Arbitration Under Investment Protection Agreements between the EU and Non-Member States

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo ◽  
Federica Iorio
2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanno Wehland

AbstractBilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) between Member States of the EU have long been all but non-existent. However, with the two most recent rounds of EU enlargement about 190 BITs have become intra-EU. This has not only raised doubts about the conformity of these BITs with EC law, but has also prompted some (including the European Commission) to question the admissibility of arbitral proceedings brought under these Treaties. The article assesses the mechanisms through which a conflict between intra-EU BITs and EC law can become relevant from an arbitration perspective. It then analyses the principal alleged inconsistencies between BIT provisions and EC law: differing substantive standards of investment protection, unequal treatment of investors from different Member States and the lack of control by the ECJ. The discussion of these issues in the light of the relevant EC Treaty provisions shows that EC law should not, in fact, be regarded as an obstacle to intra-EU investment arbitration.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 3-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane KOKOTT ◽  
Christoph SOBOTTA

AbstractInvestment arbitration is based on international agreements and operates in parallel to the EU legal and judicial system. Therefore conflicts between EU law and investment protection are possible. These may result from the substantial investment protection standards, but also from the operation of a parallel system of judicial protection. The EU law position on such conflicts will depend on whether the investment agreement was concluded between Member States, between Member States and other countries, or between the EU and other countries.


Author(s):  
V. I. Salygin ◽  
N. Y. Kaveshnikov

The article analyses the position of Gazprom on the key export market - the market of the European Union. Situation on the EU gas market changed considerably because of an imbalance between supply and demand. Gazprom had to make price concessions for almost all of the main consumers of Russian gas in Europe, and also had to allow European consumers to break one of the key provisions of long-term contracts - "take or pay" clause. Besides disputes at the corporate level significant differences still remain about the well-known Third energy package, which effectively prohibits Gazprom to own and operate gas pipelines on the territory of the EU, as well as binding it to provide a third party access to gas pipelines. The implementation of Third package provisions on function unbundling by some EU Member States in the most rigid version may contradict bilateral international agreements of Russia with the EU Member States, primarily agreements on investment protection. Possible reasons underlying the investigation initiated by the European Commission against Gazprom in connection with a possible violation ofEU competition rules are examined. The paper investigates legal, political and economic aspects of contemporary regime of gas cooperation, particularly restriction of reexport, linkage between gas and oil prices, pricing based on long-term contracts and spot markets. The paper concludes that Russia and the EU need to elaborate a comprehensive document that would ensure the stability of the regulatory environment of energy cooperation and would reflect the balance of interests of producers and consumers. This document should equally ensure highly competitive environment and guarantees of security of supply in the short and long term.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 196-211
Author(s):  
Nikos Lavranos

This article examines the potential consequences of the termination agreement recently signed by 23 EU Member States, which will soon terminate the existing intra- EU BIT S of the signatory Member States. The author concludes that the retroactive application of the termination agreement to disputes that have been initiated before this termination agreement enters into force is a serious violation of the Rule of Law. He also finds that the Facilitator procedure offered by the termination agreement is not a suitable tool to settle any ongoing intra- EU BIT disputes. In light of the significant shortcomings in the judicial legal systems of many EU Member States, the author calls for the adoption of an EU Investment Protection Regulation as well as the creation of a European Investment Court. Finally, despite the fact that the termination agreement is not intended to apply to intra- EU ECT disputes, the author expects that the fallout of the Achmea judgment will lead to substantial “reforms” of the ECT in due course. All these developments will inevitably lead to a lower standard of investment and investor protection within the EU.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Sirkeci

