Advanced

Konflikten mellan BIT:s och EU:s rättsordning - Analys av Achmea-domen

Jörgensen, Tove LU (2019) HARH01 20191
Department of Business Law
Abstract
This paper examines the Achmea Judgement that the Court of Justice European Union (CJEU) Grand Chamber ruled the 6th of March 2018. This paper deals with the context of Achmea Judgement and the debate that has been the result of the Judgement. The debate is regarding the Judgments legal significance and potential consequences for Investor-State Arbitration within the EU.

Bilateral Investment Agreements (BIT) is a contract between two countries in order to promote foreign investment. These Agreements usually includes an Arbitration clause. These clauses mean that if the BIT is being violated, the parties have agreed to handle the conflict in an Arbitration Court. After the Achmea Judgement, these Arbitration clauses in BITs between EU... (More)
This paper examines the Achmea Judgement that the Court of Justice European Union (CJEU) Grand Chamber ruled the 6th of March 2018. This paper deals with the context of Achmea Judgement and the debate that has been the result of the Judgement. The debate is regarding the Judgments legal significance and potential consequences for Investor-State Arbitration within the EU.

Bilateral Investment Agreements (BIT) is a contract between two countries in order to promote foreign investment. These Agreements usually includes an Arbitration clause. These clauses mean that if the BIT is being violated, the parties have agreed to handle the conflict in an Arbitration Court. After the Achmea Judgement, these Arbitration clauses in BITs between EU member states will no longer be valid.

According to the CJEU ruling theses Arbitration clauses are not compatible with the EU legal order. The main argumentation in the Judgement is about EU Law autonomy and the importance that its practice is standardized. The dialogue between the CJEU and the national courts is important to make the EU Law standardized. That dialogue including the right of preliminary ruling can not be secured when it comes to the Arbitration Courts according to the CJEU. The Arbitration Courts works too independently and that may result in EU Law being interpreted and practiced without the control of the CJEU.

The Achmea Judgement is criticized on many different aspects, and one of the main reasons is that the function of Arbitration Courts in conflicts between investors and states is being ignored. These Arbitration Courts based on BITs between countries have played a part in solving these conflicts. It remains an unresolved question what the alternative conflict resolution mechanism for investor-state conflicts between EU investors and EU member states will be. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats undersöker Achmea-domen som meddelades 6e mars 2018. Uppsatsens undersöker Achmea-domens innehåll och rättsliga betydelse enligt den debatt som den resulterat i. Undersökningen inkluderar debatten om rättsläget för skiljeklausuler enligt BIT mellan EU-länder efter domen.

Bilaterala investeringsavtal (BIT) sluts mellan två länder i syfte att främja investeringar över gränserna. I dessa avtal finns i regel en skiljeklausul vilken enskilda investerare och stater kan inleda skiljeförfaranden i de fall det uppstår en konflikt som potentiellt strider mot ländernas avtal. Efter Achmea-domen kommer inte sådana skiljeklausuler vara möjligt längre mellan EU-länder.

Enligt Achmea-domen är inte sådana skiljeklausuler kompatibla... (More)
Denna uppsats undersöker Achmea-domen som meddelades 6e mars 2018. Uppsatsens undersöker Achmea-domens innehåll och rättsliga betydelse enligt den debatt som den resulterat i. Undersökningen inkluderar debatten om rättsläget för skiljeklausuler enligt BIT mellan EU-länder efter domen.

Bilaterala investeringsavtal (BIT) sluts mellan två länder i syfte att främja investeringar över gränserna. I dessa avtal finns i regel en skiljeklausul vilken enskilda investerare och stater kan inleda skiljeförfaranden i de fall det uppstår en konflikt som potentiellt strider mot ländernas avtal. Efter Achmea-domen kommer inte sådana skiljeklausuler vara möjligt längre mellan EU-länder.

Enligt Achmea-domen är inte sådana skiljeklausuler kompatibla med EU:s rättsordningen. Den argumentation som ligger till grund för domen handlar om EU-rättens autonomi och vikten av att den tillämpas enhetligt. Dialogen mellan EU-domstolen och de nationella domstolarna är viktig för att göra EU-rätten enhetlig. Den dialogen och den rätt till förhandsavgörande kan enligt EU-domstolen inte säkras när det kommer till skiljeförfaranden i BITs. Skiljedomstolar agerar alldeles för autonomt enligt EU-domstolen, det gör att EU-rätten kan komma att tolkas och därmed användas utan EU-domstolens kontroll.

I doktrinen kritiseras denna dom på många punkter till stor del för att skiljeförfarandens funktion och process ignoreras. Tvister mellan stater och enskilda utländska investerare har tidigare kunnat lösas via skiljeförfarande. Ett annat problem som uppkommit är hur nuvarande eller framtida investeringstvister ska verkställas, och vad enskilda investerare från EU-länder kan förvänta sig idag om tvist skulle uppstå i en annan EU-medlemsstat. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Jörgensen, Tove LU
supervisor
organization
course
HARH01 20191
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Achmea Judgement, EU-Law, Investor State Arbritation, Bilateral Investment Treaties
language
Swedish
id
8983631
date added to LUP
2019-06-14 12:01:41
date last changed
2019-06-14 12:01:41
@misc{8983631,
  abstract     = {This paper examines the Achmea Judgement that the Court of Justice European Union (CJEU) Grand Chamber ruled the 6th of March 2018. This paper deals with the context of Achmea Judgement and the debate that has been the result of the Judgement. The debate is regarding the Judgments legal significance and potential consequences for Investor-State Arbitration within the EU. 

Bilateral Investment Agreements (BIT) is a contract between two countries in order to promote foreign investment. These Agreements usually includes an Arbitration clause. These clauses mean that if the BIT is being violated, the parties have agreed to handle the conflict in an Arbitration Court. After the Achmea Judgement, these Arbitration clauses in BITs between EU member states will no longer be valid. 

According to the CJEU ruling theses Arbitration clauses are not compatible with the EU legal order. The main argumentation in the Judgement is about EU Law autonomy and the importance that its practice is standardized. The dialogue between the CJEU and the national courts is important to make the EU Law standardized. That dialogue including the right of preliminary ruling can not be secured when it comes to the Arbitration Courts according to the CJEU. The Arbitration Courts works too independently and that may result in EU Law being interpreted and practiced without the control of the CJEU.
 
The Achmea Judgement is criticized on many different aspects, and one of the main reasons is that the function of Arbitration Courts in conflicts between investors and states is being ignored. These Arbitration Courts based on BITs between countries have played a part in solving these conflicts. It remains an unresolved question what the alternative conflict resolution mechanism for investor-state conflicts between EU investors and EU member states will be.},
  author       = {Jörgensen, Tove},
  keyword      = {Achmea Judgement,EU-Law,Investor State Arbritation,Bilateral Investment Treaties},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Konflikten mellan BIT:s och EU:s rättsordning - Analys av Achmea-domen},
  year         = {2019},
}