A Shift from Arbitration to Multilateral Investment Court System at EU

February 2019 Tilbe Birengel
% 0

Introduction

The establishment of an international investment court system has been one of the major objectives of the European Commission since 2015[1], as the investor-to-state dispute settlement via arbitration is argued to become obsolete.

In this article, the shift from arbitration into a permanent court system will be covered.

The Reasons Behind an Investment Court System

As per the Fact Sheet[2] of the Commission of 2017:

  • Case-by-case establishment of ad hoc tribunals with diverging approaches on investment rules avoid predictability in investment disputes;
  • The current system is not transparent enough, since it lacks systematic publication of arbitral awards or decisions;
  • Due to the party appointed nature of the arbitrators, partiality concerns are on the rise; and
  • The limitations on grounds for rights of appeal in the current ad-hoc mechanism reduce comprehensiveness.

According to these grounds, termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) and the establishment of a multilateral investment court has been promoted. This system is claimed to avoid the above-stated shortcomings through its permanency, transparency and cost-efficiency by avoiding duplicate work for each BIT[3].

Achmea Judgment

In line with this notion, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) rendered its Achmea judgment on 6 March 2018[4], by concluding on the incompatibility of the arbitration clause in the Netherlands-Slovakia BIT[5] with the primacy of the EU law, which was analysed in our previous article[6].

This judgment has been widely criticized within the arbitration community and has become major support for the Commission in its intensified invitation to the MSs on the termination of the intra-EU BITs[7].

Termination of intra-EU BITs

In its Communication[8] dated 19 July 2018, the Commission qualified the intra-EU BITs as “a parallel treaty system overlapping with single market rules, preventing the full application of EU law[9]and even added that it may activate infringement procedures against the MSs during its monitor on the termination phase of the BITs[10].

As a complement to this statement, the MSs committed to terminate all intra-EU BITs no later than 6 December 2019 in a declaration published on 17 January 2019[11] and acknowledged that:

  • The EU law takes precedence over intra-EU BITs;
  • The arbitration clauses contained in these BITs are contrary to EU law and are, hence, inapplicable;
  • The arbitral tribunals established as per these arbitration clauses lack jurisdiction;
  • No new intra-EU investment arbitration proceeding may be initiated; and
  • The MS courts shall either set aside, or not enforce, the intra-EU investment arbitration awards.

It should be noted that the MSs did not provide a common position on the effect of the Achmea judgment on the investor-state arbitration clause of the Energy Charter Treaty and adopted separate versions of the declaration[12].

A Hybrid Investment Court System

In line with the above-stated developments, the EU has been establishing a hybrid system to hear the investor-state disputes during the transition process from BIT mechanisms to a multilateral investment court. This system will be governed by investment courts to be established according to the terms agreed to under free trade agreements.

As per the Investment Protection Agreement concluded between the EU and Singapore[13], investor-state disputes will be heard before a Tribunal of First Instance[14]. The decisions of this tribunal will be appealed before the Appeal Tribunal[15]. The Secretariat of the ICSID will provide administrative service, and act as the secretariat of both tribunals[16].

Likewise, according to the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement[17] (“CETA”) and EU-Vietnam trade and investment agreements[18], permanent courts will deal with investment disputes brought against the states[19]. These agreements, as well, regulate the appeal procedure against the decisions of the Tribunals[20].

The cases will be heard by three-member divisions of the Tribunal in each of these permanent courts, which have diverging numbers of Tribunal members from 6 to 15[21].

Opinion of an Advocate General of the CJEU

Throughout this period of transformation, the compliance of the tribunals to be established as per the free trade agreements with the EU law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the CJEU has been debated among the MSs. Following the notable effect of the Achmea judgment, these matters were brought before the Advocate General of the CJEU by the Kingdom of Belgium.

Accordingly, in a recent opinion issued by Advocate General Bot of the CJEU dated 29 January 2019[22], the investment dispute resolution mechanism created under the CETA was assessed. According to the Advocate General;

  • The dispute settlement mechanism established by the CETA does not adversely affect the judicial system of the EU[23], as it is not intended to review the legality of the acts of the EU[24];
  • It is bound by the exclusive jurisdiction of the CJEU over the interpretation of EU law,
  • The Achmea reasons cannot be transposed to this examination, since the CETA cannot adversely affect the principle of mutual trust or sincere cooperation[25].

Therefore, the investment dispute resolution mechanism created under the CETA was found to be compatible with EU law[26].

Conclusion

The Commission has accelerated its work towards the establishment of a permanent court system, while the MSs has committed to terminate intra-EU BITs before the end of 2019.

