{"title":"The Fate of EU Environmental and Investment Law after the Achmea Decision","authors":"M. Fermeglia, Alessandra Mistura","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01701004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the landmark Slowakische Republik v. Achmea\nBV judgment, the ecj arguably took a resolute stance against the compatibility of International Investment Agreements between EU Member States and the inherent functioning of EU’s legal order. However, the issue as to whether the foreign investment protection regime is at odds with the sound application of EU law is far from being settled. Furthermore, the international investment protection regime as interpreted by investment tribunals may hamper EU Member States’ regulatory space, especially in the implementation of ambitious environmental and climate policies. The recent surge of litigation before international investment tribunals triggered by retrospective changes to supporting schemes for renewable energy sources and the phase-out of nuclear power plants in some European Member States is a telling example. The purpose of this article thus is to analyse the avenues currently available to ensure consistency between EU’s environmental and climate policies as implemented by EU Member States and the investment protection regime as applied by investment tribunals in the wake of the Achmea decision, with a view to devising a benchmark to prevent and avoid, rather than foster, policy conflicts.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01701004","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01701004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
In the landmark Slowakische Republik v. Achmea
BV judgment, the ecj arguably took a resolute stance against the compatibility of International Investment Agreements between EU Member States and the inherent functioning of EU’s legal order. However, the issue as to whether the foreign investment protection regime is at odds with the sound application of EU law is far from being settled. Furthermore, the international investment protection regime as interpreted by investment tribunals may hamper EU Member States’ regulatory space, especially in the implementation of ambitious environmental and climate policies. The recent surge of litigation before international investment tribunals triggered by retrospective changes to supporting schemes for renewable energy sources and the phase-out of nuclear power plants in some European Member States is a telling example. The purpose of this article thus is to analyse the avenues currently available to ensure consistency between EU’s environmental and climate policies as implemented by EU Member States and the investment protection regime as applied by investment tribunals in the wake of the Achmea decision, with a view to devising a benchmark to prevent and avoid, rather than foster, policy conflicts.
在具有里程碑意义的Slowakische Republik v. AchmeaBV判决中,欧洲法院可以说采取了坚决的立场,反对欧盟成员国之间的国际投资协定与欧盟法律秩序的内在功能的兼容性。然而,关于外国投资保护制度是否与欧盟法律的合理适用相抵触的问题,远未得到解决。此外,由投资法庭解释的国际投资保护制度可能会阻碍欧盟成员国的监管空间,特别是在实施雄心勃勃的环境和气候政策方面。最近一些欧洲成员国对可再生能源支助计划的追溯性改变和逐步淘汰核电站所引发的国际投资法庭诉讼激增就是一个很好的例子。因此,本文的目的是分析目前可用的途径,以确保欧盟成员国实施的欧盟环境和气候政策与Achmea裁决后投资法庭适用的投资保护制度之间的一致性,以期制定一个基准来预防和避免(而不是助长)政策冲突。