European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online最新文献_第5页

Commission v. Hungary (Case C-235/17): Some Reassurance for Investors on the Substantive Protections for Expropriation under EU Law 欧盟委员会诉匈牙利案(案例C-235/17):对投资者关于欧盟法律规定的征收的实质性保护的一些保证

European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online Pub Date : 2019-12-16 DOI: 10.1163/24689017_00401012

M. Grégoire

引用次数: 0

Vattenfall in the Aftermath of Achmea: Between a Rock and a Hard Place? 阿奇米亚之灾后的瀑布:进退两难?

European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online Pub Date : 2019-12-16 DOI: 10.1163/24689017_00401009

Venetia Argyropoulou

{"title":"Vattenfall in the Aftermath of Achmea: Between a Rock and a Hard Place?","authors":"Venetia Argyropoulou","doi":"10.1163/24689017_00401009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_00401009","url":null,"abstract":"On 6 March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in the case between Slovakia v. Achmea BV (Case C-284/16). The CJEU ruled that the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the Netherlands-Slovakia bilateral investment treaty are incompatible with the principle of autonomy of EU law. This addressed a highly controversial issue that has been lingering for years: whether bilateral investment treaties (BITS) concluded between EU Member States are compatible with EU law. The judgment has caused controversy amongst scholars and international practitioners, and its significance is undeniable. Yet, the judgment has led to many unanswered questions, including, inter alia, what EU law requires of arbitral tribunals in such cases, how the seat of the arbitration tribunal may affect the outcome of the above judgement and whether the outcome of the judgement is limited to intra-EU BITS. This Article will reflect on these open issues and will endeavour to respond such issues by examining the application of the above ruling in the context of the case Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany (II) (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12) as well as other recent investment arbitration decisions.","PeriodicalId":164842,"journal":{"name":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122251124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Comparative Analysis between the 2018 and 2004 Dutch Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Texts 2018年与2004年荷兰双边投资协定文本范本比较分析

European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online Pub Date : 2019-12-16 DOI: 10.1163/24689017_00401005

Adam Marios Paschalidis, N. Lavranos

引用次数: 0

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

European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online Pub Date : 2019-06-20 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3496797

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":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3496797","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114153870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3