Submissions but do not appear to prescribe a specific citation or referencing format. We would be grateful if the Organising Committee could clarify: Whether teams are required to follow any particular citation style for authorities and references; Whether footnotes may be used, and if so, whether there are any restrictions regarding their format or content; Whether teams are free to adopt a citation format of their choice, provided it is applied consistently throughout the submission;

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 331 Optional extension element under PSA
Paragraph 22 (Page 91) of the Proposition states the bids were required to cover four elements, one of which included two optional extensions relating to the Green Hydrogen Plant (i) capacity expansion and (ii) addition of an e-Ammonia production unit. Clarification is sought as to whether ERenPow was required to choose between these two options, or whether GreenHydro was required to provide both? And if ERenPow had to choose one option, did it select the second option (addition of the e-Ammonia production unit), as can be inferred from Paragraph 42 on (Page 95) of the Proposition?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 333 Nationality of other companies which invested in Equatoriana
In Para 48 (Page 96) it is stated that out of the three hydrogen projects, one was never signed or realized and the other one was renegotiated. The clarification we want is as to which country did the companies involved in these projects belong - Danubia, Mediterraneo or any other country?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 384 Exhibit C-8 (FAI Award)
⁠The dispositive section of the FAI Award lists the Tribunal’s decisions under items (a) and (d) to (g). However, items (b) and (c) are not included in the excerpt. Could you please clarify the Tribunal’s decisions under items (b) and (c)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 385 Exhibit C-1 (PSA)
If Equatoriana RenPower Ltd. is an Equatorianan company, why does the PSA recital identify its address as “Rue 9, Capital City, Mediterraneo”? Could this be a drafting error?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 399 Due Diligence Results on Public Opinion
Was the Due Diligence process conducted prior to the investment by the Claimant and if it was, what was the result of the latter regarding the vote of public opinion?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 400 Price Reduction Calculation and Impact on Other Projects
In what manner was the price reduction for all the projects calculated and were any of the other projects affected in a similar way to the GreenHydro project?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 401 Factual Basis for Foreseeability of GESA Amendment
On page 51 of the Respondent’s Response for the Request for Arbitration, the Respondent states that “the inevitable alteration of the Green Energy Strategy Act was foreseeable even before the Claimant entered into the PSA.” Does this assertion rely solely on the publicly available political developments described in paragraphs 10–13, page 88-89 of the Problem (including the Consensus Canyon by-election result, the ENP election manifesto, and campaign statements), or were there any additional facts or events relevant to such foreseeability?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 402 GreenHydro's Prior Government Contracts – Timeline and Status
On page 90 in paragraph 2175 it is stated that prior to this project GreenHydro concluded two smaller contracts with other government entities in Equatoriana. When were those contracts concluded and what is their subsequent status?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 263 Request for Clarification on Inconsistent Case Information
With regard to the timeline of the factual case: Paragraph 45 on Page 95 states that In April 2025, Mr. Cavendish, some members of ERenPow’s board of management, as well as Ms. Vent, met to have a discussion on the Green Hydrogen Project. However, Paragraph 46 records that on 25 May 2024, ERenPow extended a without-prejudice offer to renegotiate the PSA. There appears to be a chronological typographical error. Logically, the meeting and relevant discussions should take place prior to the offer to renegotiate the Project Service Agreement (PSA). Accordingly, is it possible that the time stated in the first paragraph should be April 2024 instead?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 265 Request for Clarification on Inconsistent Facts Regarding the Specific Signing Party of the FTA
Paragraph 44 of the Undisputed Facts on Case Page 95 states that Equatoriana and Danubia entered into a new treaty named the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Mediterraneo and the Government of Danubia. However, the FTA referred to on Page 54 is entitled: FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF MEDITERRANEO AND THE GOVERNMENT OF DANUBIA. Is there a typographical discrepancy here? Are the contracting parties Equatoriana and Danubia, or Mediterraneo and Danubia?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 321 Acquisition
After GreenHydro's acquisition of Volta Transformer through the share deal, did GreenHydro also automatically acquire Volta Electrolyser (as Volta Transformer's subsidiary) or does Volta Electrolyser remain a separate entity still owned by the Volta family?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 337 Parties to the 28 February 2024 Free Trade Agreement.
Exhibit R-1 is titled the “Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Mediterraneo and the Government of Danubia,” and Article 3.2(2) of the FTA refers to “the government of Mediterraneo and the government of Danubia.” However, paragraph 44 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and paragraph 15 of the Response describe the same instrument as having been entered into between Equatoriana and Danubia. Could the Tribunal please confirm which States are parties to the FTA reproduced at Exhibit R-1?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 338 Date of the Free Trade Agreement.
Exhibit R-1 is captioned and cited in the Response to the Request for Arbitration (footnote 1) and in the Table of Contents as the “FTA … of 28 January 2024.” However, the body of the FTA reproduced at Exhibit R-1 and paragraph 44 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts give the date as 28 February 2024. Could the Tribunal please confirm the correct date of the FTA?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 339 Location of Vindobona.
Paragraph 51 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts refers to “the High Court of Vindobona, Equatoriana.” However, Article 30 of the PSA (Exhibit C-1, line 391), the seat designation in the FAI Award (Exhibit C-8), and the bottom of page 46 of the Equatoriana–Danubia BIT each locate Vindobona in Danubia. Could the Tribunal please confirm in which State Vindobona is located, and accordingly, the State in which the set-aside application of 29 December 2025 and the winding-up petition of 3 July 2026 are pending?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 340 Joint Protocols on the MFN Clause
Are there any joint protocols, diplomatic notes or official explanatory memoranda exchanged between Equatoriana and Mediterraneo regarding the scope of Article 3 (MFN) at the time of the treaty's ratification?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 266 Jurisdiction
In the Respondent’s Response to the Request for Arbitration (pp. 48–49, §§7–8), Respondent expressly objects to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione materiae under both the Equatoriana–Mediterraneo Agreement and Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, while Claimant addresses this issue in its Request for Arbitration. In their Request and Response, both fomulate reliefs of existence and lack of jurisdiction. However, PO1 §17.2, as well as the supplementation introduced by PO2, do not include jurisdiction ratione materiae among the issues designated for Stage I written submissions and hearings. At the same time, the case file does not indicate that this objection was withdrawn. Accordingly, could the Committee please clarify whether jurisdiction ratione materiae may (or should) still be addressed in the Memorials and oral hearings, and whether the list of issues contained in PO1 §17.2 should be understood as exhaustive or merely indicative?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 273 Discrepancy between Exhibit R-1 and Exhibit P-55
"With the Tribunal’s leave, I would like to raise a point of inquiry regarding the chronology of the evidence. We have noted that Exhibit R-1, as cited in paragraphs 50 and 54, bears the date of 28 January, while Exhibit P-55 states the signing date to be 28 February. Given this inconsistency, we seek the Tribunal's guidance on the correct date for our records."

