Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Slutet för EU-interna investeringstvister? - En utredning av rättsläget efter EU-domstolens dom C-284/16 Achmea

Hedenskog, Hedda LU (2020) JURM02 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
År 2018 meddelade EU-domstolen förhandsavgörandet C-284/16 Achmea som kom att göra investeringstvister mellan en investerare från en EU-medlemsstat mot en annan EU-medlemsstat osäker. I domslutet konstate-rade EU-domstolen att artiklarna 267 och 344 Fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt utgjorde hinder mot en sådan skiljeklausul som fanns i ett bilateralt investeringsavtal mellan Slovakien och Nederländerna. Denna skiljeklausul föreskrev att en investerare från den ena staten får inleda ett skiljeförfarande mot den andra staten som var part till avtalet. Även om det var tydligt att EU-domstolen tog ställning mot EU-interna investeringstvis-ter, var det inte helt tydligt vad de principer EU-domstolen uttryckte innebar för den... (More)
År 2018 meddelade EU-domstolen förhandsavgörandet C-284/16 Achmea som kom att göra investeringstvister mellan en investerare från en EU-medlemsstat mot en annan EU-medlemsstat osäker. I domslutet konstate-rade EU-domstolen att artiklarna 267 och 344 Fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt utgjorde hinder mot en sådan skiljeklausul som fanns i ett bilateralt investeringsavtal mellan Slovakien och Nederländerna. Denna skiljeklausul föreskrev att en investerare från den ena staten får inleda ett skiljeförfarande mot den andra staten som var part till avtalet. Även om det var tydligt att EU-domstolen tog ställning mot EU-interna investeringstvis-ter, var det inte helt tydligt vad de principer EU-domstolen uttryckte innebar för den processuella regleringen av skiljeförfaranden, eller vilka omständig-heter som var avgörande för domstolens slutsatser.

Med fokus på Sverige som skiljedomssäte utreder uppsatsen rättsläget för EU-interna investeringstvister efter EU-domstolens dom Achmea. Uppsat-sen behandlar frågeställningar som huruvida EU-domstolens principer i Achmea endast gäller skiljeklausuler i EU-interna BITs med samma lydelse som den i domen, eller även andra EU-interna investeringstvister. Uppsat-sen fokuserar också på vilken betydelse Achmea har i ett processuellt hän-seende inom ramen för skiljeförfaranden i Sverige.

För att undersöka dessa frågeställningar används den rättsdogmatiska meto-den samt EU-rättslig metod. Juridiskt material som lagstiftning, förarbeten, prejudikat och rättspraxis, generaladvokatens yttrande, det meddelande och de deklarationer EU-kommissionen och medlemsstaterna publicerat samt doktrin har därför granskats.

Uppsatsen kommer fram till att Achmea tar sikte på själva skiljeavtalet i investeringsavtal, och inte på att frågorna som prövas i sådana förfaranden strider mot ordre public eller inte är skiljedomsmässiga. Utifrån EU-domstolens tidigare praxis går det att utläsa att svenska processuella regler därmed är fortsatt tillämpliga. Gällande vilka investeringstvister som preju-dikatet blir tillämpligt på konstateras det att den träffar samtliga EU-interna BITs, inklusive dem som inte har en lagvalsklausul som föreskriver att EU-rätt ska tillämpas i förfarandet. Även om många av de omständigheter som förelåg i Achmea även föreligger i ett EU-internt ECT-förfarande, går det inte att med säkerhet säga att även dessa skiljeförfaranden omfattas av pre-judikatet. Vissa delar av EU-domstolens resonemang är inte direkt tillämp-ligt på ECT-förfaranden. För att dra slutsatsen att EU-rätten utgör hinder mot skiljeklausulen i ECT krävs ett förtydligande från EU-domstolen. (Less)
Abstract
In 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling C-284/16 Achmea, making the future of investment treaty arbitration between an investor from one EU member state and another EU member state uncertain. In the judgement’s operative part, the CJEU con-cluded that articles 267 and 344 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precludes arbitration clauses such as the clause in the bilateral in-vestment treaty between Slovakia and the Netherlands. This arbitration clause stated that an investor from one of the states that is party to the treaty may bring arbitral proceedings against the other state that is party to the treaty. Though taking a clear position against intra-EU investment... (More)
In 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling C-284/16 Achmea, making the future of investment treaty arbitration between an investor from one EU member state and another EU member state uncertain. In the judgement’s operative part, the CJEU con-cluded that articles 267 and 344 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precludes arbitration clauses such as the clause in the bilateral in-vestment treaty between Slovakia and the Netherlands. This arbitration clause stated that an investor from one of the states that is party to the treaty may bring arbitral proceedings against the other state that is party to the treaty. Though taking a clear position against intra-EU investment arbitra-tion, it was not clear how the principles expressed by the CJEU affected the procedural regulation of arbitral proceedings, nor which circumstances in the case that were determinable for this outcome.

