当前位置: X-MOL 学术ICSID Rev. Foreign Invest. Law J. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Jurisdiction of Tribunals to Settle Intra-EU Investment Treaty Disputes
ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal ( IF 0.976 ) Pub Date : 2021-06-15 , DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siaa048
Julian Scheu , Petyo Nikolov

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) made a ground-breaking shift away from the current system of investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) by rendering its judgment in the matter of Achmea v Slovak Republic. However, since March 2018, a large and ever-growing number of investment tribunals have found that the Achmea judgment does not deprive them of arbitral jurisdiction. Against this background, the aim of the present article is to analyse the effects of the Achmea judgment on the jurisdiction of tribunals to settle intra-European Union (EU) investment treaty disputes. By taking due account of the reasoning conducted by the ECJ, the scope of the Achmea jurisprudence will be clarified. It is concluded that the incompatibility of intra-EU ISDS with EU law concerns all intra-EU investment treaties, including article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). On this basis, we ask whether, and to what extent, the applicability of the Achmea judgment is relevant to arbitral jurisdiction. Considering the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, we conclude that International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals and those seated outside the EU remain competent to settle intra-EU investment disputes. In contrast, the Achmea judgment renders ISDS clauses contained in intra-EU investment treaties inoperable if the tribunal is seated within the EU. The article closes with an outlook that puts these conclusions into perspective by considering recent developments such as the EU Member States’ ratification of a multilateral termination treaty.

中文翻译:

仲裁庭解决欧盟内部投资条约争端的管辖权

欧洲法院 (ECJ) 通过对Achmea 诉斯洛伐克共和国案作出判决,对当前的投资者与国家争端解决 (ISDS) 体系进行了突破性的转变。然而,自 2018 年 3 月以来,越来越多的投资法庭发现Achmea 的判决并未剥夺他们的仲裁管辖权。在此背景下,本文旨在分析Achmea判决对解决欧盟内部投资条约争端的法庭管辖权的影响。通过适当考虑欧洲法院进行的推理,Achmea的范围判例将得到澄清。结论是,欧盟内部 ISDS 与欧盟法律的不兼容性涉及所有欧盟内部投资条约,包括能源宪章条约 (ECT) 第 26 条。在此基础上,我们询问Achmea判决的适用性是否以及在多大程度上与仲裁管辖权相关。考虑到适用于仲裁协议的法律,我们得出结论,国际投资争端解决中心 (ICSID) 仲裁庭和位于欧盟以外的仲裁庭仍然有能力解决欧盟内部的投资争端。相比之下,Achmea如果仲裁庭设在欧盟境内,则判决会使欧盟内部投资条约中包含的 ISDS 条款无法执行。文章最后提出了展望,通过考虑欧盟成员国批准多边终止条约等近期发展,将这些结论纳入透视。
更新日期:2021-06-22
down
wechat
bug