Home - International Litigation Blog
246
blog,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
 

The United States Requests KORUS Consultations with South Korea over Competition Policy

DownloadPrint

I reported a couple of weeks ago that the European Union (the EU) requested, in December 2018, formal consultations with South Korea following Korea’s failure to implement certain sustainable development commitments made under the EU-Korea Trade Agreement.

It now appears that it is the United States’ turn to initiate formal consultations with South Korea pursuant to Chapter 16 of the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS).READ MORE

0

Equivalence and Translation: Further thoughts on IO Immunities in Jam v. IFC

DownloadPrint

At the end of February, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark judgment on the immunity of international organizations in Jam v. International Finance Corporation, 58 U.S. (2019). The case concerned the meaning of the 1945 International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), which affords international organizations “the same immunity from suit […] as is enjoyed by foreign governments[1]. Writing for a 7-1 majority, Chief Justice Roberts found that the IOIA incorporates a dynamic immunities regime, equivalent to whatever immunities US law affords to foreign states. The immunities of international organizations are keyed to sovereign immunity. The former evolve to meet the latter. Thus, as the US law of sovereign immunity has shifted from an absolute to a restrictive paradigm with the enactment of the 1952 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), so too does the IOIA today incorporate merely restrictive immunity for international organizations.READ MORE

0

Achmea – A Year After: My Contribution in European Papers

DownloadPrint

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

European Parliament Amends Proposal for Directive on Collective Representative Actions

DownloadPrint

On 7 December 2018, the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee adopted a Report (the Report) on the proposal (the Proposal) for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC. This Resolution amends the proposal published by the European Commission in April 2018 (see previous article here).

The Proposal enables collective redress actions against infringements of EU law with a broad consumer impact. Accordingly, it covers areas such as data protection, financial services, travel and tourism, energy, telecommunications, environment and health.

The measures contained in the Proposal remain largely unchanged. However, in its Report, the Committee on Legal Affairs puts forward a number of interesting amendments to the initial Proposal.READ MORE

0

Opinion 1/17 on CETA: Advocate General Bot Finds Investment Court System in CETA compatible with EU law

DownloadPrint

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

On 29 January 2019, Advocate General Bot delivered his long-awaited Opinion (the Opinion) on whether the investment court system (ICS) in Chapter Eight, Section F, of the European Union-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is compatible with European Union (EU) law, in particular with the autonomy of the EU legal order and fundamental rights. The next step in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), initiated by Belgium following complications in its ratification process, is for the CJEU to deliver its Opinion on the same question (see previous post here and report of the hearing before the CJEU here).

This article discusses the key elements of the Opinion and the implications of these CJEU proceedings on the European Union’s common commercial policy and its policy of advocating reform of existing investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) and the establishment of a multilateral investment court (MIC).READ MORE

0

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

DownloadPrint

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

Belgian Parliament Amends Bill Establishing Brussels International Business Court

DownloadPrint

On 10 December 2018, the Commission for Justice of the Belgian Parliament published a second draft bill (the Bill) for the creation of the Brussels International Business Court (the BIBC). The Belgian government had already approved a first draft in October 2017 and submitted it to Parliament in May 2018. The Bill now aims to reflect the opinions expressed by the Belgian Council of State and of the High Council of Justice (Hoge Raad voor de Justitie/Conseil supérieur de la Justice), as well as the amendments suggested by various members of the Parliament. This being said, the key features of the BIBC remain largely unchanged.READ MORE

0