{"title":"Commission v. Hungary (Case C-235/17): Some Reassurance for Investors on the Substantive Protections for Expropriation under EU Law","authors":"M. Grégoire","doi":"10.1163/24689017_00401012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The question of the degree of overlap between the substantive provisions generally found in investment treaties and EU law was left unanswered by Case C-284/16 Slowakische Republik v. Achmea B.V. From a practical perspective, investors are left in doubt: assuming that they cannot rely on a dispute resolution clause such as that at issue in Achmea, does EU law offer substantially identical protection? The recent decision of Case C-235/17 Commission v. Hungary may go some way towards reassuring investors EU law may provide materially similar protections to some of the substantive protections ordinarily found in bits. This note (I) provides a summary of the views of the Commission (and respondent Member States) on the issue of the overlap between substantive protections generally found in investment treaties and EU law, (II) considers the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet on the same issue and (III) considers the decision of Commission v. Hungary.","PeriodicalId":164842,"journal":{"name":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_00401012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The question of the degree of overlap between the substantive provisions generally found in investment treaties and EU law was left unanswered by Case C-284/16 Slowakische Republik v. Achmea B.V. From a practical perspective, investors are left in doubt: assuming that they cannot rely on a dispute resolution clause such as that at issue in Achmea, does EU law offer substantially identical protection? The recent decision of Case C-235/17 Commission v. Hungary may go some way towards reassuring investors EU law may provide materially similar protections to some of the substantive protections ordinarily found in bits. This note (I) provides a summary of the views of the Commission (and respondent Member States) on the issue of the overlap between substantive protections generally found in investment treaties and EU law, (II) considers the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet on the same issue and (III) considers the decision of Commission v. Hungary.
C-284/16 Slowakische Republik v. Achmea B.V.案没有回答投资条约中普遍存在的实质性条款与欧盟法律之间重叠程度的问题。从实际角度来看,投资者存在疑问:假设他们不能依赖像Achmea案中那样的争议解决条款,欧盟法律是否提供实质相同的保护?最近C-235/17委员会诉匈牙利案的决定可能会在某种程度上让投资者放心,欧盟法律可能会提供与比特币中通常发现的一些实质性保护类似的实质性保护。本说明(I)概述了欧盟委员会(和被诉成员国)对投资条约中普遍存在的实质性保护与欧盟法律之间重叠问题的看法,(II)考虑了总检察长wallet对同一问题的意见,(III)考虑了欧盟委员会诉匈牙利案的决定。