Advanced

EU-interna investeringsskyddsavtals (in)kompatibilitet med unionsrätten - Med fokus på skiljenämnders behörighet

Hållsten, Zorba LU (2018) JURM02 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Arbitration agreements contained in bilateral investment treaties between EU member states have been under the EU Commission’s critical review since the beginning of the twenty-first century. The Commission considers that these treaties conflict with the EU treaties, inter alia because they may lead arbitration tribunals to apply EU law outside the control of the European Court of Justice. In March 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled in the Achmea-case that arbitration agreements contained in bilateral investment treaties between EU member states may conflict with EU law if they mean that the arbitration tribunal can apply EU law. This means that arbitration tribunals based on an intra-EU BIT can be considered to not have... (More)
Arbitration agreements contained in bilateral investment treaties between EU member states have been under the EU Commission’s critical review since the beginning of the twenty-first century. The Commission considers that these treaties conflict with the EU treaties, inter alia because they may lead arbitration tribunals to apply EU law outside the control of the European Court of Justice. In March 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled in the Achmea-case that arbitration agreements contained in bilateral investment treaties between EU member states may conflict with EU law if they mean that the arbitration tribunal can apply EU law. This means that arbitration tribunals based on an intra-EU BIT can be considered to not have jurisdiction due to the underlying arbitration agreement being invalid. This judgement may affect the application of the more than 190 intra-EU BITs currently in force.
The purpose of this thesis is to describe how the structures of arbitration are designed regarding disputes arising from bilateral investment treaties between EU member states and to analyse the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice and clarify its possible consequences for future EU investment disputes. Bilateral investment treaties between EU member states provide an opportunity for investors to refer a dispute arising from such treaties to an arbitration tribunal. However, this possibility may, due to the Achmea-case, conflict with the EU treaties, which may mean that arbitration awards that have been based on such arbitration agreements may be set aside in national proceedings or that arbitration tribunals do not consider themselves to have jurisdiction over such disputes.
Furthermore, there is a certain difference between arbitration proceedings initiated under the ICSID Convention and arbitration proceedings initiated either under other arbitration institutes or which are created ad hoc. Thus, since ICSID arbitration tribunals do not have a legal seat in a particular state, ICSID arbitration awards do not go through set aside proceedings in a particular state, as is the case for non-ICSID arbitration awards. A non-ICSID arbitration award based on an intra-EU BIT will therefore be more difficult for a winning party to enforce after the Achmea-case, as it is most likely to be set aside on the ground that it is incompatible with EU law. An ICSID arbitration award, on the other hand, does not go through the same set aside proceedings, which is why it would probably be easier to enforce such award. However, there will still be problems with the authorities responsible for recognising and enforcing ICSID arbitration awards. On the one hand, there is an obligation under international law to recognise and enforce ICSID arbitration awards without further consideration; on the other hand, the European Court of Justice has concluded that such arbitration awards can be contrary to EU law.
The conclusion of the thesis is that the consequences of the Achmea-case will be problematic to handle for the national authorities and courts within the EU who must deal with these issues. However, it may be assumed that an arbitration award arising from an intra-EU BIT will be easier to recognise and enforce for the winning party if the dispute is initiated under the ICSID Convention. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Skiljeavtal i bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal mellan EU-medlemsstater har sedan början på 2000-talet varit under EU-kommissionens kritiska granskning. Kommissionen anser att dessa traktater står i strid med EU-fördragen, bland annat eftersom de kan leda till att skiljenämnder tillämpar unionsrätten utanför EU-domstolens kontroll. I mars 2018 kom ett avgörande från EU-domstolen, Achmea-fallet, där domstolen slog fast att skiljeavtal i bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal mellan EU-medlemsstater kan stå i strid med unionsrätten om de innebär att skiljenämnden kan tillämpa EU-rätt. Detta innebär att skiljenämnder grundade på en intra-EU BIT kan anses obehöriga på grund av att det underliggande skiljeavtalet är ogiltigt. Denna dom kan således... (More)
Skiljeavtal i bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal mellan EU-medlemsstater har sedan början på 2000-talet varit under EU-kommissionens kritiska granskning. Kommissionen anser att dessa traktater står i strid med EU-fördragen, bland annat eftersom de kan leda till att skiljenämnder tillämpar unionsrätten utanför EU-domstolens kontroll. I mars 2018 kom ett avgörande från EU-domstolen, Achmea-fallet, där domstolen slog fast att skiljeavtal i bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal mellan EU-medlemsstater kan stå i strid med unionsrätten om de innebär att skiljenämnden kan tillämpa EU-rätt. Detta innebär att skiljenämnder grundade på en intra-EU BIT kan anses obehöriga på grund av att det underliggande skiljeavtalet är ogiltigt. Denna dom kan således komma att påverka tillämpningen av de drygt 190 intra-EU BIT:s som för närvarande är i kraft.
