Intra-EU BIT Archives - international litigation blog
116
archive,category,category-intra-eu-bit,category-116,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,select-theme-ver-3.4,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.12.1,vc_responsive
 

Intra-EU BIT

Achmea – A Year After: My Contribution in European Papers

Dear readers,

As we have just celebrated the first anniversary of the Achmea judgment (which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down on 6 March 2018), I wanted to share with you an article that I have just published in the European Papers[1] on the implications of that judgment on investor-State dispute settlement and applicable law clauses in BITs and other agreements concluded by the EU (or its Member States) with third countries.READ MORE

0

ISDS Reform, Intra-EU BITs and CETA: New and Upcoming Developments

On 19 January 2019, the European Union submitted new proposals to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III (WGIII) tasked with examining the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS).

As we have reported before (see here, here, here and here), discussions are currently being held within WGIII on a possible reform of ISDS mechanisms. Those rounds of discussions take place twice a year (in April and in November) and were initiated in November 2017. The discussions are divided into three distinct phases: identifying concerns about ISDS (Phase I); considering whether reform of the current system is desirable in the light of any identified concerns (Phase II); and designing options for reform responding to any such concerns (Phase III).

After its 36th Session (which took place in Vienna in October-November 2018), WGIII has now almost completed Phase II of its mandate.

In order to move into Phase III and start discussing concrete reform options, the Chairman of WGIII has invited countries involved in the discussions to submit proposals regarding the content of such reform as well as the roadmap to achieve those reforms. Those proposals would then be discussed during the next meeting of WGIII in April 2019.

In light of this invitation, the EU has now submitted two papers to the WGIII Secretariat.READ MORE

0

Vattenfall v. Germany: Tribunal Subtly Avoids Applying Achmea Judgment and Finds that Article 26(6) ECT Does Not Apply to Jurisdiction Issues

On 31 August 2018, the ICSID tribunal in Vattenfall v. Germany issued a decision addressing the consequences, for this case, of the Achmea judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) on 6 March 2018 (see previous analysis of the Achmea judgment here and here).

The case at hand is a well-known investment dispute whereby a Swedish investor (Vattenfall) initiated arbitral proceedings against Germany seeking compensation for damages incurred following Germany’s decision to shut down all the nuclear power plants on its territory and to replace them with green energy alternatives. Vattenfall, which owned such nuclear power plants, argued that such decision amounted to an expropriation which violated the Energy Charter Treaty (the ECT – a multilateral agreement to which both Germany and Sweden were parties to, together with all other EU Member States, the European Union and several third countries (including Japan, and Central Asian countries)).

In the Achmea judgment, the CJEU ruled that an intra-EU investment arbitration case between two EU parties, a Dutch investor and Slovakia, violated EU law. However, in stark difference with the Vattenfall case (where the underlying basis for arbitration was the ECT’s investor-State dispute resolution clause provided for in Article 26), the basis for the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in Achmea was the Czechoslovakia-Netherlands bilateral investment treaty (BIT).

Based on that judgment, and since the Vattenfall case also involved EU parties (i.e., a Swedish investor against an EU Member State), Germany argued that the arbitral tribunal in Vattenfall lacked jurisdiction since the findings of the CJEU in Achmea were “not limited to BITs between EU Member States, but must also be applied to multilateral agreement to which EU Member States are party, such as the ECT“.READ MORE

0

English Court of Appeal Stays Miculas’ Enforcement Proceedings

On 27 July 2018 the English Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) confirmed the stay of UK enforcement proceedings of the 2013 arbitral award handed down in favour of the Micula brothers (the Miculas). Interestingly, the Court of Appeal’s ruling carefully navigates through the thorny interrelationship of the ICSID Convention and EU law.READ MORE

0

Does Achmea Invalidates All Intra-EU BITs? Not necessarily!

On 19 July 2018, the European Commission published a communication on the protection of intra-EU investments (the Communication).

One important take-away from this Communication is the implication that the European Commission draws from the judgment handed down by the Court of the Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) in Achmea.

According to the Commission:

In the Achmea judgment the Court of Justice ruled that the investor-to-State arbitration clauses laid down in intra-EU BITs undermine the system of legal remedies provided for in the EU Treaties and thus jeopardise the autonomy, effectiveness, primacy and direct effect of Union law and the principle of mutual trust between the Member States. Recourse to such clauses undermines the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU, and is not compatible with the principle of sincere cooperation. This implies that all investor-State arbitration clauses in intra-EU BITS are inapplicable and that any arbitration tribunal established on the basis of such clauses lacks jurisdiction due to the absence of a valid arbitration agreement. As a consequence, national courts are under the obligation to annul any arbitral award rendered on that basis and to refuse to enforce it. Member States that are parties to pending cases, in whatever capacity, must also draw all necessary consequences from the Achmea judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the principle of legal certainty, they are bound to formally terminate their intra-EU BITs.

The Achmea judgment is also relevant for the investor-State arbitration mechanism established in Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty as regards intra-EU relations. This provision, if interpreted correctly, does not provide for an investor-State arbitration clause applicable between investors from a Member States of the EU and another Member States of the EU. Given the primacy of Union law, that clause, if interpreted as applying intra-EU, is incompatible with EU primary law and thus inapplicable. Indeed, the reasoning of the Court in Achmea applies equally to the intra-EU application of such a clause which, just like the clauses of intra-EU BITs, opens the possibility of submitting those disputes to a body which is not part of the judicial system of the EU. The fact that the EU is also a party to the Energy Charter Treaty does not affect this conclusion: the participation of the EU in that Treaty has only created rights and obligations between the EU and third countries and has not affected the relations between the EU Member States.” (emphasis added)

In the Q&A that accompanied the Communication, the European Commission also emphasised that the Achmea judgment does not have consequences for agreements with third countries. According to the Commission, Achmeaonly concerns intra-EU disputes” and “different legal considerations apply to external EU investment policies“.

*

*          *

Shortly after the publication of the judgment in Achmea, my colleague Isabelle Van Damme and I published a first article in which we analysed the potential consequences of this judgment for CETA, for the proposed Multilateral Investment Court and for future EU trade and investment agreements (including the future agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom).

Today, I (provocatively) develop that analysis further by arguing that, contrary to the position expressed by the European Commission in its Communication and in the Q&A, the findings of the CJEU in Achmea might not necessarily mark the end of (arbitration clauses in) all intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (intra-EU BITs)*. In addition, I also argue that, in some aspects, Achmea might also affect other types of international agreements concluded by the EU or other BITs concluded by EU Member States with one or more non-EU countries (extra-EU BITs).READ MORE

0

Achmea: Potential Consequences for CETA, the Multilateral Investment Court, Brexit and other EU trade and investment agreements

This article has jointly been co-authored by Quentin Declève and Isabelle Van Damme

On 6 March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) delivered its long-awaited judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea. This case raised the issue of whether an arbitration clause in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) concluded between two EU Member States (intra-EU BIT) is compatible with European Union (EU) law and, in particular, with the autonomy of the EU legal order.

As discussed in two previous posts (here and here), Advocate General Wathelet delivered, on 19 September 2017, an Opinion in strong support of international arbitration. He found that an arbitration clause such as that at issue in Achmea was not incompatible with EU law. The CJEU disagrees.

In this article, we summarise the key findings of the CJEU’s judgment and analyse its potential consequences for the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), for the proposed Multilateral Investment Court and for future EU trade and investment agreements (including the future agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom).READ MORE

0