Abstract
Achmea judgment deepened the divide between the advocates of EU law and defenders of investment treaties that has been present at least since 2007. In the absence of intra-EU BITs Chapter 1 of this monograph presents why reaching a conclusive answer as to whether investors are better off finding procedural and substantive protection under the framework of EU law instead of intra-EU BITs is of extreme significance for the future of intra-EU investment policy. It defines three main objectives of the monograph, approach, and its structure. The objectives are: i) to analyse as to whether the legal regimes of intra-EU BITs and EU law provide for a different scope of substantive and procedural safeguards in the core guarantees present in most bilateral investment treaties, i.e. national treatment, most-favoured nation treatment, fair and equitable treatment, free transfer of funds, protection against expropriation, and the provision of an international dispute settlement mechanism (Chapters 2 to 7); 2) to evaluate how the removal of intra-EU BITs impacts investor decisions made in skill-intensive, labour-intensive, regulatory framework-dependent, and indirect and financial market-oriented investor interests (Chapter 8); and 3) to analyse whether a normative proposition of creation of an intra-EU investment court (the EUFIC) would overcome the gravest of concerns resulting from the Achmea judgment – the inability to resort to arbitration in intra-EU cases.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have