abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptriangletwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube

Esta página não está disponível em Português e está sendo exibida em English

Ação judicial

Synohydro arbitration case (re Coca Codo Sinclair hydroelectric project, Ecuador)

Status: ONGOING

Data em que a ação judicial foi iniciada
17 Mai 2021
Precisão da data
Todos corretos
Não aplicável
Public entity
Local de Arquivamento: Equador
Localização do Incidente: Equador
Tipo de litígio: Órgão internacional

Empresas

Power Construction Corporation (PowerChina) China Energia, Energia Renovável, Construção Civil
PowerChina (Power Construction Corporation of China) China Energia, Transporte: geral, Construção Civil, Mineração

Fontes

Snapshot: On 17 May 2021, Ecuador filed an arbitration claim against Sinohydro before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. They argued that Sinohydro hid information about significant defects, specifically over 8,000 cracks in the turbine distributors of the Coca Codo Sinclair hydroelectric plant, since 2012. This concealment led to ongoing operational issues and financial losses, prompting Ecuador to seek arbitration for damages. It has been reported that the dam led to regressive erosion of the Coca river.

In June 2025, Ecuador ended the arbitration after reaching a $400m compensation agreement with PowerChina, Sinohydro's state-owned parent company. In exchange, PowerChina will assume operations. The deal was questioned by critics over the appropriateness of granting operation to the company that built the defective dam, while long-term reliability of the dam remained in doubt.