ESTONIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Maria Pihlak, Carri Ginter, Raul Kartsep and Katariina Kuum, Sorainen
7. Other Procedural and Evidentiary Issues 7.1 Notice of Dispute and Consultation Period The applicable Estonian laws do not set out require- ments for a notice of dispute or a consultation period. In practice, the investor may need to follow treaty‑specified procedural requirements as Estonia’s treaties typically include a dispute resolution clause under which investors must give notice and allow time for amicable settlement. This is standard in many BITs. 7.2 Confidentiality and Transparency In its approach to transparency in ISDS, Estonia largely follows the example and guidance of EU pol- icy, which favours greater transparency (eg, the EU’s approval of the UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration). For exam- ple, the recordings of the hearing in AS Tallinna Vesi and United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. v Republic of Estonia (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24) were publicly available for viewing for quite some time. Additionally, most of the key case materials, such as procedural orders, the tribunal’s decisions and the award, are still pub- licly available on the ICSID website. The same is true for OKO Pankki Oyj and Others v Republic of Estonia (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/6), where Estonia was held liable for a breach of the BIT. Additionally, the latest 2025 award in ELA USA, Inc. v Republic of Estonia is also publicly available. The above confirms that the Estonian state welcomes transparency in ISDS proceedings and decisions and does not seek to shield itself from public scrutiny.
Additionally, until the formation of the arbitral tribu- nal to resolve the dispute, the competent body of the tribunal may transmit a party’s application for interim relief to the court. The application is disposed of fol- lowing the rules provided by law for disposing of such applications. 5.3 Security for Costs Estonia’s legal framework does not place any restric- tions on courts and arbitral tribunals to order security for costs. Both courts and arbitral tribunals have dis- cretion in this regard. 6. Third-Party Funding 6.1 Prevalence of Third-Party Funding Estonia’s legal framework does not regulate or place any restrictions on third-party funding of investor– state claims. As case law is limited due to the low number of ISDS cases in Estonia, no consistent prac- There is no known case law specific to Estonia that addresses third‑party funding, its disclosure or its regulation. The only ISDS case involving Estonia where third- party funding has been discussed and disclosed is the ELA v Estonia case, where the claimant disclosed its third-party funder. However, in that case, the place of arbitration was Geneva, Switzerland, and thus the domestic laws and regulations of Estonia did not apply. 6.3 Disclosure and Security for Costs As mentioned in 6.2 Third-Party Funding Case Law , there are no regulations or known case law specific to Estonia that address third‑party funding, its disclosure or its regulation. As such, it is difficult to predict how tribunals and courts would treat the existence of third- party funding when, eg, considering applications for security for costs. tice has been established in this regard. 6.2 Third-Party Funding Case Law
8. Damages and Valuation 8.1 Remedies
Tribunals can award monetary damages, interest and costs (legal, expert, institutional) if the treaty/arbitra- tion rules allow. Estonia does not impose domestic law limits on types of remedies in ISDS beyond what the applicable treaty and arbitration rules allow. However, as punitive dam- ages are not part of the Estonian legal system and their award is not allowed under domestic law, such
78 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook