The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) faces criticism for its outdated investment provisions and the threats it poses to the energy transition. This article examines one option for states to solve this problem—withdrawal from the treaty—and what this could mean for the EU and its member states, along with its impact on the energy transition in general.
The relationship between the ECT and EU law is characterized by complexity and legal uncertainty, especially as far Article 26, the ECT’s dispute settlement mechanism and its application in an intra-EU setting is concerned. This article examines the question of whether the Achmea judgment’s finding on the incompatibility of intra-EU investment arbitration under BITs also affects the dispute settlement mechanism under the ECT
On May 5, 2020, 23 European Union member states* formally agreed to the termination of intra-EU BITs.
United Utilities (Tallinn) BV and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24
The CJEU has deemed that the ICS included in the Canada–EU CETA is consistent with EU law, issuing its final opinion on April 30, 2019.
Twenty-two EU member states endorsed a political declaration on January 15, 2019, where they announced a series of actions involving existing intra-EU BITs and upcoming or ongoing investment arbitration.
CJEU Advocate General Yves Bot issued a non-binding opinion on January 29, 2019, deeming that the ICS included in the Canada–EU CETA is compatible with EU law. Bot assessed the ICS against the EU Treaty, the TFEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
GREENTECH ENERGY SYSTEMS A/S & ORS. V. THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, SCC ARBITRATION V (2015/095)
On October 19, 2018, Singapore and the European Union signed political and trade agreements as well as the EU–Singapore Investment Protection Agreement (IPA).
On July 19, 2018, the European Commission (EC) published a communication to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU) titled Protection of Intra-EU Investment.
Current and future investment treaties and chapters involving EU member states or the Union itself may be profoundly impacted by a landmark ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In this piece, the author explores the judgement from an EU constitutional point of view and analyzes potential consequences. Did the Achmea ruling come as a surprise to EU law insiders?
On September 6, 2017, Belgium submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) a request for an opinion on the compatibility of the ICS with the European Treaties.
In theory, the common European market works based on principles that protect intra-EU cross-border investments. In practice, can these principles be reconciled with dozens of intra-EU BIT still in place?
The European Court of Justice published its Opinion 2/15 on the European Union–Singapore FTA on May 16, 2017.
Can the European Union act alone in concluding agreements such as CETA and the EU–Singapore FTA? Or must EU member states also ratify them? ECJ Advocate General Sharpston discusses the allocation of powers in the field of investment under EU law.
On October 30, during the 16th European Union–Canada Summit held in Brussels, the two negotiating partners signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), after seven years of negotiations.
October 2, 2009 Correction: The original version of this article indicated that the ECJ had rendered a decision in the case Finland. In fact, an Advocate General has issued an opinion, which is not binding on the Court. The article has been revised accordingly. An Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) […]
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that certain clauses in Sweden and Austria’s bilateral investment treaties are incompatible with the European Community (EC) Treaty.
By Damon Vis-Dunbar 17 July 2008 The ECJ advocate general sides with the European Commission in arguing that Austria and Sweden should have amended some of the pre-accession BITs with non-EU countries. In an opinion issued on 10 July 2008, the European Court of Justice’s advocate general argues that provisions guaranteeing the free movement of […]