Micula v Romania between International Investment Law and European Law – The UK Supreme Court Judgement – the Final or the NEXT PIece of the Puzzle?

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steliyana Zlateva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Investment ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The Judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the long Micula v. Romania investment treaty dispute confirmed that the arbitral awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), rendered by tribunals established under intra-EU BITs, could be enforced in the UK. The Micula case concerns the interplay between the obligations under the ICSID Convention and EU law. In particular, it addresses the question of whether the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania constitutes state aid prohibited by EU law, as well as the enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention in view of the EU duty of sincere cooperation.

The Unified Patent Court and the frustrated promise of IP protection: Investors’ claims in (post-)Brexit Britain

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-104
Author(s):  
Riccardo Vecellio Segate
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
Unified Patent Court ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

Tensions between the EU’s legal order and the international investment law regime are not exclusive to the Brexit era, but they certainly gained momentum in the aftermath of this referendum. By incautiously declaring that the UK will remain a party to the Unified Patent System regardless of Brexit, the British government arguably shaped (il)legitimate expectations on the part of investors who aimed at exploiting their intellectual property rights in the UK while benefitting from the judicial protection of the forthcoming Unified Patent Court as much as of the European institutions (and market) as a whole. Indeed, not only the System itself will undergo a process of major rebalancing after London’s departure from the EU, but more importantly, the UK will most probably be unable to retain its membership in the System after the actual delivery of Brexit. These complications trigger a wide spectrum of fundamental dilemmas investing the definition and scope of concepts such as unilateral declaration, indirect expropriation, reasonable expectation, estoppel, and public policy exception, under both EU law and international investment law. It is therefore essential to explore these intersections as to anticipate possible scenarios in the event of both domestic court and international arbitral claims lodged by patent investors pre- and post-Brexit, having due regard for competition concerns on the side of the EU, yet referring to recent Canadian case law which opened the gate to investor-State claims in the field of intellectual property.

New Developments in the Interaction between International Investment Law and EU Law

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikos Lavranos
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Developments ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Legal Security ◽  
New Situation ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article analyzes new developments in the interaction between international investment law and EU law. The analysis focuses on the consequences resulting from the recent changes that have been introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and the jurisprudence of the ECJ. The author argues that the new exclusive competence of the EU regarding foreign direct investment (FDI) will have major implications for the existing Member States’ BITs as well as for the interaction with international investment law. While it is too early for a full assessment of this new situation, it has already become clear that the European institutions and the supremacy of EU law will significantly reduce the powers of the Member States, thereby fundamentally changing the current situation. Throughout this process, ensuring legal security for investors and Contracting Parties will become of utmost importance.

CJEU Opinion 1/17: Keeping International Investment Law and EU Law Strictly Apart

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-259
Author(s):  
Nikos Lavranos
Keyword(s):  
Financial Burden ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
The Eu

With Opinion 1/17, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) approved the Investment Court System (ICS) contained in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada. This means that the EU can proceed with the ratification process of the investment protection part of CETA and the other free trade agreements it has concluded, and which contain a similar ICS. However, as the author illustrates, the approval of the ICS is conditioned by a complete isolation of EU law from international investment law. More specifically, the CJEU made clear that the ceta tribunals operate outside the EU legal order and have no power to interpret or apply EU law. At the same time, the CJEU highlighted the importance that the ceta Parties adopt supplemental rules for reducing the financial burden for access to the ICS for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES). Additionally, the CJEU rejected the currently existing possibility that binding joint interpretations of the ceta Parties could have retroactive effect. In sum, the approval of the ICS by the CJEU enables the European Commission to continue to develop the multilateral investment court (MIC) within the uncitral Working Group iii as long as it follows the blueprint of the CETA ICS.

Investment Arbitration and EU (Competition) Law – Lessons Learned from the Micula Saga

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 330-354
Author(s):  
Alesia Tsiabus ◽  
Guillaume Croisant
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Great Opportunity ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

On 19 February 2020, in the latest episode to date of the long-running Micula saga, the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court gave its green light to the enforcement in the (UK) of the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania (Award) under the 2002 Sweden-Romania bilateral investment treaty (BIT), despite the fact that the question of whether this Award constitutes state aid prohibited under EU law was pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Supreme Court ruled that the UK enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention could not be affected by the EU duty of sincere cooperation, as the UK’s ratification of the ICSID Convention preceded its accession to the EU. The UK Supreme Court judgment, and the prior main episodes of the Micula saga in the framework of the ICSID, EU state aid and enforcement proceedings, offer a great opportunity to explore the increasingly tumultuous relationship between investment arbitration and EU (competition) law, in particular the compatibility of intra- EU investment arbitrations under the ICSID Convention with EU law and the coexistence of selective protections under international investment law with EU state aid law.