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 280 Clarification on Treaty Name in Exhibit P54
We note that the heading in Exhibit P54 reads “Mediterraneo and Danubia”, whereas Exhibit P50 refers to “Equatoriana‑Danubia”. Based on the content of Exhibit P54, it appears that the correct reference should also be “Equatoriana‑Danubia”. Could the Tribunal kindly confirm whether our understanding is correct?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 360 Termination for convenience in FAI Award
Could the Committee elaborate on the FAI Arbitral Tribunal's legal reasoning in the FAI Award where they conclude that the Purchase and Service Agreement (PSA) had been validly terminated for convenience?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 361 Negotiation of the PSA
Could the Committee provide details on the PSA negotiations conducted between May and July 2023 between GreenHydro Plc. and ERenPow, particularly regarding the Respondent’s role in the negotiations and its involvement in determining or influencing the terms of the PSA?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 363 Purpose of the Sunset Clause in the Equatoriana-Danubia BIT
Could you provide any formal documentation—such as travaux préparatoires, negotiating records, drafting history, official statements, or treaty commentaries—supporting the parties’ alleged intention regarding the operation of the sunset clause, as referred to in the Response to the Request for Arbitration, paragraph 16, namely that: “The purpose of the Sunset Clause in the terminated agreement was to provide a temporary apparatus in the absence of a new framework to govern the transactions between the parties. It was not intended to create a system where there would be overlapping parallel treaties”? In particular, documents showing that both treaty parties shared this understanding at the time of the treaty’s termination or replacement.

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 380 Law providing for accelerated liquidation mechanism
What is the specific Equatoriana law which empowered ERenPow to invoke the accelerated liquidation mechanism?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 381 Equatorianian law on enforcement
The Vindobona High Court decision in Exhibit C-10 found a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil between GreenHydro and Volta Transformer. Does Equatorianian law permit the enforcement of a debt owed by GreenHydro against the assets of Volta Transformer purely on this basis (at an interlocutory stage) without a final determination on the merits?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 395 Equatorian Law governing seizure of assets
Is there any provision in the Equatoriana’s Insolvency Law which provides for the seizure of the assets before the admission of the insolvency petition?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 405 Allegations forming the basis of preservation order
Whether the Respondent has placed any evidence on the record in the High Court proceedings with respect to the Claimant’s alleged intention to sell or liquidate Volta’s assets or these allegations are based solely on inference or hearsay?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 349 Vindobona Court Location
The PSA provides that the seat of the FAI arbitration is Vindobona, Danubia. However, the later facts refer to the High Court of Vindobona in relation to the set-aside and insolvency/winding-up proceedings. Could the Committee clarify whether this High Court of Vindobona is a court of Equatoriana or Danubia?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 267 Equatoriana Insolvency Act
The team respectfully requests clarification as to the relevant provisions contained in the Equatoriana Insolvency Act (the “Act”), including the legal basis, requirements, and procedure for a winding-up petition and accelerated liquidation referred to in the facts.

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 316 details about the insolvency proceeding
Details concerning the specific involvement of Equitoriana in the insolvency proceeding initiated was filed and advanced by Erenpow, including whether the bankruptcy procedure officials.

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 386 Exhibit R-6 (Commercial Court of Mediterraneo Decision)
How could the Commercial Court of First Instance in Mediterraneo have rendered its decision on 29 January 2023 when Solaris only commenced the proceedings before that court on 23 March 2023? Does this indicate an error in the chronology?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 298 Question Concerning Potential Omission in Claimant’s Additional Claims Request
Is there an omission in the Relief section of the Claimant' s Additional Claims Request?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 288 Provisional measure in ICSID Arbitration ICSID Arbitration Rule 47(2)(d)
The team respectfully requests clarification from the Tribunal on the time discrepancy arising from the above rule and procedural arrangements. Pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 47(2)(d), the Tribunal shall issue its decision on the request within 30 days after the later of the constitution of the Tribunal or the last submission. As confirmed in PO1, the last submission shall be filed by 16 September 2026, meaning the decision on provisional measures shall be issued no later than 16 October 2026. However, the hearing for Stage 1 is scheduled to commence on 23 October 2026. The team requests the Tribunal to clarify relevant issues concerning this timeline inconsistency.

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 320 Scope of Oral Argument
Given that PO2 assigns the anti-suit injunction to Stage 1 and expropriation to Stage 2, could the tribunal clarify the scope of oral argument across both the regional rounds and the global orals- specifically, whether teams will be confined to Stage 1 issues only or will also be expected to address Stage 2 issues and relatedly, on what legal basis the anti-suit injunction should be argued at Stage-1 given that expropriation merits will not be formally decided until Stage 2?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 310 Absence of Third-Party Creditors in the Winding-Up Petition
Are there any third-party creditors of Volta Transformer, other than Equatoriana RenPower Ltd., participating in or party to the winding-up petition filed on 3 July 2026?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 281 Decision of the High Court of Vindobona of 7 July 2026
Has the decision of the High Court of Vindobona of 7 July 2026 (as upheld on 24 July 2026) been challenged (e.g., by way of an appeal or any other form of judicial review) under the laws of Equatoriana?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 362 Specific provisions regarding the de facto seizure in the Equatoriana Insolvency Act
In reference to the winding-up petition mentioned in paragraph 55 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, could the Committee provide the specific articles or sections of the Equatoriana Insolvency Act that outline the mechanism for an accelerated liquidation or de facto seizure of assets?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 364 Inadequate maintenance of the Claimant's asset in the de facto seizure
Could the Committee clarify whether the poor maintenance of Volta Transformer's seized assets was caused by the Court’s unintentional lack of resources, or if it was an intentional act?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 367 Request for Clarification regarding the extent of GreenHydro’s financial distress
Does GreenHydro generate sufficient revenue from ongoing operations to continue pursuing the present arbitration, or is its ability to pursue these proceedings dependent on retaining ownership and control of its assets?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 368 Request for Clarification regarding Time Limits Applicable to Asset Seizure and Insolvency Proceedings
In relation to the asset seizure referred to in the facts, is ERenPow required under the applicable law to commence insolvency proceedings within a specified period following the seizure, failing which the seizure would be lifted or otherwise cease to have effect or whether the seizure may remain in place indefinitely without the initiation of insolvency proceedings?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 413 Impact of the reduced allocation
How does the reduction in allocation of the SGE bonds affect the claimant?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 351 Other GESA Participation
Before the Green Energy Strategy Amendment Act 2023, were there any other foreign or non-domestic entities participating in projects under the Green Energy Strategy Act 2019? If so, could the Committee clarify the general form of such participation?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 350 Section 7 Status
For the purpose of Section 7 of the Green Energy Strategy Act 2019, had the Green Hydrogen Plant or the PSA been “approved”, “licensed”, or “commissioned” before the Green Energy Strategy Amendment Act 2023 came into force?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 348 Prior Project Category
Statement of Uncontested Facts refers to GreenHydro having concluded two smaller contracts with governmental entities of Equatoriana. Could the Committee clarify, in broad terms, the technical stream or project category to which these contracts related?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 283 The reasonableness of the termination
It is stated on Page 95, paragraph 43 that ERenPow terminated the PSA on two grounds. Did ERenPow submit any supporting evidence or documentation to justify its action when notifying GreenHydro of the termination?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 365 The approval of Permission Planning
