Intra-European Union investor–State arbitration post-Achmea: RIP? An assessment in the aftermath of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-284/16, Achmea, Judgment of 6 March 2018, EU:C:2018:158

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 316-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fanou
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Future ◽  
Principle Of Discrimination

In its judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the investor–State dispute settlement provisions included in intra-European Union Bilateral Investment Treaties incompatible with European Union law. The court based its finding on the adverse effect on the autonomy of European Union law, while avoiding a discussion of other grounds of potential incompatibilities (such as compatibility with the principle of discrimination or substantive incompatibilities). This article presents the judgment of the court and provides an account of its implications for the future of intra-European Union investment arbitration.

Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea BV (C.J.E.U.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 1101-1113
Author(s):  
Jawad Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Important Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty

On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found in Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea B.V. that the arbitration agreement contained in the 1991 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (BIT) had an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law and, thus, was incompatible with EU law. This important decision has ignited a debate on the compatibility of other arbitration agreements in both intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (intra-EU BITs) and in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) with EU law.

The Future of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration: Intra-EU Investment Arbitration under the ECT post Achmea

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-177
Author(s):  
Sahra Arif
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
The Future ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Opposite View ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The Achmea judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) found that arbitration clauses in bilateral investment treaties (BITS) between Member States of the European Union are incompatible with European Union law. Following this, Member States attempted to invoke this judgment in relation to similar intra-EU arbitrations under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Tribunals established under the ECT have however generally rejected the applicability of the Achmea judgement. While the EU Commission and the majority of Member States concluded that this judgment also precludes intra-EU ect arbitrations, a few Member States held the opposite view. The future of intra-EU ECT arbitrations therefore seems fragile in the least. A closer analysis of the decisions of ECT Tribunals, and the relationship between obligations under European Union law and international law however argues that the future of such intra-EU ECT arbitrations is not as fragile as it may seem.

scholarly journals El arbitraje de inversión en España tras la reciente doctrina del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea = Investment arbitration in Spain in light of recent jurisprudence from the European Union Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 866
Author(s):  
Ibon Hualde López ◽  
Victoria Sánchez Pos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
German Court

  Resumen: El pasado mes de marzo el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea abrió una vía favo­rable para España al declarar, mediante la sentencia resolutoria de una petición de decisión prejudicial planteada por el Tribunal de casación alemán, que la cláusula de arbitraje incluida en el Tratado para el Fomento y la Protección Recíprocos de las Inversiones celebrado en 1991 entre el Reino de los Países Bajos y la República Federal Checa y Eslovaca (TBI) no es compatible con el Derecho de la Unión Europea. El presente trabajo tiene por objeto realizar un análisis de la mencionada sentencia, recaída el 6 de marzo de 2018, con el objetivo de valorar su incidencia en el arbitraje de inversión en nuestro país.Palabras clave: Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, petición de decisión prejudicial, arbitra­je de inversión, cláusula de arbitraje, Derecho de la Unión Europea.Abstract: This past March, the European Union Court of Justice provided a favorable opening for Spain when it held (by its judgement on a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the German Court of Cassation) that the arbitration clause which had been included in the “Treaty on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments” signed in 1991 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (BIT) was not compatible with European Union law. This paper aims at analyzing the above-mentioned judgment, which was issued on 6 March 2018 (Case C-284/16), assessing its impact on investment arbitration in our country.Keywords: European Union Court of Justice, request for a preliminary ruling, investment arbitra­tion, arbitration clause, European Union Law. 

scholarly journals El fin del arbitraje de inversión en Europa

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
María Simón Razquin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Court Of Justice

