Abstract

In its 2018 Achmea ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found intra-European Union (EU) investment arbitration incompatible with EU law, and in its 2019 opinion on the proposed Canada–EU Trade Agreement (CETA), the ECJ has set out requirements for the recognition by the EU of investor–State arbitration at large. On the other hand, in the last few years a great many tribunals (under both International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and non-ICSID regimes) have dealt with intra-EU investment arbitrations, most of them under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). None of these tribunals found the proceedings to be incompatible with EU law.The reason for this discrepancy is that the tribunals deal with investors’ rights, while the ECJ, in contrast, is concerned with intra-EU governance issues. However, individual rights are not alien to EU law. Against that background, this note is based on the established finding that investment treaties bestow private investors with individual rights under public international law. These rights need to be taken seriously: as third parties, investors can, under both public international law and EU law, draw upon these rights, irrespective of the internal EU governance rules with which the ECJ was concerned. Hence, this note2² is not meant to be a further contribution to the voluminous debate on the internal EU governance rules drawn upon by the ECJ. In contrast, it is based on the binding effect on the EU of the investors’ individual rights. Furthermore, it shows that the ECJ’s rulings do not have an adverse precedent effect on the pursuit of investors’ rights and that, in addition, the ECT meets the criteria under which the ECJ has assessed EU compatibility of investment arbitration. Last but not least, the denial by EU institutions of investors' rights under the ECT may, in itself, constitute an infringement of the ECT.

中文翻译：

---

认真对待投资者的权利：欧洲法院的Achmea和CETA裁决不禁止欧盟内部投资仲裁

摘要

在其2018年的Achmea中欧洲法院（ECJ）裁定，裁定欧洲内部联盟（EU）的投资仲裁与欧盟法律不符，并且在其对拟议中的加拿大-欧盟贸易协定（CETA）的2019年意见中，ECJ规定了欧盟对投资人与国家之间的广泛仲裁的认可。另一方面，在过去几年中，许多法庭（在国际投资争端解决中心（ICSID）和非ICSID体制下）都处理了欧盟内部投资仲裁，其中大多数是根据《能源宪章》进行的。条约（ECT）。这些法庭均未发现诉讼程序与欧盟法律相抵触。产生这种差异的原因是，法庭处理了投资者的权利，而欧洲法院则关注欧盟内部治理问题。但是，个人权利与欧盟法律无关。在此背景下，本说明基于的既定结论是，投资条约根据国际公法赋予私人投资者以个人权利。这些权利必须受到重视：作为第三方，投资者可以根据无论欧洲国际法院所关注的欧盟内部治理规则如何，国际公法和欧盟法均利用这些权利。因此，本注释^{2 2}并非旨在为欧洲法院就欧盟内部治理规则进行的大量辩论提供进一步的帮助。相反，它是基于投资者的个人权利对欧盟的约束力。此外，它表明欧洲法院的裁决对追求投资者的权利没有不利的先例影响，此外，ECT还符合欧洲法院评估欧盟对投资仲裁的兼容性的标准。最后但并非最不重要的一点是，欧盟机构根据《 ECT》剥夺投资者权利本身可能构成对《 ECT》的侵犯。