Intra-EU BITs in Light of the Achmea Decision
Abstract
In its Achmea decision rendered in March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that arbitration clauses contained in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties are incompatible with EU law. The Court’s judgment brought to an end the decade long legal battle between the Member States and the European Commission over the EU law compatibility of these treaties. In response to Achmea, the majority of Member States have agreed to terminate their treaties in order to eliminate the EU law incompatibility identified by the Court. At the same time, the political battle over the need for the special protection of cross-border investments in the EU continues. This paper looks back at the political and legal controversy that was sparked by intra-EU bilateral investment treaties and culminated in the Court’s Achmea judgment, and briefly discusses the practical consequences of Achmea for intra-EU investment protection.
References
Ballantyne, J. (2021) ‘EU Commission launches infringement proceedings over intra-EU BITs’, Global Arbitration Review [online]. Available at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/achmea/eu-commission-launches-infringement-proceedings-overintra-eu-bits (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
‘The consultation on intra-EU investment protection: an opportunity that should not be missed’ (2020), Global Arbitration Review [online]. Available at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/achmea/the-consultation-intra-eu-investment-protectionopportunity-should-not-be-missed (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Dahlquist, J., Peterson, L. E. (2016) ‘Investigation: Denmark Proposes Mutual Termination of its Nine BITs with Fellow EU Member-States, Against Spectre of Infringement Cases’, IAReporter [online]. Available at: https://www.iareporter.com/ articles/investigation-denmark-proposes-mutual-termination-of-its-nine-bits-withfellow-eu-member-states-against-spectre-of-infringement-cases/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Gaillard, E. (2011) ‘Conclusions’ in Kessedjian, C., (ed.) Le droit européen et l’arbitrage d’investissement. Paris: Éditions Panthéon-Assas.
Gaillard, E. (2018) ‘L’affaire Achmea ou les conflits de logiques (CJUE 6 mars 2018, aff. C-284/16)’, Revue critique de droit international privé, 2018/3, pp. 616–630; https://doi.org/10.3917/rcdip.183.0616.
Hepburn, J., Peterson, L. E. (2015) ‘Italy is the EU’s model citizen, when it comes to following European Commission demands to terminate intra-EU investment treaties’, IAReporter [online]. Available at: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/ investigation-italy-is-the-eus-model-citizen-when-it-comes-to-following-europeancommission-demands-to-terminate-intra-eu-investment-treaties/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Hussain, M., Istatkov, R. (2009) ‘Internal market still accounts for more than 50% of EU foreign direct investments and trade in services’, Eurostat, Statistics in Focus, 56/2009.
International Monetary Fund (2011) ‘Regional Economic Outlook – Europe’
Jones, T. (2017) ‘Romania paves way for intra-EU BITs termination’, Global Arbitration Review [online]. Available at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/romania-pavesway-intra-eu-bits-termination (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Korom, V. (2018) ‘Jurisprudence Achmea: la fin de l’arbitrage d’investissement au sein de l’Union européenne?’, Recueil Dalloz, 2018/36, p. 2007.
Korom, V. (2020) ‘Signature de l’accord plurilatéral portant extinction des traités bilatéraux d’investissement intra-européens: la dernière heure de l’arbitrage d’investissement en Europe a-t-elle sonné?’, Recueil Dalloz, 2020/30, pp. 1687–1689.
Lavranos, N. (2016) ‘Romania’s termination of its intra-EU BITs: a counterproductive move’, Practical Law Arbitration Blog [online]. Available at: http://arbitrationblog. practicallaw.com/romanias-termination-of-its-intra-eu-bits-a-counterproductivemove/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Lavranos, N. (2019) ‘The EU Plurilateral Draft Termination Agreement for All IntraEU BITs: An End of the Post-Achmea Saga and the Beginning of a New One’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog [online]. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration. com/2019/12/01/the-eu-plurilateral-draft-termination-agreement-for-all-intra-eubits-an-end-of-the-post-achmea-saga-and-the-beginning-of-a-new-one/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Lukic, S., Grill, A. (2016) ‘The End of Intra-EU BITs: Fait Accompli or Another Way Out?’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog [online]. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2016/11/16/the-end-of-intra-eu-bits-fait-accompli-or-another-way-out/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
McCloskey, M. (2021) ‘Safe Haven for Investors in (and Through) the UK Post-Brexit?’, ASIL Insights, 25(3).
Orecki, M. (2017) ‘Bye-Bye BITs? Poland Reviews Its Investment Policy’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog [online]. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration. com/2017/01/31/bye-bye-bits-poland-reviews-investment-policy/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Orecki, M. (2017) ‘Let the Show Begin: Poland Has Commenced the Process of BITs’ Termination’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog [online]. Available at: http://arbitrationblog. kluwerarbitration.com/2017/08/08/let-show-begin-poland-commenced-process-bitstermination/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Peterson, L. E. (2009) ‘Denmark and Czech Rep to terminate BIT, but not all EU Members agree with Czech view that intra-EU BITs are unnecessary’, IAReporter [online]. Available at: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/denmark-and-czech-repto-terminate-bit-but-not-all-eu-members-agree-with-czech-view-that-intra-eu-bitsare-unnecessary/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Peterson, L. E. (2011) ‘Czech Republic terminated investment treaties in such a way as to cast doubt on residual legal protection for existing investments’, IAReporter [online]. Available at: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/czech-republic-terminates-investment-treaties-in-such-a-way-as-to-cast-doubt-on-residual-legal-protection-for-existing-investments/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Peterson, L. E. (2014) ‘Investigation: Intervention by EU Commission – and Expression of Doubts on Enforceability – Preceded Investor’s Decision to Drop Intra-EU BIT Claim’, IAReporter [online]. Available at: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/investigation-intervention-by-eu-commission-and-expression-of-doubts-on-enforceabilitypreceded-investors-decision-to-drop-intra-eu-bit-claim/ (Accessed: 27 January 2022).
Sornarajah, M. (2017) The International Law on Foreign Investment. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UNCTAD (2009), ‘Recent developments in International Investment Agreements (2008-June 2009)’, IIA MONITOR, No. 3, p. 5
UNCTAD (2009), ‘The Role of International Investment Agreements in Attracting Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries’, UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development.
UNCTAD (2018), ‘Fact Sheet on Intra-European Union Investor-State Arbitration Cases’ IIA Issues Note – International Investment Agreements.
UNCTAD (2021), ‘Investor–State Dispute Settlement Cases: Facts and Figures 2020’, IIA Issues Note – International Investment Agreements.
Wierzbowski, M., Gubrynowicz, A. (2009) ‘Conflict of Norms stemming from intraEU BITs and EU Legal Obligations: Some Remarks and Possible Solutions’, in Binder, C., Kriebaum, U., Reinisch, A., Wittich, S. (eds.) International Investment Law for the 21st Century, Essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford: Oxford University Press; https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571345.003.0029.
