The Uneasy Relationship between Intra-EU Investment Tribunals and the Court of Justice’s Achmea Judgment

Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, M. Usynin
{"title":"The Uneasy Relationship between Intra-EU Investment Tribunals and the Court of Justice’s Achmea Judgment","authors":"Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, M. Usynin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3496797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the ways in which investment tribunals constituted under intra- EU BITS and the Energy Charter Treaty (in an intra-EU dispute) have reacted to the Court of Justice’s Achmea judgment of 6 March 2018. The first part of the article maps out the existing intra-EU arbitrations in which the issues arising from Achmea appear in one form or another. We then take a critical look at how the disputing parties have used Achmea in their argumentation and how the investment tribunals have dismissed these arguments and upheld their jurisdiction. The second part of the article is analytical. When the tribunals uphold their jurisdiction and decide on the merits, they knowingly deliver an award, which is unenforceable in the Respondent State and the entirety of the EU. By drawing parallels with decisions rendered by other international tribunals, we argue that the rendering of potentially unenforceable awards is not specific to intra-EU investment disputes. We then look at why international tribunals render potentially unenforceable awards. The third part of the article presents several suggestions of how intra-EU investment tribunals should tackle the Achmea conundrum, either by declining their jurisdiction pursuant to judicial comity or upholding their jurisdiction but dismissing the cases as inadmissible.","PeriodicalId":164842,"journal":{"name":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3496797","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article focuses on the ways in which investment tribunals constituted under intra- EU BITS and the Energy Charter Treaty (in an intra-EU dispute) have reacted to the Court of Justice’s Achmea judgment of 6 March 2018. The first part of the article maps out the existing intra-EU arbitrations in which the issues arising from Achmea appear in one form or another. We then take a critical look at how the disputing parties have used Achmea in their argumentation and how the investment tribunals have dismissed these arguments and upheld their jurisdiction. The second part of the article is analytical. When the tribunals uphold their jurisdiction and decide on the merits, they knowingly deliver an award, which is unenforceable in the Respondent State and the entirety of the EU. By drawing parallels with decisions rendered by other international tribunals, we argue that the rendering of potentially unenforceable awards is not specific to intra-EU investment disputes. We then look at why international tribunals render potentially unenforceable awards. The third part of the article presents several suggestions of how intra-EU investment tribunals should tackle the Achmea conundrum, either by declining their jurisdiction pursuant to judicial comity or upholding their jurisdiction but dismissing the cases as inadmissible.
欧盟内部投资法庭与欧洲法院阿赫梅亚判决之间的不安关系
本文重点介绍了根据欧盟内部双边投资协定和《能源宪章条约》(在欧盟内部争端中)组成的投资法庭对法院2018年3月6日阿赫梅亚判决的反应方式。文章的第一部分列出了现有的欧盟内部仲裁,其中由Achmea引起的问题以一种或另一种形式出现。然后,我们对争议各方如何在他们的论点中使用Achmea以及投资法庭如何驳回这些论点并维护其管辖权进行了批判性的研究。文章的第二部分是分析性的。当法庭维护其管辖权并就是非曲实作出裁决时,他们会在知情的情况下作出裁决,而该裁决在被答辩国和整个欧盟都是不可执行的。通过与其他国际法庭作出的裁决进行比较,我们认为,作出可能无法执行的裁决并不仅限于欧盟内部的投资争端。然后我们看看为什么国际法庭做出可能无法执行的裁决。文章的第三部分提出了一些关于欧盟内部投资法庭应该如何解决阿赫梅亚难题的建议,要么根据司法礼让拒绝其管辖权,要么维持其管辖权,但将案件驳回为不可受理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信