It is mentioned in Paragraph 19 on Page 19 that the Claimant submitted the Permission Planning for approval on 1 November 2023. Did Equatoriana approve the Claimant's Permission Planning?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 268 Limitations on public policy in Equatoriana
Has there been a precedent in Equatoriana’s energy sector where a governmental entity unilaterally terminated an agreement on legally or regulatorily justified grounds?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 410 Termination of other contract
The case file doesn't indicate whether other green hydrogen projects implemented or administered by ERenPow were similarly renegotiated or terminated following the political transition and legislative amendment (GESA Amendment 2023). Accordingly, could the Committee please clarify whether, following the enactment of the GESA Amendment, ERenPow terminated/renegotiated any other green hydrogen projects due to the revised governmental policy?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 411 Disputes arose based on the amendment
The case file doesn't indicate whether any dispute arose in relation to the changes of Respondent's measures (GESA Amendment 2023). Accordingly, could the Committee please clarify whether any disputes or legal proceedings arose due to these changes of the act?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 308 Formal GESA Approval of Green Hydrogen Plant Before Amendment
Did the Government of Equatoriana or ERenPow issue any formal document specifically recognising the Green Hydrogen Plant contracted under the PSA as a Green Energy Project under the Green Energy Strategy Act 2019, prior to the enactment of the Green Energy Strategy Amendment Act in December 2023?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 309 Official Capacity of Mr. Positive in March 2019 Interview
At the time of the interview published in the Equatoriana Daily on 28 March 2019 (Exhibit C-4), was Mr. Positive speaking in his official capacity as Minister of Energy and Environment of Equatoriana?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 396 Protection of Danubian investor
The new Equatoriana-Danubia FTA was signed on 28 February 2024 but only entered into force on 1 April 2024. During the interim period (which includes 29 February 2024, the date the PSA was terminated), which treaty confers protection to Danubian investors in Equatoriana or was there no a gap on the 29 February 2024?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 404 Termination of PSA
During the extensive negotiations between May and July 2023, did GreenHydro ever formally propose a "stabilization clause" (a contractual guarantee freezing the regulatory framework)?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 344 "Specific invitation"
Was the specific invitation to participate in the tender sent to Claimant by Respondent also addressed to other entities besides Claimant? What exactly was this "specific invitation" like, how was it worded, and in what form did it take?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 345 Termination of the PSA
What were the specific reasons for terminating the PSA, taking into account the change in Equatoriana's policy, which was embodied in the amendment to the Green Strategy Act - i.e. what were the strategical and political reasons behind abandoning the Investment in the form in which it occurred?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 371 Clarification on Nationality of Entities in Other Green Hydrogen Projects
Paragraph 48 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts (p.96) indicates that, there are three hydrogen projects initially envisaged by the Government of Equatoriana, one was not realized, while another was renegotiated with a 7 percent price reduction. Accordingly, can the Committee clarify the nationality and/or place of incorporation of the entities or project companies involved in other green hydrogen projects?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 372 Request for Clarification regarding PSA eAmmonia module option
Given that Article 3 of the PSA required GreenHydro to submit “Final Plans for approval (including a plan for the eAmmonia Option)” by 1 February 2024, while Article 2(3) allowed ERenPow to exercise the eAmmonia Option until 31 December 2026, can the Committee clarify GreenHydro’s contractual obligations regarding the eAmmonia module at the Final Plans stage. Specifically, whether GreenHydro was required to include detailed planning for the eAmmonia module even though the option had not yet been exercised by ERenPow?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 370 Clarification Regrading the Previous Renewable Energy Contract Between GreenHydro and Equatoriana:
With respect to Paragraph 20 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts (p. 90), can the Committee clarify the circumstances under which GreenHydro’s two smaller renewable-energy contracts with other Equatorianian government entities were concluded, including whether those contracts involved similar contractual terms, renegotiations, delays, or termination issues?

Round 20262

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 508 PO3 Paragraph 10 Line 2642
In Procedural Order 3 para 10 line 2642 "some provisions" have been mentioned, what specific provisions are being referred to in the above lines?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 470 “In Like Circumstances” in Claimant’s Request for Arbitration
The Claimant’s request for arbitration interprets the MFN clause by adding an ‘in like circumstances’ modifier, as opposed to the text of the MFN clause which does not have any such modifier. Please clarify if this is a typo in the Request or the text of the clause.