In line with the MSs’ declaration to either set aside or not enforce the intra-EU investment arbitration awards, settlement of intra-EU investment disputes by arbitration is likely to be prevented.

Within the period of transformation into multilateral court system, some disputes are to be resolved before hybrid-permanent courts, which will function as per the free trade agreements that the EU has concluded.

[1] “Trade for All - New EU Trade and Investment Strategy”, 14.10.2015, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153846.pdf (Access date: February 2019).

[2] The Fact Sheet on the European Commission Proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/september/tradoc_156042.pdf (Access date: February 2019).

[3] Shilpa, Singh J., “A New and Improved Investment Protection Regime: Truth Or Myth!” http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/02/03/new-and-improved-investment-protection-regime-truth-or-myth/(Access date: February 2019).

[4] The Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU: Slovak Republic v. Achmea B.V., Case C-284/16, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9548_0.pdf  (Access date: February 2019).

[5] The Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics, signed on 29 April 1991, entered into force on 1 October 1992, https://www.italaw.com/browse/international-investment-agreement-name?field_case_treaties_tid=383 (Access date: February 2019).

[6] Birengel, Tilbe: “Impact of the Achmea Judgement on Investment Arbitration,” Erdem&Erdem Newsletter, October 2018, http://www.erdem-erdem.av.tr/publications/newsletter/impact-of-the-achmea-judgment-on-investment-arbitration/ (Access date: February 2019).

[7] Fouchard, Clément; Krestin, Marc: “The Judgment of the CJEU in Slovak Republic v. Achmea – A Loud Clap of Thunder on the Intra-EU BIT Sky!” http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/03/07/the-judgment-of-the-cjeu-in-slovak-republic-v-achmea/; Risse, Joerg; OehmMax“European Court of Justice Stops Investment Arbitration in Intra-EU Disputes,” https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4b933d32-d9ee-43c8-bff4-7aa39a2faa88; Pinsolle, Philippe; Michou, Isabelle: “Arbitration: The Achmea v Slovakia Judgment of the CJEU, is it really the end of Intra-EU Investment Treaties?” https://www.quinnemanuel.com/media/1418711/the-achmea-judgement-ending-intra-eu-investment-treaties.pdf (Access date: February 2019).

[8] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: “Protection of Intra-EU Investment”, 19.07.2018, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0547&rid=8 (Access date: February 2019).

[9] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: “Protection of Intra-EU Investment”, 19.07.2018, p. 2, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0547&rid=8 (Access date: February 2019).

[10] Global Arbitration Review, “Brussels Pours Cold Water on Intra-EU Treaty Arbitration”, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1172132/brussels-pours-cold-water-on-intra-eu-treaty-arbitration (Access date: February 2019).

[11] European Commission announcement on “Declaration of the Member States of 15 January 2019 on the Legal Consequences of the Achmea Judgment and on Investment Protection”, 17 January 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/190117-bilateral-investment-treaties_en.pdf (Access date: February 2019).

[12] Tomáš Matejovsky, Monika Mareková, Malgorzata Surdek, Sarah Grenfell, “EU Member States Adopt Declaration on the Termination of All Bilateral Investment Treaties,” https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=86da4efa-6174-4141-9a27-18e3635b99f4&l=8A0LFBP (Access date: February 2019).

[13] The EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961 (Access date: February 2019).

[14] Jack Ballantyne, “European Parliament Approves EU-Singapore Trade Deal”,  (Access date: February 2019).

[15] Article 3.9 and 3.19 of the EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/april/tradoc_156731.pdf (Access date: February 2019).

[16] §16 of Article 3.9 and §14 of Article 3.10 of the EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/april/tradoc_156731.pdf.

[17] Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement entered into force provisionally on 21 September 2017, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter/ (Access date: February 2019) (Access date: February 2019).

[18] EU-Vietnam trade and investment agreements, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437 (Access date: February 2019).

[19] Erica Stein, Dániel Dózsa, “Advocate General of EU’s Highest Court Weighs in Favor of an Investment Court System,” for access: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4743a739-7838-411f-b069-c989e519abb1&l=89HSZM6 (Access date: February 2019).

[20] Mark Mangan, “The EU succeeds in Establishing a Permanent Investment Court in Its Trade Treaties with Canada and Vietnam,” https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2016/3/the-eu-succeeds-in-establishing-a-permanent-investment-court-in.html?utm_source=vuture&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=onpoint (Access date: February 2019).