El pasado día 19 de enero de 2019, los representantes de todos los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea firmaron una carta declarando nulos los Acuerdos Intercomunitarios de Protección Recíproca de Inversiones: Con este documento, los gobiernos muestran su respaldo a la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 26 de marzo de 2018 en el asunto Achmea, que había declarado la incompatibilidad de la cláusula de arbitraje incluida en el Tratado Bilateral de Inversiones celebrado en 1991 entre el Reino de los Países Bajos y la República Federal Checa y Eslovaca con el Derecho de la Unión Europea. Los 28 Estados siguen, así, las directrices de la Comisión Europea en su Comunicación de julio de 2018, que declaró la incompatibilidad de estos Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión intra-UE con el Derecho de la Unión. El presente trabajo tiene como objeto realizar un análisis del contenido de la mencionada sentencia, así como de sus consecuencias tras aquella declaración de los Estados miembros y de la Comunicación de la Comisión, con especial hincapié en su incidencia en el arbitraje de inversión en nuestro país. On January 19th, 2019, the representatives of all the Member States of the European Union signed a letter declaring invalid the Inter Communitary Agreements on Reciprocal Investment Protection, supporting the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 of March 2018 in the Achmea case, which had announced the incompatibility of the arbitration clause included in the Bilateral Investment Treaty concluded in 1991 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic with the European Union Law. The 28 States follow the guidelines of the European Commission in its Communication of July 2018, which declared the incompatibility of intra-EU BITs with the European Union law. This paper aims to analyze the content of the aforementioned judgment, as well as its consequence and those of the declaration of the Member States and the Communication of the Commission, with special emphasis on its impact on our country´s investment arbitration.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

A Constitutional Court for Europe?

2004 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Council ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Draft Constitution

The purpose of this article is to consider the effect of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At the time of writing, the future of the draft Constitution is somewhat uncertain. Having been finalised by the Convention on the Future of Europe in the summer of 2003 and submitted to the then President of the European Council, it formed the basis for discussion at an intergovernmental conference (IGC) which opened in October 2003. Hopes that the text might be finalised by the end of the year were dashed when a meeting of the IGC in Brussels in December 2003 ended prematurely amid disagreement over the weighting of votes in the Council. However, it seems likely that a treaty equipping the European Union with a Constitution based on the Convention’s draft will in due course be adopted and that the provisions of the draft dealing with the ECJ will not be changed significantly. Even if either assumption proves misplaced, those provisions will remain of interest as reflecting one view of the position the ECJ might occupy in a constitutional order of the Union.

scholarly journals Determining the moment and form of concluding a passenger transport contract based on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in joined cases C-349/18 to C-351/18

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Karol Lange
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Passenger Transport ◽  
Railway Transport ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Railway Systems ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Moment

The article focuses on discussing the norms of Polish transport law and European Union regulations on the correctly defined of the moment and form of concluding a contract of passengers transport in railway systems. The article also describes the problem of discourse between the content of these legal norms and the jurisprudence practice and doctrine opinion. Moreover, was performed to present a comparative analysis of the relation of the Court of justice of the European Union judgment to the norms of Polish and European law and the case law. Commented on the practices of carriers in regulating the said matter. Internal law acts applicable to the means of transport of Polish railway companies were also analyzed. Keywords: Transport law; Contract of passenger transport; European Union law; Railway transport

scholarly journals The multilingual jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the idea of uniformity in European Union Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-138
Author(s):  
Joana Sousa Domingues
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Language Version ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Legal Translation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Official Languages

It is generally accepted that the development of a Union of law is largely due to the judicial decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter, CJEU). With its judicial pronouncements, the CEJEU aims to achieve the same legal effects in every language version of its judgments and, through them, to ensure the uniform application and interpretation of European Union law. Nevertheless, such judicial pronouncements, with normative and binding force, are the result of collegial decisions and drafted by jurists in a language that is usually nottheir mother tongue. In addition, they are also the result of various permutations associated with the necessary legal translation from and to (and vice versa) the working language of the Court and the official languages of the European Union. The published judgments presented as authentic are, in most cases, translations. To understand the construction of decisions of the CJEU is to understand the construction of the European Union law, and by consequence, the European project itself.

scholarly journals Refl ections on the Principle of Equal Treatment in EU Law and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Approach

The paper presents some of the most relevant aspects of European nondiscrimination law established th rough European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, looking also at the evolution of the norms and milestones of case-law on equal treatment within the two systems. The paper gives an overview of the non-discrimination concept as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Court of Human Rights. We examine the similar elements but also give insight into conceptual differences between the two human rights regimes when dealing with equal treatment. The differences mainly stem from the more complex approach taken by EU law although, based on analysed norms, cases, and provisions, the aspects of equal treatment in EU law are largely consistent with the practice of the ECtHR. Lastly, the paper briefl y places the European non-discrimination law within the multi-layered human rights system, giving some food for thought for the future potential this concept brings.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document