The Uneasy Relationship between Intra-EU Investment Tribunals and the Court of Justice’s Achmea Judgment
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
The Uneasy Relationship between Intra-EU Investment Tribunals and the Court of Justice’s Achmea Judgment. / Gáspár-Szilágyi, Szilárd; Usynin, Maxim.
I: European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online, Bind 4, Nr. 1, 2019, s. 29–65.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - The Uneasy Relationship between Intra-EU Investment Tribunals and the Court of Justice’s Achmea Judgment
AU - Gáspár-Szilágyi, Szilárd
AU - Usynin, Maxim
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - This paper focuses on the ways in which investment tribunals constituted under intra-EU BITs and the Energy Charter Treaty (in an intra-EU dispute) have reacted to the Court of Justice’s Achmea judgment of 6 March 2018. The first part of the paper maps out the existing intra-EU arbitrations in which the issues arising from Achmea appear in one form or another. We then take a critical look at how the disputing parties have used Achmea in their argumentation and how the investment tribunals have dismissed these arguments and upheld their jurisdiction. The second part of the paper is analytical. When the tribunals uphold their jurisdiction and decide on the merits, they knowingly deliver an award, which is unenforceable in the Respondent State and the entirety of the EU. By drawing parallels with decisions rendered by other international tribunals, we argue that the rendering of potentially unenforceable awards is not specific to intra-EU investment disputes. We then look at why international tribunals render potentially unenforceable awards. The third part of the paper presents several suggestions of how intra-EU investment tribunals should tackle the Achmea conundrum, either by declining their jurisdiction pursuant to judicial comity or upholding their jurisdiction but dismissing the cases as inadmissible.
AB - This paper focuses on the ways in which investment tribunals constituted under intra-EU BITs and the Energy Charter Treaty (in an intra-EU dispute) have reacted to the Court of Justice’s Achmea judgment of 6 March 2018. The first part of the paper maps out the existing intra-EU arbitrations in which the issues arising from Achmea appear in one form or another. We then take a critical look at how the disputing parties have used Achmea in their argumentation and how the investment tribunals have dismissed these arguments and upheld their jurisdiction. The second part of the paper is analytical. When the tribunals uphold their jurisdiction and decide on the merits, they knowingly deliver an award, which is unenforceable in the Respondent State and the entirety of the EU. By drawing parallels with decisions rendered by other international tribunals, we argue that the rendering of potentially unenforceable awards is not specific to intra-EU investment disputes. We then look at why international tribunals render potentially unenforceable awards. The third part of the paper presents several suggestions of how intra-EU investment tribunals should tackle the Achmea conundrum, either by declining their jurisdiction pursuant to judicial comity or upholding their jurisdiction but dismissing the cases as inadmissible.
KW - Faculty of Law
KW - foreign direct investment
KW - Achmea
KW - European Court of Justice
KW - intra-EU investment treaty arbitration
KW - enforcement of arbitral awards
KW - admissibility
KW - compliance
KW - judicial comity
UR - https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3496797
U2 - 10.1163/24689017_00401003
DO - 10.1163/24689017_00401003
M3 - Journal article
VL - 4
SP - 29
EP - 65
JO - European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online
JF - European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online
SN - 2468-9017
IS - 1
ER -
ID: 233797892