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 505 Operationalized of the FTA
Following the FTA’s entry into force on 1 April 2024, is there any evidence demonstrating that the FTA was actually implemented or operationalized by Equatoriana in practice, including evidence of its application to investors or investments?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 480 Intention of the Parties to the MFN Clause
Could the Committee clarify whether there are any supporting documents or materials in the record that evidence the Contracting Parties’ intention regarding the use of MFN to import treatment from a third party provision? In regards to the Response to Request which stipulates "MFN cannot be used to import whole provisions from another treaty when there was no intention of Contracting Parties to do so."

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 516 1995 Agreement negotiations
Were there any particular reasons to include "operationalized" (instead of "entered into force") in the sunset clause in 1995 Agreement? Was it a last change remark or a specifically negotiated outcome?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 491 Negotiation of Equatoriana-Danubia FTA
Why were Equatoriana and Danubia rushing the application of the 2024 FTA, and how long did it take them to negotiate it?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 492 Arbitral claims and the sunset clause
Did the arbitral claims brought against Danubia over the last five years (line 2645) result from the termination of the sunset clause?

Applicability of Article 2 of Equatoriana - Danubi/Req. No: 432 Danubian parliamentary debate
PO3, para. 10 records that during the Danubian parliamentary debate, it was stated that "some provisions of the Equatoriana-Danubia Agreement of 1995 would apply during the ratification gap". Did this statement ultimately come into reality? Were any provisions of the 1995 BIT actually applied by either State between 28 February 2024 and 1 April 2024, and if so, which provisions and in what manner? Did Equatoriana agree with or acknowledge this statement?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 471 Evidence of Loss in the FAI Arbitration
Although GreenHydro did not formally claim damages in the FAI arbitration, did it submit any evidence, calculations, or other material quantifying losses arising from the termination of the PSA?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 478 Set Aside FAI
Could the Committee please clarify which aspect or procedure of the FAI arbitration proceedings the Claimant relies upon as the basis for seeking to set aside the commercial arbitration proceedings before the High Court of Solmera?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 476 Damage
Could the Committee please clarify what specific damage or loss the Claimant seeks to recover in the present proceedings? In particular, does the Claimant claim EUR 1,000,000 as damages, or does it seek a different amount?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 430 Competence of Domestic Courts
Under Equatorianian law, may a foreign investor bring before the domestic courts of Equatoriana a claim alleging a breach of the Equatoriana–Mediterraneo Agreement? Optional Rationale/Explanation of Request: Article 10(2) of the Equatoriana–Mediterraneo Agreement permits an investor to initiate legal action before a “competent forum”, while Article 10(4) gives preclusive effect to the prior submission of a dispute to such a forum. Clarification is requested because the case file does not indicate whether Equatorianian domestic courts are competent to adjudicate alleged breaches of the Agreement. This fact is relevant to determining the intended scope of the term “competent forum”.

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 459 ERenPow's designation
Has the designation of ERenPow for the purpose of the implementation of Equatoriana’s policy objectives been notified to ICSID according to Art. 25(1) of the ICSID Convention?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 420 Exhibit c-1 mistyping clarification
The addresses appear swapped: Equatoriana RenPower Ltd. is listed in Mediterraneo, but should be in Equatoriana (per recitals) • GreenHydro Plc is listed in Equatoriana Please confirm correction

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 485 GreenHydro’s PEM technology patent
What are the terms and scope of GreenHydro’s patent relating to PEM technology?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 440 Date of Submission of "trigger letter"
On what specific day in October 2025 was GreenHydro's notice of dispute sent to Equatoriana?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 421 Pg 95 uncontested facts line 2324
Renegotiation of PSA In first line 2324 the date mentioned is april 2025 Which contradicts the followed date in (line2330) written 25 may 2024 kindly comfirm and clear the dates

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 436 Danubian UNCITRAL Model Law
Whether the Danubian Arbitration Act wholly adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law?