Uppsatsens syfte är att beskriva hur strukturerna för skiljeförfaranden är uppbyggda avseende tvister som är sprungna ur bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal mellan EU-medlemsstater samt att analysera EU-domstolens nyligen avkunnade dom och klarlägga dess eventuella konsekvenser för framtida investeringstvister inom EU. I bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal mellan EU-medlemsstater finns en möjlighet för investerare att hänskjuta en tvist med anledning av sådana traktater till en skiljenämnd. Denna möjlighet kan dock, efter Achmea-fallet, stå i strid med EU-fördragen vilket kan innebära att avkunnade skiljedomar som baserats på sådana skiljeavtal kan ogiltigförklaras genom en klandertalan i nationell domstol alternativt att skiljenämnder inte anser sig behöriga att slita sådana tvister.
Vidare föreligger det en viss skillnad mellan skiljeförfarande initierade under ICSID-konventionen och skiljeförfaranden som är initierade antingen under andra skiljedomsinstitut eller som är skapade ad hoc. Eftersom ICSID-skiljenämnder inte har något juridiskt säte i en viss stat kan ICSID-skiljedomar således inte klandras i en viss stat, vilket är fallet för icke-ICSID-skiljedomar. En icke-ICSID-skiljedom baserad på en intra-EU BIT kommer därför vara svårare för en vinnande part att genomdriva efter Achmea-fallet eftersom den med stor sannolikhet kommer klandras på grunden att den är inkompatibel med unionsrätten. En ICSID-skiljedom däremot kan inte klandras på samma sätt, varför det troligtvis kommer vara lättare att genomdriva en sådan dom. Dock kommer det ändå uppstå problem hos de nationella myndigheter som har i uppgift att erkänna och verkställa ICSID-skiljedomar. Å ena sidan finns det en folkrättslig förpliktelse att erkänna och verkställa ICSID-skiljedomar utan att göra någon vidare prövning av dess giltighet, å andra sidan har EU-domstolen sagt att sådana skiljedomar kan stå i strid med unionsrätten.
Uppsatsens slutsats är att Achmea-fallets konsekvenser kommer vara problematiska att hantera för de nationella myndigheterna och domstolarna inom EU som har att pröva dessa frågor. Det får dock antas att investeringstvister med anledning av en intra-EU BIT som leder till skiljedomar kommer vara lättare att erkänna och verkställa för den vinnande parten om tvisten initierats under ICSID-konventionen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hållsten, Zorba LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (in)compatibility with EU law - With focus on the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals
course
JURM02 20182
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, folkrätt, investeringsrätt, investeringsskyddsavtal, BIT
language
Swedish
id
8965613
date added to LUP
2019-01-30 17:05:25
date last changed
2019-01-30 17:05:25
@misc{8965613,
  abstract     = {Arbitration agreements contained in bilateral investment treaties between EU member states have been under the EU Commission’s critical review since the beginning of the twenty-first century. The Commission considers that these treaties conflict with the EU treaties, inter alia because they may lead arbitration tribunals to apply EU law outside the control of the European Court of Justice. In March 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled in the Achmea-case that arbitration agreements contained in bilateral investment treaties between EU member states may conflict with EU law if they mean that the arbitration tribunal can apply EU law. This means that arbitration tribunals based on an intra-EU BIT can be considered to not have jurisdiction due to the underlying arbitration agreement being invalid. This judgement may affect the application of the more than 190 intra-EU BITs currently in force.
The purpose of this thesis is to describe how the structures of arbitration are designed regarding disputes arising from bilateral investment treaties between EU member states and to analyse the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice and clarify its possible consequences for future EU investment disputes. Bilateral investment treaties between EU member states provide an opportunity for investors to refer a dispute arising from such treaties to an arbitration tribunal. However, this possibility may, due to the Achmea-case, conflict with the EU treaties, which may mean that arbitration awards that have been based on such arbitration agreements may be set aside in national proceedings or that arbitration tribunals do not consider themselves to have jurisdiction over such disputes.
Furthermore, there is a certain difference between arbitration proceedings initiated under the ICSID Convention and arbitration proceedings initiated either under other arbitration institutes or which are created ad hoc. Thus, since ICSID arbitration tribunals do not have a legal seat in a particular state, ICSID arbitration awards do not go through set aside proceedings in a particular state, as is the case for non-ICSID arbitration awards. A non-ICSID arbitration award based on an intra-EU BIT will therefore be more difficult for a winning party to enforce after the Achmea-case, as it is most likely to be set aside on the ground that it is incompatible with EU law. An ICSID arbitration award, on the other hand, does not go through the same set aside proceedings, which is why it would probably be easier to enforce such award. However, there will still be problems with the authorities responsible for recognising and enforcing ICSID arbitration awards. On the one hand, there is an obligation under international law to recognise and enforce ICSID arbitration awards without further consideration; on the other hand, the European Court of Justice has concluded that such arbitration awards can be contrary to EU law.
The conclusion of the thesis is that the consequences of the Achmea-case will be problematic to handle for the national authorities and courts within the EU who must deal with these issues. However, it may be assumed that an arbitration award arising from an intra-EU BIT will be easier to recognise and enforce for the winning party if the dispute is initiated under the ICSID Convention.},
  author       = {Hållsten, Zorba},
  keyword      = {EU-rätt,folkrätt,investeringsrätt,investeringsskyddsavtal,BIT},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {EU-interna investeringsskyddsavtals (in)kompatibilitet med unionsrätten - Med fokus på skiljenämnders behörighet},
  year         = {2018},
}