Buried Hill Serdar Limited v. Turkmenistan

At a glance

Parties

Buried Hill Serdar Limited (Jersey) v. Turkmenistan

Case no.

ICSID Case No. ARB/25/40

Forum and rules

ICSID Convention arbitration; ICSID Arbitration Rules in force as of 1 July 2022; place of proceeding Paris, France

Treaty

Energy Charter Treaty

Tribunal

Mr. Eduardo Siqueiros (President), Mr. Michael Goldberg, Prof. Pierre Mayer. Prof. Philippe Sands was disqualified on 11 February 2026 and replaced by Prof. Mayer.

Sector

Oil and gas; Caspian Sea oil field

Outcome

Pending. The published documents are a decision upholding the Claimant's proposal to disqualify Prof. Philippe Sands and two procedural orders; they do not show any decision on jurisdiction or the merits.

Amount

The published documents do not state the amount claimed. The Claimant says it invested over $168 million. ICSID requested advances of US$150,000 from each Party.

The dispute

Buried Hill Serdar Limited, a company incorporated in Jersey, says it invested over $168 million in Turkmenistan's oil and gas sector over nearly two decades. It relied on assurances from three successive Presidents and senior officials that it would be able to develop the Serdar (now Dostluk) oil field in the Caspian Sea, and it signed Production Sharing Agreements in 2007 and 2013. It claims that by November 2024 Turkmenistan had made clear it would not let Buried Hill take part in developing the field. It alleges that this breached the Energy Charter Treaty by defeating legitimate expectations created by the State's highest officials. In a parallel ICC arbitration under the 2013 Production Sharing Agreement, Buried Hill claims against the State Concern Turkmennebit for breach of contract and of local law.

Key holdings

1. The Unchallenged Arbitrators decided the proposal under Article 58 of the ICSID Convention and ICSID Arbitration Rule 23(1). They adopted the Blue Bank v. Venezuela standard: an objective test, based on a third party's reasonable evaluation of the evidence. The appearance of bias is enough, and the lack of impartiality or independence must be 'manifest', meaning evident or obvious. Decision on Disqualification ¶¶ 82, 89
2. Parallel or overlapping proceedings, common witnesses and shared facts do not by themselves create a risk of prejudgment. The Claimant had not shown that Prof. Sands could not assess the facts, testimony and legal issues of the two cases independently and impartially; his experience weighed in this assessment. Decision on Disqualification ¶¶ 92–99
3. Prof. Sands would, however, hear contested arguments in the ICC Arbitration from the same counsel and the same witnesses, on the same documents and the same asset. A third party would therefore find an evident or obvious appearance of a lack of independence, in the sense that he could be influenced by factors other than the merits of this case, even if only unconsciously. Decision on Disqualification ¶¶ 100, 109
4. His service in the ICC Arbitration would also create an asymmetry of information within the Tribunal. He would probably hear the witnesses first, so their testimony would no longer be spontaneous, and he would share in the ICC deliberations, which the other arbitrators would not. The Respondent's offer to file the full ICC record, and the fact that the Claimant has the same counsel in both cases, did not cure the problem. Decision on Disqualification ¶¶ 101–113
5. The proposal to disqualify Prof. Sands was accepted. The decision on the costs of the proposal was reserved. Decision on Disqualification ¶ 114
6. Procedural Order No. 2 sets the transparency regime. ICSID will not publish the Award without the Parties' consent, but will publish excerpts. Orders and decisions are to be published, with redactions. Written submissions, supporting documents, transcripts and recordings are not to be published, and hearings are closed to the public. Procedural Order No. 2 ¶¶ 8–14

Procedural history

1. 5 August 2025The Claimant files a Request for Arbitration dated 31 July 2025. ICSID registers it on 12 August 2025.
2. 29 September 2025Turkmenistan appoints Prof. Philippe Sands, who accepts on 18 October 2025. The Claimant's first appointee, Dr. Stanimir A. Alexandrov, declines; the Claimant appoints Mr. Michael S. Goldberg on 10 November 2025.
3. 19 December 2025The Tribunal is constituted, with Mr. Eduardo Siqueiros as President, chosen by the Parties through a list procedure.
4. 23 December 2025The Claimant proposes the disqualification of Prof. Sands because he also sits in the related ICC Arbitration against Turkmennebit; the proceeding is suspended.
5. 11 February 2026Decision on Disqualification: the Unchallenged Arbitrators accept the proposal and reserve costs.
6. 2 April 2026The Tribunal is reconstituted with Prof. Pierre Mayer in place of Prof. Sands.
7. 8 May 2026First session held by video conference.
8. 27 May 2026Procedural Order No. 1 sets the procedural rules and timetable: seat in Paris and a hearing scheduled for 18–27 October 2027.
9. 27 May 2026Procedural Order No. 2 sets the transparency regime.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Eduardo Siqueiros T. President — appointed by the parties jointly
• Michael S. Goldberg Co-arbitrator — appointed by the claimant
• Philippe Sands Co-arbitrator — appointed by the respondent (disqualified on 11 February 2026; replaced by Pierre Mayer)
• Pierre Mayer Co-arbitrator (replaced Philippe Sands; Tribunal reconstituted on 2 April 2026)

For the claimant

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

For the respondent

Squire Patton Boggs

Experts

Howard Rosen (claimant) · Alexandre Riviere (claimant) · Andrew Foakes (claimant) · Neville Jones (claimant)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• Energy Charter Treaty
• oil and gas
• Serdar field
• Dostluk
• Caspian Sea
• Turkmennebit
• production sharing agreement
• arbitrator disqualification
• Article 57 ICSID Convention
• parallel proceedings
• unconscious bias
• prejudgment
• asymmetry of information
• Caratube v. Kazakhstan
• Anaklia v. Georgia
• Philippe Sands
• legitimate expectations
• transparency

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.