Jurisdiction (claim preclusion)/Req. No: 426 ERenPow's attribution to Equatorianna
In PO 3, it is stated that attribution "shall not be addressed." Does this mean that the parties have agreed that ERenPow's conduct is attributable to Equatorianna, such that attribution is no longer in dispute? If so, are the parties precluded from discussing attribution altogether, or may they still refer to it as an agreed fact without advancing any substantive arguments on attribution?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 477 Facts Contradictions
Is the Judge statement in the High Court of Solmera is valid to say that the PSA is terminated due to breach done by the Claimant, or is it some sort of mistake by the Committee to write that statement in Paragraph 11 of Exhibit C-10, Excerpt from the Decision of the High Court of Solmera on preliminary objection of 24 July 2026?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 511 Page 24 line 535
Page 24 line 535 of the case record mentions "excluded technologies", which are the specific technologies included in the other excluded technologies?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 428 Clarification Regarding the Issues to Be Discussed in the Global Round Hearing
According to the case materials published on the FDI Moot website, there are two hearing stages: Stage 1 and Stage 2. Stage 1 includes four issues, while Stage 2 includes one additional issue. However, the scheduled dates for Stage 1 (23–27 October) coincide with the dates of the Global Round. Therefore, we would like to kindly confirm whether, during the Global Round, teams are expected to address only the four issues listed under Stage 1, or whether all five issues (including the additional issue under Stage 2) will be covered.

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 422 Pleadings Format
Is the oral hearing going to be conducted using the RCCR format or the CRCR format?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 423 Order of issues arrangement
Are we to make issues 1 & 4 for one counsel and issues 2 & 3 for the other (considering the fact that issues 1 & 4 are the closest to Procedural issues) or it must be Issues 1 & 2 for the first counsel, and 3 & 4 for the other?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 453 50MW Alkaline project details
⁠Is there any further context or information available regarding the comparator project, namely the 50 MW alkaline electrolysis plant? In particular, could the Committee clarify details such as the investor’s State of nationality, the stage of negotiations reached, and whether the project had been terminated prior to the relevant events?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 451 Greenfield construction detail clarification
When was the Greenfield construction site handed over to Claimant?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 450 Art. 3(3) EMA Clarification
Can the committee clarify whether the wording of the MFN clause under Article 3(3) EMA on page 99 of the case file correct?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 449 Clarification on Equatoriana's Legal System and Domestic Implementation of the FTA
Is Equatoriana a monist or dualist state? If Equatoriana is a dualist state, when did it enact the legislation to give effect to the FTA in its domestic law?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 495 Exercise of eAmmonia Option under Article 2(3) of PSA
Could the organisers clarify whether ERenPow had exercised the eAmmonia Option under Article 2(3) of the PSA prior to GreenHydro’s submission of the Final Plans on 28 February 2024?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 496 Effect of Subsequent Treaty on Sunset Clause
Could the organisers clarify whether the 1995 Equatoriana–Danubia Agreement contains any provision addressing the effect of a subsequent treaty on the seven-year sunset clause?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 424 Clarification on Choice of Wording
Can you give me your clarification on this paragraph as prescribed in Procedural Order No. 3?: "As Danubia is a dualist state and to give effect to the FTA, Danubia enacted legislation on the same day, which expressly repealed the domestic statute that had incorporated the Equatoriana-Danubia Agreement of 1995 into national law. It was stated during the parliamentary debate that some provisions of the Equatoriana-Danubia Agreement of 1995 would apply during the ratification gap and that the legislation was forward looking."

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 419 Clarification on the Identity of the Relevant FTA
Could the Organizers clarify the correct Free Trade Agreement referred to in the Moot Problem, given the inconsistent references to (i) the parties to the agreement (Mediterraneo–Danubia and Equatoriana–Danubia) and (ii) the date of its conclusion (28 January 2024 and 28 February 2024)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 497 2024 FTA’s Effect on 1995 Agreement Protections
Could the organisers clarify whether the 2024 FTA contains any provision expressly terminating, replacing, or otherwise addressing protections arising from investments made under the 1995 Agreement?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 500 Declassification of Green Hydrogen Plant under Section 9
Did the Authority, ERenPow, or any competent body of Equatoriana issue a formal decision declassifying, revoking, or terminating the Green Hydrogen Plant's status as an Eligible/'Green Energy' Project pursuant to Section 9 of the Green Energy Strategy Amendment Act 2023 — as referenced in paragraph 24 of the Response to the Request for Arbitration — and if so, on what date?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 452 Declassification detail
How was Claimant’s project declassified as an Eligible Project under the GESA? Was the declassification a separate event from the termination of the PSA?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 484 Contracting parties – eAmmonia production agreement
The Statement of Uncontested Facts states that the contract for the production of eAmmonia was concluded with Green Ammonia. Could you please clarify the identity of the other contracting party? Specifically, were the parties to the contract ERenPow and Green Ammonia, or GreenHydro and Green Ammonia?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 483 Page 18 – PSA / Annex 11
On page 18, is the omission of Annex 11 (the PSA) intentional?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 482 GreenHydro as a seller of hyrdogen
On what date did GreenHydro apply to be listed as a seller of hydrogen under Equatoriana’s Public Procurement Law? We understand that GreenHydro received approval in November 2022.

