Suchergebnisse

In case C-741/19 Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC ECLI:EU:C:2021:655, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the acquisition of a claim arising from a contract for the supply of electricity does not constitute an "investment" within the meaning of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Yet the impact of the case goes far beyond this finding. In coming to this conclusion, the Court found that i) it has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling in a dispute that has little or no connection to the EU legal order and ii) the intra-EU application of the ECT's investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms is incompatible with EU law. The Court thus answered the question, debated in academia and before arbitral tribunals, whether the reasoning in its 2018 Achmea judgment applied in relation to the ECT's dispute settlement provisions. Whereas arbitral tribunals have approached the issue through the lens of public international law, in particular the law of treaties, the EU Court approaches the question as one about the autonomy of the EU legal order. Like Achmea, the effects Komstroy outside the EU legal order are likely to be limited.

Das europäische Investitionsschutzrecht analysierend, rückt Matthias Leeb die sich daraus ergebenden Rechtsschutzdefizite für Investoren in den Fokus und gibt konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen für den Umgang mit diesen. Insbesondere untersucht er dafür aktuelle Entscheidungen des EuGH zu Intra-EU-Investitionsschutzabkommen – Achmea, Komstroy, PL-Holdings und European Food SA u. a. – und setzt sich kritisch mit diesen und deren Auswirkungen auseinander. Darüber hinaus geht der Autor auf die von der EU angestrebte Reform des Investitionsschutzes im Verhältnis zu Drittstaaten ein, wobei er die aktuellen Entwicklungen im Zusammenhang mit dem Energiecharta-Vertrag (ECT) berücksichtigt.

Das europäische Investitionsschutzrecht analysierend, rückt Matthias Leeb die sich daraus ergebenden Rechtsschutzdefizite für Investoren in den Fokus und gibt konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen für den Umgang mit diesen. Insbesondere untersucht er dafür aktuelle Entscheidungen des EuGH zu Intra-EU-Investitionsschutzabkommen - Achmea, Komstroy, PL-Holdings und European Food SA u. a. - und setzt sich kritisch mit diesen und deren Auswirkungen auseinander. Darüber hinaus geht der Autor auf die von der EU angestrebte Reform des Investitionsschutzes im Verhältnis zu Drittstaaten ein, wobei er die aktuellen Entwicklungen im Zusammenhang mit dem Energiecharta-Vertrag (ECT) berücksichtigt

The article scrutinizes the ex-post constitutional compatibility with the autonomy of the EU legal order of the Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism established in Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Whereas the compatibility of intra-EU aspects of ECT arbitration is examined primarily in the light of the EU Court of Justice's (CJEU) Achmea and Komstroy judgments, the compatibility of its extra-EU aspects is examined primarily in the light of its Opinion 1/17. Since those Court decisions are indeed in line with the previous case-law, the article does not need to delve into earlier case-law. Although the issue is analysed from the standpoint of EU law, awards of the arbitral tribunals before which the ECT is invoked have been taken into consideration especially to ascertain whether the CJEU's concerns for preserving the autonomy of the EU legal order against any possible legal effects of these awards were justified. The article also analyses the principal options to remedy the incompatibility of the ISDS mechanism under the ECT with the autonomy of the EU legal order.
Autonomy of the EU Legal Order, Investor to State Dispute Settlement, the Energy Charter Treaty, Intra-EU Arbitration, Extra-EU Arbitration