An award rendered in an arbitration conducted in Paris in accordance with the UNCITRAL Rules, in respect of a dispute falling under the Energy Charter Treaty, found in favour of Energoalliance, which was subsequently replaced first by Komstroy and then by Stileks as successors in interest. The district court stayed the US confirmation proceedings pending the annulment action initiated by Moldova in France, then lifted the stay when the application was eventually denied by the Cour de cassation, and confirmed the award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. It noted in respect of the sovereign immunity defense raised by Moldova that the arbitration exception in the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act requires that three jurisdictional facts be established: the existence of an arbitration agreement, an award and a treaty governing the award. Moldova argued that there was no arbitration agreement in respect of the specific dispute: while the ECT may establish that Moldova agreed to arbitrate certain disputes, it did not prove that Moldova agreed to arbitrate this particular dispute. As a consequence, the arbitrators exceeded their authority within the meaning of the New York Convention. The Court of Appeals did not go into the merits of this issue, as it found that by signing the ECT, which referred to arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules, Moldova agreed to assign arbitrability determinations to the arbitral tribunal. Thus, the confirmation court must accept the arbitral tribunal's determination that Energoalliance's claim fell within the ECT. The Court further held that the district court correctly lifted the stay, because it considered all the relevant factors and therefore did not abuse its discretion in this respect.