We use cookies on this site to provide you with an informative and engaging experience and also to help us to continually improve our site for you. Without allowing cookies certain features of the site will not be available. To learn more about how we use cookies, please view our cookie policy. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, you consent to our use of cookies on this device in accordance with our policy.

Logo of Wolters Kluwer, Kluwer Law Online
Legal Issues of Economic Integration
Search content button

Home > All journals > Legal Issues of Economic Integration > 39(2) >

Circumventing Primacy of EU Law and the CJEU’s Judicial Monopoly by Resorting to Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Provided for in Inter-se Treaties? The Case of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration

Cover image ofLegal Issues of Economic Integration

$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *

$29.00 - Article (PDF) *

*service fee may apply
Circumventing Primacy of EU Law and the CJEU’s Judicial Monopoly by Resorting to Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Provided for in Inter-se Treaties? The Case of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration


Legal Issues of Economic Integration
Volume 39, Issue 2 (2012) pp. 179 – 206

https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2012012



Abstract

Currently, we can observe an increasing number of so-called investor-state arbitrations on the basis of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) concluded between Member States. The arbitral awards rendered, binding on the Member State involved, challenge the uniform application of EU law by largely disregarding it. This paper suggests that intra-EU investment tribunals are clearly mistaken in doing so. In principle, they have to apply EU law along with the provisions of the applicable intra-EU BIT. Moreover, in case of conflict, EU law takes precedence over the inter-se treaty of the Member States. It is moreover argued that intra-EU investment tribunals should be allowed (and obliged) to refer questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as, like domestic courts, they decide implicitly or explicitly in a binding fashion, inter alia, whether the exercise of governmental powers towards the investor was permissible or even obligatory by EU law standards. If, however, the CJEU should find to the contrary or if the Court perceived investor-state arbitration as a disguised state-to-state infringement procedure within the meaning of Article 259 TFEU, the arbitration clause in an intra-EU BIT cannot be reconciled with the European Treaties and must, hence, be disregarded by the investment tribunal to the extent that the tribunal is confronted with questions relating to the interpretation and application of EU law.


Extract




Subscribe to this journal

Interested in a subscription? Contact our sales team

Browse by practice area
Share
Stay up to date


RSSETOC