International Investment Law and Practice in the Kingdom of Cambodia: An Evolving ‘Rule Taker’?

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 942-973
Author(s):  
Romesh Weeramantry
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Court System ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract Cambodia has undertaken several initiatives to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), which has been growing rapidly in recent years, particularly through participating in Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) investment agreements and free trade agreements (FTAs). This article first outlines Cambodia’s arbitration law and practice, its Law on Investment, the court system, problems relating to corruption, and foreign direct investment (FDI) patterns. It then surveys trends in Cambodia’s comparatively belated signing of investment treaties, and their main contents (including recent treaties with India and Hungary, adopting very different models). The article then discusses the only investment arbitration instituted against Cambodia, which was successfully defended, followed by a comment on the future prospects for Cambodia’s investment treaty program.

An Overview of Sri Lanka’s Bilateral Investment Treaties: Status Quo and Some Insights into Future Modifications

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Dilini PATHIRANA
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

AbstractSri Lanka is the first country against which a foreign investor has had recourse to international arbitration based on the dispute settlement clause in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). This was the case of AAPL v. Sri Lanka. Since then, the country has been challenged twice before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), while its latest encounter was in the case of Deutsche Bank AG v. Sri Lanka. In the intervening years between these two cases, Sri Lanka maintained silence and failed to alter its BITs in a global context where the conventional attitude on international investment agreements (IIAs) is being increasingly reconsidered. This paper provides an overview of Sri Lanka’s BITs, which highlights the urgency of reconsidering the country’s investment treaty-making practice. It suggests some modifications to align the country’s investment treaty-making practice with international investment law (IIL) developments.

THE “UNEXPECTED” DEVELOPMENT-FRIENDLY DEFINITION OF INVESTMENT IN THE 2013 RESOLUTION OF THE INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-90
Author(s):  
Pia Acconci
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Droit International ◽  
Definition Of

The importance of the widespread reliance upon direct arbitration, particularly arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and of the practice of “arbitration without privity” is at the root of the search for a definition of investment, as underlined by the 2013 Resolution of the Institut de droit international (IDI). The Resolution refers to a development-friendly definition of investment. This article aims to explain to what extent a definition based upon references to sustainable development would constitute an acceptable specification, albeit a partial one, of the term “development” used in the IDI Resolution, in light of the need of a reconciliation between private and public interests within current international investment law. The article also deals with the issue of whether the ICSID Convention provides for an autonomous definition of investment that cannot be overridden by the terms of a given international investment treaty, and if so, which criteria should be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining whether an investment exists within the meaning of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention.

International Investment Law in Central Asia

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 1089-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mavluda Sattorova
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Regional Investment ◽  
Central Asian ◽  
History Of ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Law Making

Despite the fact that Central Asian states have not been involved in regional investment treaty-making on a scale and thrust similar to that of ASEAN and NAFTA, their evolving approaches to international investment law merit attention, not least because of the unique geopolitical characteristics of the region. The aim of this article is to fill the gap in the existing scholarship by exploring regional characteristics of Central Asian participation in international investment law-making. It will critically evaluate the history of numerous regionalisation efforts and, through a case study of two Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, examine the shared patterns in the evolution of national approaches to investment protection rules. In particular, the identity of Central Asian states as rule-takers and the factors underlying the emergence of distinctive national stances on the scope and objective of investment rules will be analysed.

scholarly journals The definition of investment and the ICSID convention: matters arising under the Nigerian investment promotion act and international investment law

1970 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-154
Author(s):  
Felix O. Okpe
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Potential Problem ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Core Element ◽  
Law And Development ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Promotion ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Definition Of

This article contends that the omission to define investment in the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the ICSID Convention) has a trickledown effect on the Nigerian Investment Promotion Act (the NIPC Act), in the context of investment treaty law and arbitration. Its greatest impact is the relegation of the contribution to economic development element of the definition of “investment” to a backseat contrary to the purpose of the ICSID Convention. This article proposes a simple thesis: the omission to define investment in the ICSID Convention has fostered an amorphous definition of investment under the NIPC Act, thus creating uncertainty, irrelevance and ambiguity. The uncertainty is a potential problem in the conduct of foreign direct investment under the ICSID Convention. The article recommends a review of the definition of “investment” under the Act and the adoption of a definition that restricts foreign investment within the territory of Nigeria and makes acontribution to economic development its core element in line with the fundamental objective of the ICSID Convention.Keywords: Nigerian Investment Promotion Act, Law and Development, Investment Law and ICSID Arbitration

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document