Brexit Archives - international litigation blog
archive,category,category-brexit,category-120,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


European Commission Rejects UK Application to Join Lugano Convention

On 4 May 2021, the European Commission (the Commission) published a communication which recommends that the European Union (the EU) should not approve the United Kingdom’s (UK) application to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention (Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; the Lugano Convention).

The Lugano Convention governs international jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between the EU Member States and three of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States, notably Iceland, Switzerland and Norway.

In its communication to the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission indicated that the Lugano Convention is aimed solely at third countries that have a particularly close regulatory integration with the EU and that “participate, at least partly, in the EU’s internal market“, which is the case for countries that are part of the European Economic Area. By deciding to leave the EU and the Single Market, the UK has, in the view of the Commission, become a “third country without a special link to the internal market“. As a result, the Commission considers that future civil judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK should be governed by the multilateral Hague Conventions, in line with the EU consistent policy towards all third countries.

The Commission’s recommendation is non-binding and the final decision on the UK accession rests on the EU Council.


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


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


Brexit (2): Consequences on Cross-Border Civil Litigation

As mentioned a couple of weeks ago, I have decided to devote a series of blog posts to the consequences of Brexit on cross-border-civil litigation and arbitration.

After a first post which discussed the issue of whether arbitration could be used to fix unresolved post-Brexit U.K.-EU matters, this post examines the consequences of Brexit on rules regarding jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.READ MORE


Brexit (1): Can Arbitration be Used to Fix Unresolved U.K.-EU Matters?

Brexit is definitely a source of political, legal, financial and diplomatic uncertainties. It is also a source of discussions in arbitration and international litigation circles. Indeed, Brexit will certainly have an impact of London has a hub for arbitration (something that we discussed earlier with Professor Bermann), but it will also have a strong impact on the litigation practice in the United Kingdom (the U.K.).

In this context, I have decided to devote a series of blog posts on those issues. The first of those blog posts has kindly been drafted and prepared by my colleague, Benedict Blunnie (intern at Van Bael & Bellis) on the possibility, for the European Union (the EU) and the U.K., to have recourse to arbitration as a means to solve their unfinished business.READ MORE