The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main Is the First European Court to Declare the Achmea Case a Landmark Decision with Significance for All Intra-EU BITS

Philipp Stompfe
{"title":"The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main Is the First European Court to Declare the Achmea Case a Landmark Decision with Significance for All Intra-EU BITS","authors":"Philipp Stompfe","doi":"10.1163/24689017_0601013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In February 2021, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht – “olg”), rendered a decision in the case between the Republic of Croatia (“Croatia”) as the applicant, and an Austrian bank incorporated as a joint stock company under Austrian law and a Croatian bank incorporated as a joint stock company under the laws of Croatia having the Austrian bank as its sole shareholder as the Respondents (“Respondents”). This decision concerns the incompatibility of an arbitration clause contained in the Agreement between the Republic of Austria and Croatia on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (“Austria-Croatia bit”)2 with EU law. Croatia successfully challenged the admissibility of an uncitral arbitration based on Article 9(2)(b) of the Austria- Croatia bit, initiated by the Respondents, by virtue of an application under Section 1032(2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – “zpo”). Croatia argued that Article 9(2)(b) of the Austria- Croatia bit was incompatible with EU law.","PeriodicalId":164842,"journal":{"name":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-20","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_0601013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In February 2021, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht – “olg”), rendered a decision in the case between the Republic of Croatia (“Croatia”) as the applicant, and an Austrian bank incorporated as a joint stock company under Austrian law and a Croatian bank incorporated as a joint stock company under the laws of Croatia having the Austrian bank as its sole shareholder as the Respondents (“Respondents”). This decision concerns the incompatibility of an arbitration clause contained in the Agreement between the Republic of Austria and Croatia on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (“Austria-Croatia bit”)2 with EU law. Croatia successfully challenged the admissibility of an uncitral arbitration based on Article 9(2)(b) of the Austria- Croatia bit, initiated by the Respondents, by virtue of an application under Section 1032(2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – “zpo”). Croatia argued that Article 9(2)(b) of the Austria- Croatia bit was incompatible with EU law.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美因河畔法兰克福高等地区法院是第一个宣布阿赫梅亚案为具有里程碑意义的裁决的欧洲法院,对所有欧盟内部双边投资协定都具有重要意义
2021年2月,美因河畔法兰克福高级地区法院(Oberlandesgericht -“olg”)就克罗地亚共和国(“克罗地亚”)作为申请人与一家根据奥地利法律注册为股份公司的奥地利银行和一家根据克罗地亚法律注册为股份公司的克罗地亚银行之间的案件作出裁决,该奥地利银行作为唯一股东作为被告(“被告”)。本决定涉及《奥地利共和国和克罗地亚关于促进和保护投资的协定》(“奥地利-克罗地亚协定”)2中所载的一项仲裁条款与欧盟法律不相符的问题。克罗地亚根据《德国民事诉讼法》(Zivilprozessordnung -“zpo”)第1032(2)节提出的申请,成功地质疑了根据奥地利-克罗地亚条约第9(2)(b)条提出的一项贸易法委员会仲裁的可受理性。克罗地亚认为,奥地利-克罗地亚条约第9(2)(b)条与欧盟法律不相容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Energy Charter Treaty and the Paris Agreement – Friends or Foes? – 7th EFILA Lecture (28 October 2021) The European Union’s Proposed Amendments to Article 10(1) of the ECT: Advancing or Undermining Its Ambitions for the Green Transition? Going Out of Business: Representing Insolvent Claimants Seeking Investment Treaty Protection in Arbitrations Brought against States (Winner of the Essay Competition 2022) Green Power K/S and SCE Solar Don Benito APS v Kingdom of Spain: How EU Law Allegedly Trumps International Investment Law Does the cjeu Misunderstand Investment Treaty Arbitration in Commission v Micula?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1