Abstract

The conflict between international investment law and EU law provides fruitful insights into how the arbitral tribunals, acting outside the EU’s judicial system, have viewed the EU and EU law. Taking as an example the topical questions of the principle of autonomy of EU law as well as the EU’s State aid rules in investor-State arbitration, the article discusses how arbitral tribunals have seen the role of EU law and how they have treated the opposite demands from the two legal regimes. The claim of EU law rendering the intra-EU investment treaties invalid has constantly proved unsuccessful, and the tribunals have maintained their jurisdiction to be based on international law. However, the possibility of EU law affecting the assessment of the merits of the cases is clearer and more accepted. While harmonious interpretation could somewhat alleviate the remaining conflicts between the two legal regimes, it is unlikely that either regime would compromise the core elements of their systems. The article argues that, for the specific nature of the EU’s legal order to be secured in a way that does not conflict with international law, the relationship between EU law, international (investment) law and investment dispute settlement should be clearly regulated in instruments of international law.

Highlights

  • The relationship between international investment law and EU law has been a stormy one

  • Taking as an example the topical questions of the principle of autonomy of EU law as well as the EU’s State aid rules in investor-State arbitration, the article discusses how arbitral tribunals have seen the role of EU law and how they have treated the opposite demands from the two legal regimes

  • The conflict between the two regimes provides a fruitful insight into how the arbitral tribunals acting outside the EU legal order have viewed the EU and EU law, and how they have treated the demand for the preservation of the autonomy of EU law in the investor-State dispute settlement practice

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The relationship between international investment law and EU law has been a stormy one. Whereas internal autonomy entails the independency of EU legal order from the national legal orders of the Member States, the external dimension has been described to entail ‘the idea that the integrity of EU law and the EU legal order should not be undermined by the international action of the Union or the Member States’.7 This feature of EU law has brought about a line of cases where the CJEU has assessed the limits of the right of judicial bodies external to the EU legal order to apply and interpret EU law. By analysing publicly available arbitral awards, the article examines how the tribunals have understood the nature and the status of EU law and how they have treated EU law in practice, in questions relating either to the jurisdiction of the tribunals or to the substantive provisions of the investment treaties in intra-EU cases (Section 2)..

How have the arbitral tribunals seen the nature of EU law?
Assessment of the effect of EU law on the jurisdiction of the tribunals
Rejection of the relevance of EU law for the jurisdiction of the tribunals
Assessment of the CJEU’s Achmea judgment
Recognition of the impact of EU law on the merits: the case of State aid
Mitigating conflicts through harmonious interpretation?
Implications for extra-EU cases
Conclusion
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call