Suveränitet och skiljeförfarande - En analys av de spänningar som uppstått mellan EU-rätten och den internationella investeringsrätten
(2025) JURM02 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- In the Achmea case (C-284/16), the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that an arbitration clause in a bilateral investment treaty between two EU countries is incompatible with EU law. The Court reasoned that such a dispute resolution clause risk removing legal questions involving EU law from the judicial system established by its Treaties. As a result, articles 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are violated, thereby undermining the autonomy of EU law. Subsequent rulings in the Komstroy and PL Holdings cases have further developed and solidified this legal doctrine, with the result that arbitration proceedings based on investment treaties between Member States are disallowed.
This legal... (More) - In the Achmea case (C-284/16), the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that an arbitration clause in a bilateral investment treaty between two EU countries is incompatible with EU law. The Court reasoned that such a dispute resolution clause risk removing legal questions involving EU law from the judicial system established by its Treaties. As a result, articles 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are violated, thereby undermining the autonomy of EU law. Subsequent rulings in the Komstroy and PL Holdings cases have further developed and solidified this legal doctrine, with the result that arbitration proceedings based on investment treaties between Member States are disallowed.
This legal development has triggered significant legal and political consequences. EU countries have terminated their intra-EU investment protection treaties, and their national courts have refused to recognize and enforce arbitral awards in intra-EU investment disputes. Even disputes handled under the IC-SID Convention have come into conflict with the CJEU’s interpretation of union law, despite the ICSID being a seemingly autonomous system within public international law.
There is a normative conflict regarding which legal order should take precedence: the supranational EU legal order or the international ICSID Convention. ICSID tribunals have maintained jurisdiction in intra-EU disputes, while national courts within the Union have refused to enforce the resulting arbitral awards. This has forced investors to seek enforcement of their claims in third countries that are not bound by EU law.
To manage these tensions, the European Commission has proposed a new order for resolving investment disputes – either through a semi-permanent Investment Court System or the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court.
International investment law is facing a paradigm shift. Investor protection, traditionally based on private arbitration is no longer acceptable where EU law is involved. This raises questions about legal certainty, state sovereignty, and international coordination in dispute resolution that this thesis will try and present an answer to. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- I Achmea-målet (C-284/16) slog EU-domstolen fast att en skiljeklausul i ett bilateralt investeringsavtal mellan två EU-medlemsstater strider mot unionsrätten. Domstolen motiverade detta med att tvistlösningsklausulen riskerar att undandra rättsfrågor med anknytning till EU-rätten från det domstolssystem som etablerats genom Fördragen. Därmed åsidosätts artikel 267 och 344 i FEUF, vilket undergräver EU-rättens autonomi. Genom efterföljande avgöranden i målen Komstroy och PL Holdings har denna rättspraxis vidareutvecklats och befästs, med resultatet att EU-interna skiljeförfaranden mellan investerare och stater numera är oförenliga med unionsrätten.
Rättsutvecklingen har skapat ett omfattande rättsligt och politiskt efterspel.... (More) - I Achmea-målet (C-284/16) slog EU-domstolen fast att en skiljeklausul i ett bilateralt investeringsavtal mellan två EU-medlemsstater strider mot unionsrätten. Domstolen motiverade detta med att tvistlösningsklausulen riskerar att undandra rättsfrågor med anknytning till EU-rätten från det domstolssystem som etablerats genom Fördragen. Därmed åsidosätts artikel 267 och 344 i FEUF, vilket undergräver EU-rättens autonomi. Genom efterföljande avgöranden i målen Komstroy och PL Holdings har denna rättspraxis vidareutvecklats och befästs, med resultatet att EU-interna skiljeförfaranden mellan investerare och stater numera är oförenliga med unionsrätten.
Rättsutvecklingen har skapat ett omfattande rättsligt och politiskt efterspel. Medlemsstater har sagt upp sina inbördes investeringsskyddsavtal och nationella domstolar har vägrat erkänna och verkställa skiljedomar i EU-interna investeringstvister. Även tvister som hanterats under ICSID-konventionen har hamnat i konflikt med EU-domstolens tolkning av unionsrätten, trots att ICSID-konventionen utgör ett självständigt internationellt rättssystem.
En normkonflikt har uppstått gällande vilken rättsordning som bör tillmätas företräde: den supranationella EU-rätten eller den folkrättsliga ICSID-konventionen. ICSID-skiljenämnder har vidhållit sin behörighet i EU-interna tvister, medan nationella domstolar inom unionen vägrat verkställa meddelade skiljedomar. Detta har lett till att investerare försöker få verkställt sina till-dömda skadestånd i tredjeländer som inte är bundna av EU-rätten.
För att hantera dessa spänningar har EU-kommissionen föreslagit en ny ordning för investeringstvister genom antingen en semi-permanent investerings-domstol eller inrättandet av en multilateral investeringsdomstol.
Den internationella investeringsrätten står inför ett paradigmskifte. Skyddet för investerare har tidigare baserats på privata skiljeförfaranden, men EU:s rättsordning tillåter inte längre att unionsrättsliga frågor avgörs av skiljenämnder utanför unionens kontrollsystem. Detta aktualiserar frågor om rättsosäkerhet och internationell tvistlösning som uppsatsen ämnar reda ut. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9189297
- author
- Toresson, Katja LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Sovereignty and Arbitration: An Analysis of the Tensions between EU Law and International Investment Law
- course
- JURM02 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- civilrätt, folkrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9189297
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-17 11:29:22
- date last changed
- 2025-06-17 11:29:22
@misc{9189297,
abstract = {{In the Achmea case (C-284/16), the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that an arbitration clause in a bilateral investment treaty between two EU countries is incompatible with EU law. The Court reasoned that such a dispute resolution clause risk removing legal questions involving EU law from the judicial system established by its Treaties. As a result, articles 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are violated, thereby undermining the autonomy of EU law. Subsequent rulings in the Komstroy and PL Holdings cases have further developed and solidified this legal doctrine, with the result that arbitration proceedings based on investment treaties between Member States are disallowed.
This legal development has triggered significant legal and political consequences. EU countries have terminated their intra-EU investment protection treaties, and their national courts have refused to recognize and enforce arbitral awards in intra-EU investment disputes. Even disputes handled under the IC-SID Convention have come into conflict with the CJEU’s interpretation of union law, despite the ICSID being a seemingly autonomous system within public international law.
There is a normative conflict regarding which legal order should take precedence: the supranational EU legal order or the international ICSID Convention. ICSID tribunals have maintained jurisdiction in intra-EU disputes, while national courts within the Union have refused to enforce the resulting arbitral awards. This has forced investors to seek enforcement of their claims in third countries that are not bound by EU law.
To manage these tensions, the European Commission has proposed a new order for resolving investment disputes – either through a semi-permanent Investment Court System or the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court.
International investment law is facing a paradigm shift. Investor protection, traditionally based on private arbitration is no longer acceptable where EU law is involved. This raises questions about legal certainty, state sovereignty, and international coordination in dispute resolution that this thesis will try and present an answer to.}},
author = {{Toresson, Katja}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Suveränitet och skiljeförfarande - En analys av de spänningar som uppstått mellan EU-rätten och den internationella investeringsrätten}},
year = {{2025}},
}