Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

It Takes Two to Tango: The Compatibility Between ECT Article 26 and EU Law – In the Light of Achmea and Opinion 1/17

Källman, Erik LU (2020) JURM02 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Förenligheten mellan ISDS-mekanismen i Artikel 26 i Energistadgefördraget
(ECT) och EU rätt har länge varit föremål för diskussion inom EU. Denna
diskussion har de senaste åren fått all mer uppmärksamhet, sedan EUdomstolen i mål C-284/16 Achmea dömde att ISDS-mekanismen i det bilaterala investeringsavtalet (BIT) mellan Nederländerna och Slovakien var oförenligt med EU rätten. Enligt kritikerna går samma synsätt att applicera på ECT. Mindre än ett år efter domen i Achmea släppte EU-domstolen Opinion 1/17 angående förenligheten mellan ISDS-mekanismen i CETA och EU-rätt. Där kom EU-domstolen fram till slutsatsen att den är förenlig med EU-rätten, trots likheterna med ISDS-mekanismen i Achmea.

Denna uppsats undersöker Achmea och Opinion... (More)
Förenligheten mellan ISDS-mekanismen i Artikel 26 i Energistadgefördraget
(ECT) och EU rätt har länge varit föremål för diskussion inom EU. Denna
diskussion har de senaste åren fått all mer uppmärksamhet, sedan EUdomstolen i mål C-284/16 Achmea dömde att ISDS-mekanismen i det bilaterala investeringsavtalet (BIT) mellan Nederländerna och Slovakien var oförenligt med EU rätten. Enligt kritikerna går samma synsätt att applicera på ECT. Mindre än ett år efter domen i Achmea släppte EU-domstolen Opinion 1/17 angående förenligheten mellan ISDS-mekanismen i CETA och EU-rätt. Där kom EU-domstolen fram till slutsatsen att den är förenlig med EU-rätten, trots likheterna med ISDS-mekanismen i Achmea.

Denna uppsats undersöker Achmea och Opinion 1/17, i syfte att bedöma
implikationerna för tvistelösning under ECT Artikel 26. Det identifieras att EU-domstolens avgörande i Achmea innebär att tvistelösning inom EU (så kallade ”intra-EU disputes”) under ECT troligen är oförenligt med EU-rätten. Avseende tillämpning där investeraren inte är från EU (så kallade extra-EU disputes) är det svårare att bedöma förenligheten. Opinion 1/17 öppnar visserligen för att tvistlösningsmekanismer som tar EU rätt i beaktning kan vara förenliga med EU-rätten, men detta gäller inte ECT.

