威立雅诉立陶宛共和国:欧盟内部投资仲裁中止的合法性及其未决问题的案例

R. Satkauskas
{"title":"威立雅诉立陶宛共和国:欧盟内部投资仲裁中止的合法性及其未决问题的案例","authors":"R. Satkauskas","doi":"10.1163/24689017_0701005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses the issue of parallel proceedings in suspended arbitration cases based on intra-EU bilateral investment treaties. The furthering of such disputes was declared illegal by the recent CJEU decision in PL Holdings case. However, not all of them were terminated by the agreement of the parties. The said illegality of such proceedings might prevent Governments of the EU Member States to attend the hearing or implement the award, but this alone cannot force the investor to scrap the claim. The pertinent example of the investment dispute in Veolia Environnement S.A. and Others v. the Republic of Lithuania provides additional argument for the investor to hold onto the arbitral tribunal. Lithuanian courts refused so far to accept the Government’s counterclaim avoiding the duplication of the proceedings in the same case. Moreover, Supreme Court’s decision provides a far-reaching interpretation on the nullity of all inter EU arbitration agreements ever concluded. The following analysis provides some certainly interesting details.","PeriodicalId":164842,"journal":{"name":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Veolia v Republic of Lithuania: A Case on the Legality of the Suspended Intra-EU Investment Arbitration and the Question of Lis Pendens\",\"authors\":\"R. Satkauskas\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/24689017_0701005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article addresses the issue of parallel proceedings in suspended arbitration cases based on intra-EU bilateral investment treaties. The furthering of such disputes was declared illegal by the recent CJEU decision in PL Holdings case. However, not all of them were terminated by the agreement of the parties. The said illegality of such proceedings might prevent Governments of the EU Member States to attend the hearing or implement the award, but this alone cannot force the investor to scrap the claim. The pertinent example of the investment dispute in Veolia Environnement S.A. and Others v. the Republic of Lithuania provides additional argument for the investor to hold onto the arbitral tribunal. Lithuanian courts refused so far to accept the Government’s counterclaim avoiding the duplication of the proceedings in the same case. Moreover, Supreme Court’s decision provides a far-reaching interpretation on the nullity of all inter EU arbitration agreements ever concluded. The following analysis provides some certainly interesting details.\",\"PeriodicalId\":164842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"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_0701005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_0701005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了基于欧盟内部双边投资条约的暂停仲裁案件中的平行程序问题。最近欧洲法院在PL控股案中宣布,这种纠纷的进一步加剧是非法的。然而,并非所有这些都是由当事各方协议终止的。上述诉讼的非法性可能会阻止欧盟成员国政府出席听证会或执行裁决,但仅凭这一点不能迫使投资者放弃索赔。威立雅环境公司及其他人诉立陶宛共和国投资争端案的相关案例为投资者拖延仲裁庭提供了额外的论据。立陶宛法院迄今拒绝接受政府的反诉,避免在同一案件中重复诉讼。此外,最高法院的决定对所有欧盟间仲裁协议的无效性提供了深远的解释。下面的分析提供了一些有趣的细节。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Veolia v Republic of Lithuania: A Case on the Legality of the Suspended Intra-EU Investment Arbitration and the Question of Lis Pendens
This article addresses the issue of parallel proceedings in suspended arbitration cases based on intra-EU bilateral investment treaties. The furthering of such disputes was declared illegal by the recent CJEU decision in PL Holdings case. However, not all of them were terminated by the agreement of the parties. The said illegality of such proceedings might prevent Governments of the EU Member States to attend the hearing or implement the award, but this alone cannot force the investor to scrap the claim. The pertinent example of the investment dispute in Veolia Environnement S.A. and Others v. the Republic of Lithuania provides additional argument for the investor to hold onto the arbitral tribunal. Lithuanian courts refused so far to accept the Government’s counterclaim avoiding the duplication of the proceedings in the same case. Moreover, Supreme Court’s decision provides a far-reaching interpretation on the nullity of all inter EU arbitration agreements ever concluded. The following analysis provides some certainly interesting details.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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