The Fate of Investment Dispute Resolution after the Achmea Decision of the European Court of Justice

Heß, Burkhard

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3152972

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…40 Id. 41 Among others, see Hess (2018) not explain which criteria should be taken into account to determine whether a dispute resolution clause in a given treaty was 'such as' Article 8 of the Netherlands-Slovakia BIT.…”

Section: Scope Of Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rule of Law and the Roll of the Dice. The Uncertain Future of Investor-State Arbitration in the EU

Sadowski¹

2021

Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investment treaty law and EU law began to develop in the same era and share some important philosophical and axiological foundations. The pressure on the CEE countries to enter into numerous bilateral investment treaties in late 80s and early 90s, in the context of the EU accession aspirations of the former communist countries, was likely to result, eventually, in a conflict between EU law and investment treaty law. The conflict could have been managed in three different ways, yet the CJEU decided in Achmea to declare an undefined volume of intra-EU arbitrations to be incompatible with EU law. This important judgment, which delivered an outcome desired by the European Commission and a number of Member States, is based on questionable legal reasoning that creates high uncertainty in this area of law. The doubts include the scope of application of Achmea, which is now a highly debatable issue. The CJEU itself saw it necessary to limit the scope of Achmea by declaring in Opinion 1/17 (CETA) that the legal reasoning of Achmea did not apply to investment protection treaties with third countries. The Member States of the EU remain politically divided in their views as to whether Achmea applies to the Energy Charter Treaty. And while the problems with the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in certain Member States continue to grow, Achmea has left an important gap for which there is no substitute in the current architecture of the EU legal system.

show abstract

Section: Scope Of Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rule of Law and the Roll of the Dice. The Uncertain Future of Investor-State Arbitration in the EU

Sadowski¹

2021

Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…El tribunal arbitral rechazó este argumento y condenó a Eslovaquia a pagar a Achmea los daños y perjuicios causados. En consecuencia, Eslovaquia presentó un recurso de anulación ante el Tribunal Superior Regional de Frankfurt y, al ser rechazado, un recurso de apelación ante el Tribunal Supremo Civil y Penal de Alemania (Bundesgerichtshof), argumentando de nuevo que el arbitraje del APPRI era incompatible con el DUE 68 . Finalmente, el Tribunal Supremo Civil y Penal de Alemania trasladó al TJUE las siguientes dudas: a) si es incompatible la disposición sobre el arbitraje de diferencias Estado-inversor de un «APPRI interno de la Unión» (i.e.…”

Section: Obstáculos Legales Al Acuerdo De Libreunclassified

“…Respondiendo a esta decisión, la CE ha solicitado a los Estados Miembros que «terminen los 196 APPRIs intra-UE por consentimiento mutuo (art. 54 VCLT)» 77 .…”

Section: Obstáculos Legales Al Acuerdo De Libreunclassified

El arbitraje de inversiones entre la Unión Europea y Singapur: ¿Del arbitraje de diferencias Estado-Inversor a un sistema de Tribunales de Inversiones?

Emeterio

2019

Est Deu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El régimen de arbitraje de inversiones entre la Unión Europea (UE) y Singapur ha pasado del arbitraje de diferencias Estado-inversor propuesto por el borrador del Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre la UE y Singapur del 2015 a un Sistema de Tribunales de Inversiones en el borrador del Acuerdo de Protección de las Inversiones entre la UE y Singapur (APIUES) del 2018. Esta evolución se fundamenta en: a) los cambios de forma y fondo introducidos por el APIUES; y, b) un análisis comparativo de los sistemas de tribunales de inversiones previstos en el APIUES, la Asociación Transatlántica para el Comercio y la Inversión entre la UE y los Estados Unidos, y el Acuerdo Económico y Comercial Global entre la UE y Canadá.Recibido: 10 febrero 2019 Aceptado: 21 junio 2019 Publicación en línea: 31 julio 2019

show abstract

The European Union and the Energy Charter Treaty: What Next After Achmea?

Happold¹,

Boeck

2020

EU External Action in International Economic Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Fate of Investment Dispute Resolution after the Achmea Decision of the European Court of Justice

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

The Rule of Law and the Roll of the Dice. The Uncertain Future of Investor-State Arbitration in the EU

The Rule of Law and the Roll of the Dice. The Uncertain Future of Investor-State Arbitration in the EU

El arbitraje de inversiones entre la Unión Europea y Singapur: ¿Del arbitraje de diferencias Estado-Inversor a un sistema de Tribunales de Inversiones?

The European Union and the Energy Charter Treaty: What Next After Achmea?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About