Focusing on Sweden as the seat of arbitration, this thesis examines the legal situation for intra-EU investment disputes after the CJEU’s judgement Ach-mea. The thesis covers the issue of whether the principles expressed by the CJEU in the Achmea judgement only applies to arbitration clauses in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties with the same wording as the one in the judgement, or whether it also covers other intra-EU investment agreements. Moreover, the thesis focuses on determining how the judgement should be interpreted in a Swedish arbitration law context.

To examine these issues, the thesis uses the legal research method as well as the European legal method. Legal sources such as legislation, preparatory works, legal precedents and case-law, the opinion of the advocate general, the communication and the declarations published by the EU-commission and the member states, as well as legal literature have therefore been re-viewed.

The thesis concludes that the Achmea judgement deals with the arbitration agreement in intra-EU investment agreements and not whether such dis-putes are contrary to public policy or non-arbitrable. Based on the CJEU’s previous case law, Swedish procedural rules are, therefore, still applicable after Achmea. As to the issue of which intra-EU investment arbitrations the legal precedent covers, the thesis concludes that all intra-EU BITs, includ-ing those that does not have an applicable law clause opting for EU law to be applied in the proceedings, fall within the scope of the judgement. Alt-hough many of the circumstances in the Achmea case also exist in intra-EU ECT arbitration, it cannot be concluded with certainty that these proceed-ings also fall within the scope of the legal precedent. The reasoning of the CJEU is not directly applicable to ECT arbitral proceedings. To draw the conclusion that EU law precludes the arbitration clause in ECT, a clearer statement from the CJEU needs to be delivered. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hedenskog, Hedda LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The End of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration? - An Analysis of the Legal Situation After the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Judgement C-284/16 Achmea
course
JURM02 20202
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, skiljedomsrätt, internationell investeringsrätt, Achmea
language
Swedish
id
9041591
date added to LUP
2021-04-06 12:08:00
date last changed
2021-04-06 12:08:00
@misc{9041591,
  abstract     = {{In 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling C-284/16 Achmea, making the future of investment treaty arbitration between an investor from one EU member state and another EU member state uncertain. In the judgement’s operative part, the CJEU con-cluded that articles 267 and 344 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precludes arbitration clauses such as the clause in the bilateral in-vestment treaty between Slovakia and the Netherlands. This arbitration clause stated that an investor from one of the states that is party to the treaty may bring arbitral proceedings against the other state that is party to the treaty. Though taking a clear position against intra-EU investment arbitra-tion, it was not clear how the principles expressed by the CJEU affected the procedural regulation of arbitral proceedings, nor which circumstances in the case that were determinable for this outcome. 

Focusing on Sweden as the seat of arbitration, this thesis examines the legal situation for intra-EU investment disputes after the CJEU’s judgement Ach-mea. The thesis covers the issue of whether the principles expressed by the CJEU in the Achmea judgement only applies to arbitration clauses in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties with the same wording as the one in the judgement, or whether it also covers other intra-EU investment agreements. Moreover, the thesis focuses on determining how the judgement should be interpreted in a Swedish arbitration law context. 

To examine these issues, the thesis uses the legal research method as well as the European legal method. Legal sources such as legislation, preparatory works, legal precedents and case-law, the opinion of the advocate general, the communication and the declarations published by the EU-commission and the member states, as well as legal literature have therefore been re-viewed. 

The thesis concludes that the Achmea judgement deals with the arbitration agreement in intra-EU investment agreements and not whether such dis-putes are contrary to public policy or non-arbitrable. Based on the CJEU’s previous case law, Swedish procedural rules are, therefore, still applicable after Achmea. As to the issue of which intra-EU investment arbitrations the legal precedent covers, the thesis concludes that all intra-EU BITs, includ-ing those that does not have an applicable law clause opting for EU law to be applied in the proceedings, fall within the scope of the judgement. Alt-hough many of the circumstances in the Achmea case also exist in intra-EU ECT arbitration, it cannot be concluded with certainty that these proceed-ings also fall within the scope of the legal precedent. The reasoning of the CJEU is not directly applicable to ECT arbitral proceedings. To draw the conclusion that EU law precludes the arbitration clause in ECT, a clearer statement from the CJEU needs to be delivered.}},
  author       = {{Hedenskog, Hedda}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Slutet för EU-interna investeringstvister? - En utredning av rättsläget efter EU-domstolens dom C-284/16 Achmea}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}