Därutöver identifieras en normkonflikt mellan EU-rätt å ena sidan och ECT
samt internationell rätt å andra sidan. Från ett EU-perspektiv innebär
oförenligheten mellan artikel 26 ECT och EU-rätt att artikel 26 ECT inte ska tillämpas inom EU. Från ett folkrättsligt perspektiv däremot, kan ECT
tribunaler upprätthålla sin jurisdiktion och släppa avgöranden, även i tvister inom EU. I slutändan skulle EU-rätten troligen gå före EU:s internationella åtaganden under ECT. Det argumenteras för att detta skulle leda oönskade konsekvenser både för respekten för internationell rätt och för EU som en global aktör. (Less)
Abstract
The compatibility of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in Article 26 of the Energy Chart Treaty (ECT) with EU law has been a topic of intense discussion within the EU for a number of years. This discussion has gained traction in the light of the CJEU’s judgement in Case C-284/16 Achmea, where the Court declared that ISDS mechanism in the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between the Netherlands and Slovakia was incompatible with EU law. The critics argue that the same reasoning applies to Article 26 ECT. Less than a year after Achmea, the CJEU released Opinion 1/17 regarding the compatibility between the ISDS mechanism of CETA with EU law. In the opinion, the CJEU declared the ISDS mechanism of CETA compatible with EU... (More)
The compatibility of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in Article 26 of the Energy Chart Treaty (ECT) with EU law has been a topic of intense discussion within the EU for a number of years. This discussion has gained traction in the light of the CJEU’s judgement in Case C-284/16 Achmea, where the Court declared that ISDS mechanism in the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between the Netherlands and Slovakia was incompatible with EU law. The critics argue that the same reasoning applies to Article 26 ECT. Less than a year after Achmea, the CJEU released Opinion 1/17 regarding the compatibility between the ISDS mechanism of CETA with EU law. In the opinion, the CJEU declared the ISDS mechanism of CETA compatible with EU law, despite its similarities with the ISDS mechanism in Achmea.
This thesis examines the CJEU’s findings in Achmea and Opinion 1/17, in order to assess their implications the ECT. It is identified that the judgement in Achmea probably entails that intra-EU application of Article 26 ECT is incompatible with the autonomy of EU law. For extra-EU application, however, it is more difficult to assess. Furthermore, while Opinion 1/17 opens the door to compatibility between EU law and ISDS mechanisms that consider EU law, the considerations are probably not applicable to the ECT.
Additionally, a clash of norms is identified. From an EU perspective, the incompatibility between Article 26 ECT and the autonomy of EU law should lead to the non-applicability of Article 26 ECT in intra-EU disputes. From an ECT and public international law perspective, ECT tribunals can probably validly uphold their jurisdiction and deliver Awards, even in intra-EU disputes. In the end EU law will probably triumph the EU’s and the Member States’ international obligations under the ECT. It is argued that that this would lead to undesirable consequences both for the respect for international law as well as the respect for the EU as a global actor. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Källman, Erik LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20202
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU law, Energy Charter Treaty, ECT, Achmea, Opinion 1/17, autonomy of EU law, autonomy, Investment law, international investment law, EU investment law, EU trade law, trade law, BIT, MIT, Bilateral Investment Agreements, Multilateral Investment Agreements, compatibility, CETA
language
English
id
9033659
date added to LUP
2021-01-25 11:17:55
date last changed
2021-01-25 11:17:55
@misc{9033659,
  abstract     = {{The compatibility of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in Article 26 of the Energy Chart Treaty (ECT) with EU law has been a topic of intense discussion within the EU for a number of years. This discussion has gained traction in the light of the CJEU’s judgement in Case C-284/16 Achmea, where the Court declared that ISDS mechanism in the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between the Netherlands and Slovakia was incompatible with EU law. The critics argue that the same reasoning applies to Article 26 ECT. Less than a year after Achmea, the CJEU released Opinion 1/17 regarding the compatibility between the ISDS mechanism of CETA with EU law. In the opinion, the CJEU declared the ISDS mechanism of CETA compatible with EU law, despite its similarities with the ISDS mechanism in Achmea.
 This thesis examines the CJEU’s findings in Achmea and Opinion 1/17, in order to assess their implications the ECT. It is identified that the judgement in Achmea probably entails that intra-EU application of Article 26 ECT is incompatible with the autonomy of EU law. For extra-EU application, however, it is more difficult to assess. Furthermore, while Opinion 1/17 opens the door to compatibility between EU law and ISDS mechanisms that consider EU law, the considerations are probably not applicable to the ECT. 
 Additionally, a clash of norms is identified. From an EU perspective, the incompatibility between Article 26 ECT and the autonomy of EU law should lead to the non-applicability of Article 26 ECT in intra-EU disputes. From an ECT and public international law perspective, ECT tribunals can probably validly uphold their jurisdiction and deliver Awards, even in intra-EU disputes. In the end EU law will probably triumph the EU’s and the Member States’ international obligations under the ECT. It is argued that that this would lead to undesirable consequences both for the respect for international law as well as the respect for the EU as a global actor.}},
  author       = {{Källman, Erik}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{It Takes Two to Tango: The Compatibility Between ECT Article 26 and EU Law – In the Light of Achmea and Opinion 1/17}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}