Skip to main content

Challenges to International Investment Law Within the European Union

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2019

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 10))

  • 808 Accesses

Abstract

The following chapter considers the challenges facing international investment law and investor–State arbitration within the European Union. Particular attention is paid to two aspects, firstly the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in the case of Achmea which held that investor–State arbitration clauses contained within bilateral investment treaties are contrary to EU law and therefore invalid; and secondly the decisions of the European Commission in which it held that awards paid out by States to investors constitute a form of illegal State aid under EU law with the result that all of the sums along with interest must be recovered from the investor. These developments, when taken together, have broad ramifications for the sustainability of international investment law within the European Union and create wider concerns both for States and investors situated outside of the EU but who have a business presence within Europe or who may look to enforce arbitral awards within the domestic courts of Member States. The majority of the developments in this area have occurred over the course of the past 18 months in 2018 and 2019, the chapter therefore compiles and analyses all of the relevant investment awards, domestic court decisions, judgments and opinions of the European Union, along with proclamations and statements made by the Member States and the European Commission in order to provide timely analysis on contemporary issues facing practitioners acting on behalf of States and investors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Achmea v Slovak Republic UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13 (December 2012).

  2. 2.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea C-284/16 (6 March 2018).

  3. 3.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea C-284/16 (6 March 2018) at [56].

  4. 4.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea C-284/16 (6 March 2018) at [46]–[49].

  5. 5.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea C-284/16 (6 March 2018) at [51]–[53].

  6. 6.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea C-284/16 (6 March 2018) at [58]–[62].

  7. 7.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea C-284/16 (6 March 2018) at [60].

  8. 8.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017); Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt 18 December 2014.

  9. 9.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [3].

  10. 10.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [44].

  11. 11.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [44]–[46].

  12. 12.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [37].

  13. 13.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [40].

  14. 14.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [40].

  15. 15.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [41].

  16. 16.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [41].

  17. 17.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [264].

  18. 18.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [265].

  19. 19.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [266].

  20. 20.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [259].

  21. 21.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea C-284/16 (6 March 2018).

  22. 22.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017).

  23. 23.

    Masdar v Spain ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1 (16 May 2018).

  24. 24.

    Masdar v Spain ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1 (16 May 2018) at [678], [683].

  25. 25.

    Masdar v Spain ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1 (16 May 2018) at [679].

  26. 26.

    See Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet C-284/16 (19 September 2017) at [43]: “All the Member States and the Union have ratified the Energy Charter Treaty…That multilateral treaty…operates even between Member States, since it was concluded not as an agreement between the Union and its Member States…all the Contracting Parties participate on an equal footing.…if no EU institution and no Member State sought an opinion from the Court on the compatibility of that treaty…that is because none of them had the slightest suspicion that it might be incompatible.

  27. 27.

    Masdar v Spain ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1 (16 May 2018) at [678].

  28. 28.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018).

  29. 29.

    Under Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “There shall be taken into account, together with the context: any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

  30. 30.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [161].

  31. 31.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [161].

  32. 32.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [167].

  33. 33.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [171], [189].

  34. 34.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [192].

  35. 35.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [194].

  36. 36.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [196].

  37. 37.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [208].

  38. 38.

    Vattenfall v Germany ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (31 August 2018) at [230]ff.

  39. 39.

    Greentech v Spain SCC Case No. 2015/150 (November 2018) at [195].

  40. 40.

    UP & CD Holdings v Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35 (October 2018).

  41. 41.

    UP & CD Holdings v Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35 (October 2018) at [253].

  42. 42.

    UP & CD Holdings v Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35 (October 2018) at [256].

  43. 43.

    UP & CD Holdings v Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35 (October 2018) at [255].

  44. 44.

    UP & CD Holdings v Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35 (October 2018) at [258].

  45. 45.

    UP & CD Holdings v Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35 (October 2018) at [258]–[260].

  46. 46.

    UP & CD Holdings v Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35 (October 2018) at [264]–[265].

  47. 47.

    UP & CD Holdings v Hungary ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35 (October 2018) at [266].

  48. 48.

    Marfin Investment Group v Cyprus ICSID Case No. ARB/13/27 (July 2018).

  49. 49.

    Marfin Investment Group v Cyprus ICSID Case No. ARB/13/27 (July 2018) at [592].

  50. 50.

