根据阿赫梅阿决定的欧盟内部双边投资协定

V. Korom
{"title":"根据阿赫梅阿决定的欧盟内部双边投资协定","authors":"V. Korom","doi":"10.47078/2022.1.97-117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In its Achmea decision rendered in March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that arbitration clauses contained in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties are incompatible with EU law. The Court’s judgment brought to an end the decade long legal battle between the Member States and the European Commission over the EU law compatibility of these treaties. In response to Achmea, the majority of Member States have agreed to terminate their treaties in order to eliminate the EU law incompatibility identified by the Court. At the same time, the political battle over the need for the special protection of cross-border investments in the EU continues. This paper looks back at the political and legal controversy that was sparked by intra-EU bilateral investment treaties and culminated in the Court’s Achmea judgment, and briefly discusses the practical consequences of Achmea for intra-EU investment protection.","PeriodicalId":325719,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intra-EU BITs in Light of the Achmea Decision\",\"authors\":\"V. Korom\",\"doi\":\"10.47078/2022.1.97-117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In its Achmea decision rendered in March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that arbitration clauses contained in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties are incompatible with EU law. The Court’s judgment brought to an end the decade long legal battle between the Member States and the European Commission over the EU law compatibility of these treaties. In response to Achmea, the majority of Member States have agreed to terminate their treaties in order to eliminate the EU law incompatibility identified by the Court. At the same time, the political battle over the need for the special protection of cross-border investments in the EU continues. This paper looks back at the political and legal controversy that was sparked by intra-EU bilateral investment treaties and culminated in the Court’s Achmea judgment, and briefly discusses the practical consequences of Achmea for intra-EU investment protection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":325719,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47078/2022.1.97-117\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47078/2022.1.97-117","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

欧盟法院在2018年3月作出的阿赫梅亚裁决中宣布,欧盟内部双边投资条约中包含的仲裁条款与欧盟法律不相容。法院的判决结束了成员国和欧盟委员会之间长达十年的关于这些条约的欧盟法律兼容性的法律斗争。作为对阿赫米亚的回应,大多数会员国同意终止它们的条约,以消除法院指出的欧盟法律的不相容。与此同时,围绕欧盟跨境投资特别保护必要性的政治斗争仍在继续。本文回顾了欧盟内部双边投资条约引发的政治和法律争议,并在法院的Achmea判决中达到高潮,并简要讨论了Achmea对欧盟内部投资保护的实际影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intra-EU BITs in Light of the Achmea Decision
In its Achmea decision rendered in March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that arbitration clauses contained in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties are incompatible with EU law. The Court’s judgment brought to an end the decade long legal battle between the Member States and the European Commission over the EU law compatibility of these treaties. In response to Achmea, the majority of Member States have agreed to terminate their treaties in order to eliminate the EU law incompatibility identified by the Court. At the same time, the political battle over the need for the special protection of cross-border investments in the EU continues. This paper looks back at the political and legal controversy that was sparked by intra-EU bilateral investment treaties and culminated in the Court’s Achmea judgment, and briefly discusses the practical consequences of Achmea for intra-EU investment protection.
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