Various authors, Author at international litigation blog

archive,author,author-various-authors,author-13,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

Author:Various authors

August 2, 2022 In Jurisdictional issues, Parallel litigation & Lis pendens, Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, Uncategorized By Various authors

CJEU Rules that Judgments on Awards Circumventing Brussels Regulation Cannot Form Basis for Non-recognition of Irreconcilable Judgments

This article has been co-authored by Nicholas Lawn (Partner at Van Bael & Bellis) and Helin Laufer (Associate at Van Bael & Bellis)

In a recent judgment in the case of London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited v. Kingdom of Spain (Case C‑700/20, Judgment of 20 June 2022) (the Judgment), the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) issued a preliminary ruling holding that arbitration proceedings initiated in the United Kingdom and the resulting award could not block the recognition of a Spanish judgment requiring an insurer to compensate Spain for the environmental damage caused by the Prestige oil tanker (Prestige) off the coast of Spain.

The CJEU held that the proper interpretation of EU Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels Regulation) entails that, although a judgment entered by a court of a Member State in the terms of an arbitral award may, in principle, form the basis for the refusal to recognise a subsequent irreconcilable judgment of the courts of another Member State, a judgment should not be recognised where it would result in an outcome that the court of a Member State could not have reached without infringing the provisions and fundamental objectives of the Brussels Regulation. In short, the English courts were required to recognise the Spanish court’s judgment and the insurer was liable to Spain for EUR 1 billion.READ MORE

March 31, 2022 In Annulment of arbitral awards By Various authors

Brussels Court of First Instance Annuls Investment Arbitration Award Allegedly for the First Time

This article has been co-authored by Nicholas Lawn (Partner at Van Bael & Bellis), Quentin Declève (Senior Associate at Van Bael & Bellis) and Emmanuelle Rogiest (Associate at Van Bael & Bellis)

On 18 February 2022, the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance handed down a judgment in which it set aside a USD 10 million UNCITRAL award that held Poland liable for denial of justice in favor of Manchester Securities Corporation (MSC). This judgment allegedly marks the first time that a Belgian court has set aside an investment arbitration award.READ MORE

November 30, 2021 In Intra-EU BIT, Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards By Various authors

PL Holdings: Ad Hoc Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Invalid Arbitration Clause in Intra-EU BIT

This article has been co-authored by Nicholas Lawn (Partner at Van Bael & Bellis) and Isabelle Van Damme (Partner at Van Bael & Bellis), Quentin Declève (Senior Associate at Van Bael & Bellis) and Rebecca Halbach (Associate at Van Bael & Bellis)

On 26 October 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) decided, in its judgment in Case C-109/20 Republic of Poland v PL Holdings, that where an investor-State arbitration clause in an intra-EU bilateral investment treaty (BIT) is invalid under European Union (EU) law, investors cannot rely on a tacit ad hoc arbitration agreement with identical content to the arbitration clause. Importantly, the CJEU clarified that EU Member States must contest the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal in such a situation and national courts of the Member States must uphold an action to set aside an arbitration award made on the basis of an arbitration agreement that is contrary to EU law.READ MORE

September 9, 2021 In Annulment of arbitral awards, Energy Charter Treaty, Intra-EU BIT By Various authors

Case C-741/19: CJEU Decides That Intra-EU ECT Arbitration Is Incompatible with EU Law and Interprets Definition of “Investment” in ECT

On 2 September 2021, in its judgment in Case C-741/19, Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy LLC, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) decided that intra-EU arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (the ECT) is incompatible with EU law. It also gave a restrictive interpretation to the definition of “investment” in the ECT.

The CJEU was seized by a request for a preliminary ruling from the Paris Court of Appeal which was hearing an action to annul the arbitral award which had been rendered by an ECT tribunal established to hear a dispute between the Republic of Moldova and Energoalians, a Ukrainian distributor.

Despite the fact that the underlying award involved the application of the ECT to a dispute between an investor from a non-EU country (Ukraine) and another non-EU country (Moldova), the CJEU nonetheless confirmed its jurisdiction to interpret the ECT. Moreover, notwithstanding that the dispute did not involve an investor of one EU Member State acting against another EU Member State regarding an investment made by the former in the latter (an intra-EU dispute), the CJEU found that Article 26(2)(c) of the ECT must be interpreted as being inapplicable to intra-EU disputes. It adopted a reasoning similar to that developed in its 2018 Achmea judgment (see here). In doing so, the CJEU also reached the same conclusion as Advocate General Szpunar in his Opinion and appeared to pre-empt the question of the compatibility of the draft modernised ECT with the EU Treaties, currently pending before the CJEU in Opinion 1/20.

Of the three questions referred by the French court, the CJEU limited its analysis to the first question. It interpreted the term “investment” as excluding “the acquisition, by an undertaking of a Contracting Party to [the ECT], of a claim arising from a contract for the supply of electricity, which is not connected with an investment, held by an undertaking of a third State against a public undertaking of another Contracting Party to that treaty“.READ MORE

April 7, 2021 In Uncategorized By Various authors

Belgian Data Protection Authority Prohibits Use in Arbitration Proceedings of Personal Data Received in Breach of GDPR

This article has been co-authored by Thibaut D’hulst (Counsel at Van Bael & Bellis) and Justine Van den Bon and Margot Vogels (Associates at Van Bael & Bellis)

By a decision of 29 January 2021, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the DPA) prohibited a controller from passing on personal data obtained in breach of data protection rules to its legal counsel. The Litigation Chamber did not issue a fine, but the decision serves as a clear message that further processing of such unlawfully obtained personal data, even in the context of legal proceedings, is prohibited.

The dispute before the DPA involved an individual practising as a notary (the Plaintiff), her accountant (the First Defendant) and her former business partner also practising as a notary (the Second Defendant). The case at hand takes place in the broader context of arbitration proceedings relating to the winding-up of a notary practice due to financial issues and the refusal to submit certain accounting documents and other information.

The First Defendant mistakenly forwarded an e-mail with 32 annexes, which contained personal data relating to the Plaintiff, to the Second Defendant. This resulted in the disclosure of data relating to the Plaintiff’s personal activities, finances, and other personal data to the Second Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent. In turn, the Second Defendant forwarded the e-mail and its annexes to his legal counsel, who then used the e-mail and its annexes as an exhibit within the context of the pending arbitration proceedings between the Second Defendant and the Plaintiff.READ MORE

February 23, 2021 In Investment Court System, Investment Law By Various authors

EU and Canada Adopt Rules for Implementation of Investment Court System in CETA

This article has been co-authored by Quentin Declève together with Nicholas Lawn (Partner at Van Bael & Bellis) and Isabelle Van Damme (Partner at Van Bael & Bellis)

On 29 January 2021, the European Union and Canada adopted four decisions (the Decisions) aimed at further implementing the Investment Court System (the ICS) in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (CETA). The Decisions will enter into force upon ratification of CETA by the EU Member States.

Following certain concerns expressed in relation to older models of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), the European Union has designed a new model for resolving disputes between foreign investors and States (or the European Union) which seeks to address such concerns. In particular, in recent years some have argued that the traditional form of ISDS does not guarantee fundamental rights and values relating to the independence of arbitrators, legitimacy, access to courts and transparency. In addition, traditional ISDS has been seen by some as failing to result in a coherent body of case-law regarding the interpretation and application of investment protection standards. The ICS aims to resolve these perceived shortcomings by establishing a permanent tribunal composed of independent and publicly appointed members of a first instance Tribunal and, in case of an appeal, an Appellate Tribunal.

Although the main characteristics of the ICS were already established in CETA (see Chapter 8 on Investment), some specific features and procedural mechanisms still had to be agreed by the EU and Canada. These details were therefore agreed in the Decisions of the CETA Joint Committee which (i) set out rules and procedures regarding the functioning of the Appellate Tribunal (the Decision on the Appellate Tribunal); (ii) establish a code of conduct for mediators and judges (the Decision on the Code of Conduct); (iii) provide rules for mediation (the Decision on Mediation); and (iv) establish rules for adopting binding interpretations of CETA (the Decision on Binding Interpretations).READ MORE

January 13, 2021 In Brexit, Investment Law By Various authors

Investment Protections Implications of Brexit and of EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

This article has been co-authored by Quentin Declève together with Nicholas Lawn (Partner at Van Bael & Bellis) and Adriana Pérez-Gil (Associate at Van Bael & Bellis)

On 24 December 2020, the European Union (the EU) and the United Kingdom (the UK) agreed a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the TCA) intended to settle their future relationship, with provisional application from 1 January 2021.

Following the UK’s exit from the EU on 31 January 2020 and the end of the transition period under the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK is no longer a member of the EU single market or the EU customs union. Whilst the TCA does not change this fact, it sets out separate terms for the new on-going relationship between the EU and the UK.

Title II of Part Two, Heading One (Trade) of the TCA includes provisions relating to “services and investment” (“SERVIN“). Yet, as explained below, the provisions are minimal and are limited to dealing with investment liberalisation, establishment, operation, market access and non-discriminatory treatment. In respect of investment protection, the TCA is more notable for what is out than what is in.READ MORE