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 481 Danubian Arbitration Act – Article 34
Does Article 34 of the Danubian Arbitration Act replicate Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law in its entirety, or does it replicate only Article 34(2)(a)(iv)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 442 Financial advantages SGE Bonds Claimant
Did GreenHydro benefit financially from the SGE bonds, and if so, to what extent?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 441 Effective provisions during ratification gap
Which provisions should continue to be applicable during the ratification gap? (PO3, 10; p. 106, para. 2641-2644)

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 439 Equatoriana Civil Code
Can the "Equatoriana Civil Code" be provided? (pp. 39 (para. 870, 879,); 41 (para. 934); 43 (para. 993, 994)

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 438 Origin of comparable Investors
Are the other Investors referenced, i.e., the one which did not survive the renegotiation and the one which lowered its contract price by 7%, investors of Danubia, Mediterraneo, or Equatoriana within the meaning of the respective BITs? (page 96, Nr. 48)

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 499 FAI Award_Reimbursement
Did Claimant ever allege that the EUR 1,000,000 awarded by the FAI Tribunal did not fully cover the costs incurred in connection with the PSA?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 493 Attribution
Does the Parties’ agreement that attribution shall not be addressed preclude reliance on facts concerning Respondent’s ownership and control of ERenPow, or only submissions seeking to establish attribution?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 429 Claimant’s Position on the 10% Contractual Payment
Whether the Claimant is disputing the repayment of the 10% of the contractual price paid to it pursuant to the terminated contract?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 437 Duration of insolvency proceedings in Solmera High Court
Whether there’s an exact time period for the High Court in Solmera to finally finish and admit the insolvency?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 434 Scope of Claimant’s ASI Application
Does the Claimant’s requested provisional measure to stay insolvency proceedings include a requirement to lift the de facto asset seizure ordered by the high court of Solmera? Optional Rationale/Explanation of Request: The Claimant seeks an anti-suit injunction to stay ERenPow’s winding-up petition against Volta Transformer. The record contains the High Court’s de facto asset seizure order dated 7 July 2026, yet the parties’ written submissions have not clarified whether the requested ASI extends to covering the release of seized assets.

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 498 Accelerated Liquidation Mechanism
could the organisers clarify the statutory framework governing the accelerated liquidation mechanism referred to in paragraph 55 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts, including the conditions, notice requirements, applicable thresholds, and timelines for any measures affecting a respondent’s assets prior to formal admission into liquidation?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 464 other Creditors in the Winding-Up Proceedings
The Statement of Uncontested Facts states that GreenHydro had “accumulated debts to other creditors” before ERenPow filed the winding-up petition (para. 54, pp. 96–97). Have any such other creditors filed claims, sought to participate, or otherwise become involved in the winding-up proceedings and, if so, what is the nature and amount of their claims?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 469 Maintenance of the Seized Assets
The insolvency petition has not yet been admitted and no court-appointed administrator has taken control of Volta Transformer’s assets, while the High Court has already ordered their de facto seizure and Claimant alleges that they are inadequately maintained and depreciating. Pending admission, who retains physical custody of the seized assets and who is responsible for their maintenance?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 435 Relevance of additional claim to underlying dispute
Whether the Respondent should still contest the additional claim is not related to the underlying dispute? Since Procedural Order No. 2 provided that the Tribunal finds the additional claims raised by the Claimant arises directly out of the subject matter of the dispute?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 431 Government Control over ERenPow
Under Equatorianian law and ERenPow’s corporate governance framework, does the Government of Equatoriana have the power to direct ERenPow to seek a stay of a particular judicial proceeding? Optional Rationale/Explanation of Request: Claimant requests an anti-suit injunction against Equatoriana requiring ERenPow to cease pursuing, or to seek and maintain a stay of the insolvency proceedings. The record establishes that ERenPow is a separate private-law entity whose management conducts its day-to-day operations, while Equatoriana owns ERenPow and appoints its management. The case file does not clarify whether the Government has the legal power to direct ERenPow in relation to a particular pending judicial proceeding. This clarification concerns the practical effectiveness of the requested provisional measure, rather than attribution.