Doğu ve güney komşuları üzerinde gelen göç akınlarının ve üye ülkeler arasındaki göçlerin artışıyla Avrupa Birliği (AB) en büyük krizlerinden birini yaşamaktadır. Avrupa’daki en ana tartışma konuları arasında Avrupa’ya göçü ve AB içindeki göçü sınırlamak ve üye ülkeler arasında mülteci kotası ve külfet paylaşımına yapılan itirazlar yer aldı. Bu krizde Türkiye anahtar ülke olarak ortaya çıktı ve ülkedeki büyük Suriyeli mülteci nüfusu ve bu nüfusun Avrupa’ya gitmesini engellemesi karşılığında vaat edilen milyarlarca Avro nedeniyle tartışmaların odağında yer aldı. Suriye krizi 4,8 milyon mülteci yarattı ve 2016 yılı sonu itibariyle bunların 2,8 milyonu Türkiye’de ikamet etmekteydi. Suriyeli mültecilere karşı cömert tavrıyla Türkiye güvenli bir ülke olarak tescil edilmiş oldu. Bu, hikayenin daha karanlık bir başka yüzünü gölgelemektedir. Çünkü aynı ülkenin vatandaşları 1980 askeri darbesinden bu yana milyonu aşkın sığınma başvurusu yaptılar. Ülkenin bugünkü şartları ve yeni veriler, Türkiye’den AB’ye yönelen daha çok mülteci akını olacağını gösteriyor. ABSTRACT IN ENGLISHTurkey’s refugees, Syrians and refugees from Turkey: a country of insecurityThe European Union (EU) has faced one of its biggest crises with the rise of population inflows through its Eastern and Southern neighbours as well as movements within the Union. In 2016, the main debate that dominated Europe was on restricting migration within and into the EU along with concerns and objections to the refugee quota systems and the sharing of the burden among member states. Turkey emerged as a ‘gate keeper’ in this crisis and has since been at the centre of debates because of the large Syrian refugee population in the country and billions of Euros it was promised to prevent refugees travelling to Europe. The Syrian crisis produced over 4.8 million refugees with over 2.8 million were based in Turkey by the end of 2016. Turkey with its generous support for Syrian refugees has been confirmed as a ‘country of security’. This shadows the darker side of affairs as the very same country has also produced millions of asylum seekers since the 1980 military coup. Current circumstances and fresh evidence indicate that there will be more EU bound refugees coming through and from Turkey. 


Author(s):  
Irina PILVERE ◽  
Aleksejs NIPERS ◽  
Bartosz MICKIEWICZ

Europe 2020 Strategy highlights bioeconomy as a key element for smart and green growth in Europe. Bioeconomy in this case includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and pulp and paper production, parts of chemical, biotechnological and energy industries and plays an important role in the EU’s economy. The growth of key industries of bioeconomy – agriculture and forestry – highly depends on an efficient and productive use of land as a production resource. The overall aim of this paper is to evaluate opportunities for development of the main sectors of bioeconomy (agriculture and forestry) in the EU based on the available resources of land. To achieve this aim, several methods were used – monographic, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, statistical analysis methods. The findings show that it is possible to improve the use of land in the EU Member States. If all the Member States reached the average EU level, agricultural products worth EUR 77 bln would be annually additionally produced, which is 19 % more than in 2014, and an extra 5 billion m3 volume of forest growing stock would be gained, which is 20 % more than in 2010.


2006 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-43
Author(s):  
Sándor Richter

The order and modalities of cross-member state redistribution as well as the net financial position of the member states are one of the most widely discussed aspects of European integration. The paper addresses selected issues in the current debate on the EU budget for the period 2007 to 2013 and introduces four scenarios. The first is identical to the European Commission's proposal; the second is based on reducing the budget to 1% of the EU's GNI, as proposed by the six net-payer countries, while maintaining the expenditure structure of the Commission's proposal. The next two scenarios represent radical reforms: one of them also features a '1% EU GNI'; however, the expenditures for providing 'EU-wide value-added' are left unchanged and it is envisaged that the requisite cuts will be made in the expenditures earmarked for cohesion. The other reform scenario is different from the former one in that the cohesion-related expenditures are left unchanged and the expenditures for providing 'EU-wide value-added' are reduced. After the comparison of the various scenarios, the allocation of transfers to the new member states in terms of the conditions prevailing in the different scenarios is analysed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 634-638
Author(s):  
Joanna Szwacka Mokrzycka

The objective of this article is to present the standard of living of households in Poland in comparison with other EU member states. The starting point for analysis was the economic condition of Poland against the background of other EU member states. The next step consisted of assessment of the standard of living of inhabitants of individual EU member states on the basis of financial condition of households and the structure of consumption expenditure. It was found that the differences within the EU in terms of economic development and the standard of living of households still remain substantial.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document