[21] Shilpa Singh J., “A New and Improved Investment Protection Regime: Truth Or Myth!”, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/02/03/new-and-improved-investment-protection-regime-truth-or-myth/ (Access date: February 2019).

[22] Opinion of Advocate General Bot, Opinion 1/17 upon the request for an opinion by the Kingdom of Belgium, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=210244&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=9289968 (Access date: February 2019).

[23] Erica Stein, Dániel Dózsa, “Advocate General of EU’s Highest Court Weighs in Favor of an Investment Court System”, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4743a739-7838-411f-b069-c989e519abb1&l=89HSZM6 (Access date: February 2019).

[24] §124 of the Opinion of Advocate General Bot, Opinion 1/17, upon the request for an opinion by the Kingdom of Belgium, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=210244&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=9289968 (Access date: February 2019).

[25] §106-108 of the Opinion of Advocate General Bot, Opinion 1/17, upon the request for an opinion by the Kingdom of Belgium, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=210244&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=9289968 (Access date: February 2019).

[26] Sebastian Perry, “EU Court Adviser Endorses ISDS in CETA”, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1179785/eu-court-adviser-endorses-isds-in-ceta (Access date: February 2019).

All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.

Other Contents

The ICC Guide on Effective Conflict Management
Newsletter Articles
The ICC Guide on Effective Conflict Management

The ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (“Commission”) published a new guide and report with the aim to increase awareness on alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanisms to prevent disputes and strengthen the relationship between all stakeholders.The Guide on Effective Conflict Management...

Arbitration 30.06.2023
M&A Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
M&A Arbitration

Mergers and Acquisitions (“M&A”) are restructuring of companies or assets through various types of financial transactions, such as mergers, acquisitions, purchase of assets, or management acquisitions. This Newsletter article covers M&A disputes being solved before arbitral tribunals.

Arbitration 28.02.2023
The Principle of Revision au Fond in Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
The Principle of Revision au Fond in Arbitration

In the context of arbitration practice, the principle of revision au fond means that the courts can not examine the merits of a dispute when reviewing an arbitral award. This principle is most commonly encountered in set aside and enforcement proceedings. An arbitral award is evidence of the parties’ willingness...

Arbitration 30.11.2022
Decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly Allowing Bankruptcy Proceedings Before Turkish Courts Despite the Existence of an Arbitration Agreement
Newsletter Articles
Decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly Allowing Bankruptcy Proceedings Before Turkish Courts Despite the Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

Under Turkish law, parties may agree on the settlement of disputes that have arisen or may arise, regarding the rights that they can freely dispose of, by arbitration. However, disputes which are not subject to the will of parties, such as the disputes relating to in rem rights of immovables, bankruptcy law...

Arbitration 30.06.2022
ICCA General Report on the Right to a Physical Hearing in International Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
ICCA General Report on the Right to a Physical Hearing in International Arbitration

On 4 September 2020, a research project “Does a Right to a Physical Hearing Exist in International Arbitration?” was launched by an International Council for Commercial Arbitration (“ICCA”) taskforce. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many arbitration hearings were held online. Many institutional rules...

Arbitration May 2022
2022 DIAC Arbitration Rules
Newsletter Articles
2022 DIAC Arbitration Rules

Dubai International Arbitration Center amended its Arbitration Rules on 25 February 2022. The 2022 Arbitration Rules were published on 2 March 2022 and came into effect on 21 March 2022. The Rules will be applied to arbitrations that are filed after 21 March 2022; unless parties agree otherwise...

Arbitration May 2022
European Courts’ Diverging Approach over Intra-EU Investment Arbitrations
Newsletter Articles
European Courts’ Diverging Approach over Intra-EU Investment Arbitrations

In the aftermath of the Achmea decision, controversies on intra-EU arbitrations continue. Most recently, the Paris Court of Appeal has annulled two arbitral awards rendered against Poland. Meanwhile, the Higher Regional Court of Berlin has refused to declare that an Irish investor’s ICSID claim...

Arbitration May 2022
Decision of the Regional Court of Appeal Stating that Misinterpretation of Law Provisions in Arbitration Proceedings Does Not Contrary to Public Order
Newsletter Articles
Decision of the Regional Court of Appeal Stating that Misinterpretation of Law Provisions in Arbitration Proceedings Does Not Contrary to Public Order

Under Turkish law, the legal remedy that can be applied against arbitral awards is an annulment action. Law on International Arbitration No. 4686 (“IAL”) finds its application area in arbitration proceedings where Turkey is the place of arbitration...

