The authors analyse the changed landscape of the EU BIT policy following the Achmea decision and the 2020 Termination Agreement, in particular, their relevance for candidate countries such as Serbia. The perceived risks strongly suggest that some action must be taken before the accession to avoid becoming caught between conflicting obligations under EU law and the BITs, as happened to respondent countries in the cases of Micula and Magyar Farming Company. The potential for conflicts exists in the case of Serbia as well because it already has an obligation to comply with EU law in areas such as competition and state aid law, which may cause it to inadvertently breach investors’ rights under the BITs. Various options that a candidate country can pursue to adjust its bilateral investment treaties to EU law standards are considered in search of the best approach. Difficulties that may be encountered due to the premature termination of sunset clauses and the retroactive termination of arbitration clauses in pending arbitrations lead the authors to conclude that certain adjustments to the course of action adopted within the EU are called for. The proposed action in the case of Serbia consists of consensually amending the 22 Serbia-EU member state BITs following a two-step procedure so that the sunset clauses are terminated at once, whereas the remaining provisions of the BITs are designated by the contracting parties to be terminated on the date of accession. To prevent treaty shopping, these amendments need to be accompanied by comprehensive reform of Serbia’s other BITs that contain overly broad definitions of investors and investments. Some alternative approaches are also taken into consideration, such as the replacement of ISDS with other forms of dispute resolution and the replacement of the Serbia-EU member state BITs with other types of agreements. The candidate countries are advised to adjust their pre-accession commitments, both procedural and substantive, in a timely manner with the incoming EU obligations. These inevitable adjustments should be pursued cautiously by candidate countries to minimise risks and maximise their bargaining power.
Apstrakt : U ovom članku izložen je fenomen više istovrsnih tužbenih zahteva u međunarodnoj arbitraži koji je značajan, između ostalog, i za potrošačke sporove. Arbitražni postupak u kome je podneto više istovrsnih tužbenih zahteva često se naziva kolektivna arbitraža i može se svrstati u širi pojam višestranačke arbitraže. Mada je teško odrediti tačan broj tužbenih zahteva koji dovodi do transformacije postupka u kolektivnu arbitražu, čini se da do toga dolazi u onom trenutku kada broj tužbenih zahteva prevaziđe meru koju bi jedan ograničen broj arbitara još uvek mogao da reši u razumnom roku, vođenjem klasičnog arbitražnog postupka za svaku od tužbi. Kao glavni razlozi za kumulaciju više zahteva u istom postupku navode se uštede u vremenu i troškovima, efikasnost, ujednačenost ishoda i, na kraju, bolji pristup pravdi. Kao razlozi protiv kolektivne arbitraže mogu se navesti: ograničavanje procesnih prava stranaka, nedostatak zakonskog i institucionalnog okvira, nekompatibilnost sa osnovnim načelima arbitraže i široka mogućnost zloupotreba. Uprkos potrebi da se uspostavi pravno sredstvo kolektivne zaštite potrošača u slučaju nastupanja masovnih šteta, to u Srbiji verovatno u skoroj budućnosti neće biti arbitraža.
Several recent arbitral awards on jurisdiction in investment disputes have centred around the issue of the critical date for the assessment of the individual investor's nationality. While anonymously holding that an investor must be a foreign national at the time of the breach of the treaty and at the time of commencement of the arbitration, the tribunals were split on the relevance of the investor's nationality on the date of investment. Although it seems that the ordinary meaning of most BITs requires diversity of nationality at the time the investor makes his investments, the apparently clear wording seems to be open to different interpretations. The author examines the reasons and circumstances that have led the tribunals to reach different conclusions with regard to the date of investment as the potentially critical date for assessing individual investor's nationality under investment treaties.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.