    Marfin Investment Group v Cyprus ICSID Case No. ARB/13/27 (July 2018) at [593].

  51. 51.

    Marfin Investment Group v Cyprus ICSID Case No. ARB/13/27 (July 2018) at [596].

  52. 52.

    German Federal Supreme Court, 31 October 2018.

  53. 53.

    Article 53(1) sets out that: “The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each party shall abide by and comply with the terms of the award except to the extent that enforcement shall have been stayed pursuant to the relevant provisions of this Convention.”

  54. 54.

    Svea Court of Appeal, Case No T 8538-17; Case No T 12033-17.

  55. 55.

    PL Holdings v Poland SCC Case No. V 2-14/163 (June 2017).

  56. 56.

    Novenergia v Spain SCC Case No. 2015/063 (February 2018).

  57. 57.

    Although, it should be noted that the European Commission has put out an extensive document detailing how investors may seek to protect their investments under provisions of EU law within the courts of the Member States, yet nothing has been said as to how the parties can rely upon the specific protections granted under investment treaties (such as expropriation and fair and equitable treatment, for example). See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:0547:FIN (last accessed May 2019).

  58. 58.

    Declaration of the Member States On the Legal Consequences of Achmea (https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/190117-bilateral-investment-treaties_en) (last accessed May 2019).

  59. 59.

    Declaration of the Member States On the Legal Consequences of Achmea, p. 2.

  60. 60.

    Declaration of the Member States On the Legal Consequences of Achmea, p. 3.

  61. 61.

    Declaration of the Member States On the Legal Consequences of Achmea, p. 3.

  62. 62.

    Declaration of the Member States On the Legal Consequences of Achmea, p. 3.

  63. 63.

    Declaration of the Member States On the Legal Consequences of Achmea, p. 4.

  64. 64.

    Czech Republic Terminates Investment Treaties In Such a Way As To Cast Doubt on Residual Legal Protection For Existing Investments” (Investment Arbitration Reporter, 1 February 2011).

  65. 65.

    Declaration of the Member States On the Legal Consequences of Achmea, p. 4.

  66. 66.

    Declaration of the Member States On the Legal Consequences of Achmea, p. 4.

  67. 67.

    Eskosol S.P.A. v Italy (2019) ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, see paras [207]–[227].

  68. 68.

    Eskosol S.P.A. v Italy (2019) ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50 at [213].

  69. 69.

    Eskosol S.P.A. v Italy (2019) ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50 at [216].

  70. 70.

    Eskosol S.P.A. v Italy (2019) ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50 at [223], [226], [227].

  71. 71.

    Micula & Ors v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20 – 11 December 2014).

  72. 72.

    Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 (30 March 2015) at [79].

  73. 73.

    Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 (30 March 2015) at [100].

  74. 74.

    Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 (30 March 2015) at [102].

  75. 75.

    Eiser Infrastructure Ltd v Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36 – 4 May 2017).

  76. 76.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017).

  77. 77.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017) at [159].

  78. 78.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017) at [160].

  79. 79.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017) see [161]; “Article 19(1) TEU, the principles of the freedom of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, as established by the Treaties (in particular Articles 49, 52, 56, and 63 TFEU), as well as Articles 64(2), 65(1), 66, 75, 107, 108,215, 267 and Article 344 TFEU, and the general principles of Union law of primacy, unity and effectiveness of Union law, of mutual trust and of legal certainty”.

  80. 80.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017) at [161].

  81. 81.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017) at [162].

  82. 82.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017) at [163].

  83. 83.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017) at [165].

  84. 84.

    Commission Decision (EU) State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) (10 November 2017) at [165].

  85. 85.

    Micula v Romania v European Commission [2018] EWCA Civ 1801.

  86. 86.

    Micula v Romania v European Commission [2018] EWCA Civ 1801 at [268].

  87. 87.

    Micula v Romania v European Commission [2018] EWCA Civ 1801 at [268].

  88. 88.

    Micula v Romania v European Commission [2018] EWCA Civ 1801 at [269].

  89. 89.

    Micula v Romania v European Commission [2018] EWCA Civ 1801 at [270].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luke Tattersall .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tattersall, L. (2019). Challenges to International Investment Law Within the European Union. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C.J., Terhechte, J.P., Ziegler, A.R. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2019. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2019_44

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2019_44

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22484-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22485-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics