Here Comes Doomsday … Or Does It? – Implications of Achmea on Intra-EU Investment Arbitration in Light of Recent Case Law

Marek Anderle, A. Leontiev
{"title":"Here Comes Doomsday … Or Does It? – Implications of Achmea on Intra-EU Investment Arbitration in Light of Recent Case Law","authors":"Marek Anderle, A. Leontiev","doi":"10.1163/24689017_0601007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article follows recent developments in the intra- EU investment arbitration case-law after the publication of the CJEU’s judgment in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV (Achmea judgment) and the subsequent signing of the so-called ‘Achmea declarations’ on 15 and 16 January 2019 and the Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties Between the EU Member States on 5 May 2020 (Termination Agreement). Although the decisions of investment tribunals analysed in this article show that all tribunals uniformly dismissed the jurisdictional objection of the respondent States based on the cjeu’s conclusions in the Achmea judgment, this article explores the very different reasons adopted by the tribunals when doing so, and the potential challenges ahead, especially once the Termination Agreement enters into ‘full’ force. Based on different approaches taken by the tribunals with regard to the applicability of the Achmea judgment, this article addresses its implications separately for ect arbitrations, icsid arbitrations and bit arbitrations, while drawing attention to the important similarities and differences between the decisions.","PeriodicalId":164842,"journal":{"name":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","volume":"48 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_0601007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article follows recent developments in the intra- EU investment arbitration case-law after the publication of the CJEU’s judgment in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV (Achmea judgment) and the subsequent signing of the so-called ‘Achmea declarations’ on 15 and 16 January 2019 and the Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties Between the EU Member States on 5 May 2020 (Termination Agreement). Although the decisions of investment tribunals analysed in this article show that all tribunals uniformly dismissed the jurisdictional objection of the respondent States based on the cjeu’s conclusions in the Achmea judgment, this article explores the very different reasons adopted by the tribunals when doing so, and the potential challenges ahead, especially once the Termination Agreement enters into ‘full’ force. Based on different approaches taken by the tribunals with regard to the applicability of the Achmea judgment, this article addresses its implications separately for ect arbitrations, icsid arbitrations and bit arbitrations, while drawing attention to the important similarities and differences between the decisions.
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
世界末日来了,还是真的来了?-根据最近的判例法,《阿赫玛协定》对欧盟内部投资仲裁的影响
本文遵循欧盟法院在斯洛伐克共和国诉Achmea BV案判决(Achmea判决)公布后,欧盟内部投资仲裁判例法的最新发展,以及随后于2019年1月15日和16日签署的所谓“Achmea声明”和2020年5月5日签署的《终止欧盟成员国之间双边投资条约协定》(终止协定)。虽然本文分析的投资法庭的裁决表明,所有法庭都根据法院在Achmea判决中的结论统一驳回了被投诉人的管辖权异议,但本文探讨了法庭在这样做时采用的非常不同的理由,以及未来的潜在挑战,特别是一旦终止协议“全面”生效。根据各法庭对阿赫迈亚判决的适用性所采取的不同做法,本文分别论述其对ect仲裁、icsid仲裁和bit仲裁的影响,同时提请注意这些裁决之间的重要相似点和不同点。
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