Arbitration February 2022
The Landesbank Decision
Newsletter Articles
The Landesbank Decision

It is well known that following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, problems arose related to arbitration of intra-EU disputes, and particularly arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty...

Arbitration January 2022
Arbitration of Corporate Law Disputes: The Swiss Example, Lessons to be Learnt and Suggestions
Newsletter Articles
Arbitration of Corporate Law Disputes: The Swiss Example, Lessons to be Learnt and Suggestions

Arbitration in corporate law contains controversial elements in many respects, especially the issue of arbitrability. Even in legal systems where these disputes are considered to be arbitrable, uncertainties remain on whether an arbitration clause can be included in the articles of...

Arbitration December 2021
Komstroy Decision: End of an Era for Intra - EU ECT Arbitration or Not?
Newsletter Articles
UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules
Newsletter Articles
UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules
Arbitration August 2021
Dispute Resolution in the Digital Age
Newsletter Articles
Dispute Resolution in the Digital Age

Arbitration has benifited from a great increase in the use of technology which has directly effected the conduct of proceedings. More particularly, with digitalization, the way that we conduct arbitration proceedings has been changed to reflect the current needs of parties, with an aim of increasing time...

Arbitration July 2021
Public Policy as Grounds for Refusal of Recognition
Newsletter Articles
IBA Rules on Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration 2020
Newsletter Articles
French Courts Denied Exequatur to a Turkish Judgment
Newsletter Articles
Halliburton Decision on Apparent Bias: Violation without Consequences
Newsletter Articles
Enka v Chubb: Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement
Newsletter Articles
Voluntary Document Production in Arbitration: Civil-Law Approach
Newsletter Articles
2021 ICC Arbitration Rules
Newsletter Articles
2021 ICC Arbitration Rules
Arbitration November 2020
A Tale of Two Proceedings: Arbitration and Insolvency
Newsletter Articles
Revisions of the Swiss International Arbitration Law
Newsletter Articles
LCIA Rules 2020
Newsletter Articles
LCIA Rules 2020
Arbitration August 2020
ICSID Sets New Ethical Standards for Adjudicators
Newsletter Articles
Blockchain, Smart Contracts and Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Impact of COVID -19 on Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Impact of COVID -19 on Arbitration
Arbitration April 2020
Review of Arbitration Agreement in Mandatory Mediation Procedures
Newsletter Articles
ICC Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings
Newsletter Articles
Action for Annulment of Objection before Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Costs and Late Payment of Advance of Cost in CAS Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Arbitration in Construction Industry
Newsletter Articles
Arbitration in Construction Industry
Arbitration October 2019
Basketball Arbitral Tribunal
Newsletter Articles
Basketball Arbitral Tribunal
Arbitration August 2019
Complex Arbitrations: An Overall View of the ICC Rules - III
Newsletter Articles
Complex Arbitrations: An Overall View of the ICC Rules - II
Newsletter Articles
Witness Conferencing in International Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Arbitrability of Corporate Law Disputes
Newsletter Articles
Complex Arbitrations: An Overall View of the ICC Rules - I
Newsletter Articles
Annulment of the Court of Arbitration for Sport Awards
Newsletter Articles
ICC Updates Guidance Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals
Newsletter Articles
Impact of the Achmea Judgment on Investment Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
The Prague Rules on the Taking of Evidence in Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Diversity in International Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
60 Years of the New York Convention
Newsletter Articles
60 Years of the New York Convention
Arbitration June 2018
Amendment of ICSID Rules and Regulations
Newsletter Articles
Challenging Arbitrators and LCIA Challenge Decisions
Newsletter Articles
Cost Allocation in International Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Current Issues in Expedited Procedures in Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Umbrella Clauses in Investment Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Costs and Reduction of Costs in Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Moral Damages Claim in Investment Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Expert Witnesses in International Commercial Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Soft Law in International Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Soft Law in International Arbitration
Arbitration December 2016
ICC Rules on Expedited Procedure
Newsletter Articles
ICC Rules on Expedited Procedure
Arbitration October 2016
The Recent Philip Morris V. Uruguay Decision
Newsletter Articles
Third Party Funders in Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Third Party Funders in Arbitration
Arbitration September 2015
Confidentiality in Arbitration
Newsletter Articles
Confidentiality in Arbitration
Arbitration April 2015
Drafting Arbitration Agreements
Newsletter Articles
Drafting Arbitration Agreements
Arbitration July 2015
Istanbul Arbitration Center
Newsletter Articles
Istanbul Arbitration Center
Arbitration July 2014

For creative legal solutions, please contact us.