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 506 seizure of Claimant's assets
We kindly ask for the clarification about the subject of assets seizure from High Court of Vindobonna. In Exhibit C-10, the High Court ordered to seize the Volta Transformer's asset. However, Statement of Uncontested Fact paragraph 56 declared that "ERenPow filed a provisional relief application to prevent the dissipation of GreenHydro’s assets"

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 475 Timeline of insolvency proceedings
What is the expected timeframe for completion of the accelerated insolvency proceedings in Solmera?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 502 Exhibits for Photographs
In the Request for the Admission of Additional Claims and Application for Provisional Measures page 74 paragraph 8, Claimant states that “the Respondent’s inadequate maintenance of the seized assets has resulted in their depreciation” and that “photographs showing the poor condition of the assets were leaked by an anonymous individual affiliated with ERenPow.” Could the Case Committee please provides the relevant exhibit or reference for the photographs.

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 504 Equatoriana Legal Framework regarding Debt Payment and Insolvency Proceeding
Could the Case Committee kindly clarify whether Equatoriana’s legal framework provides any mechanisms for the creditor to seek recovery of an alleged contractual debt besides winding-up proceedings? We kindly ask for further information regarding debt payment and insolvency proceedings

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 457 High Court of Solmera hearing
What is going to be the subject of the 3rd December 2026 hearing before the High Court of Solmera?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 489 Encashment of the Bank Guarantee
What would happen to the bank guarantee, given that its encashment was contingent upon performance of construction obligations under a contract that has since been terminated?

Provisional measure in the context of the bankrupt/Req. No: 458 Accelerated insolvency proceedings
How are the accelerated insolvency proceedings different from normal insolvency proceedings?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 474 Pre contractual communications with the government
During the tender process and negotiations preceding the PSA, did GreenHydro meet or otherwise communicate with any Equatorian government officials concerning the Green Hydrogen Plant and, if so, who participated and what matters were discussed?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 503 Claimant's due diligence
The case file doesn't indicate whether GreenHydro conducted or commissioned any formal due diligence report, such as legal, regulatory, or commercial, prior to concluding the PSA. Accordingly, could the Committee please clarify whether GreenHydro undertook any such due diligence process, and whether any documentation of it exists in the record?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 433 Undue Economic Burden Assessment
Prior to ERenPow's termination of the PSA on 29 February 2024, did Equatoriana or ERenPow conduct any formal assessment or produce any documentation evaluating whether the PSA constituted an "undue economic burden" within the meaning of the Green Energy Strategy Amendment Act 2023?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 507 ⁠Page 93, Para 33
⁠Page 93 para 33 was the price lowered by 5% by the Respondents?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 456 Other Green Energy Projects
Were there any other projects planned or underway under the Green Energy Strategy Act? What was their nature, and who were the contractors?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 466 Benefits Attached to Eligible Project Status
PO3 states that the Green Hydrogen Plant was formally approved as an Eligible Project immediately after the PSA was concluded. What benefits, entitlements, incentives, permits, or infrastructure support had GreenHydro received or used to before 4 December 2023?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 460 The other hydrogen projects
What was the manner of renegotiation of the other three hydrogen projects initially envisaged by the Government of Equatoriana? What are the details of these projects (origin of investor, legal regime of the projects)

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 462 Viability of Claimant's Investment
What was the reason the Claimant won the reverse auction?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 488 Other investors
Ad UF 21, were any other investors specifically invited? How many bidders took part in the tender?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 490 Procedure followed to reassess the PSA in light of the Amended Act
Were any due process requirements (such as notice, opportunity to be heard were given to the Claimant) followed when the government sought to reassess the Claimant’s contract in light of the amended Green Energy Strategy Act?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 512 Competitiveness of green hydrogen
Did Equatoriana’s Ministry of Energy or any governmental body produce any reports, studies, or economic analyses between 2019-2023 regarding the cost-competitiveness of green hydrogen compared to solar/wind energy in Equatoriana?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 513 Green Energy Strategy Act revision
Between January 2022 and July 2023, were there any public parliamentary debates, committee reports, or media reports discussing the potential revision of the Green Energy Strategy Act’s green hydrogen provisions?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 514 Elections prediction
How many times between 2000 and 2022 did the Consensus Canyon by-election result accurately predict the outcome of the subsequent national parliamentary elections?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 455 the Caculation of the Fund's Allocation
How was the allocation's adjusted percentage (the different number between solar/wind/green energy) calculated?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 494 Termination of other green energy contracts
Has Respondent or ERenPow terminated any other green energy contract following the change of the policies?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 515 Renegotiated Contract
Regarding the 50 MW green hydrogen project that was renegotiated with a 7% price reduction: did that project experience any delays, contractual breaches, or performance issues prior to renegotiation, and if so, what were they?

Violation of Article 3 of Equatoriana-Mediterraneo/Req. No: 487 Green Hydrogen Plant’s formal approval
Following the Green Hydrogen Plant’s formal approval as an Eligible Project, were there any concrete permits, allocations, site or infrastructure commitments, or other forms of support granted or made available to the Plant?