Make a Submission
Vol. 39 (2019)
General Articles

Implementing Achmea: The Quest for Fundamental Change in International Investment La

PDF
  • Łukasz Kułaga
Łukasz Kułaga
University Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński in Warsaw

Published 2021-07-19

Keywords

  • Achmea,
  • bilateral investment treaty,
  • BIT,
  • conflict of treaties,
  • European Union,
  • ISDS,
  • VCLT
    • ...More
    Less
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Implementing Achmea: The Quest for Fundamental Change in International Investment La. (2021). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 39, 227-250. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2020.134483

Abstract

The judgment of the Court of Justice in the Achmea case evoked significant repercussions regarding the application and operation of the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) concluded between EU Member States. As a result of this decision, EU Member States have decided to terminate almost 190 intra-EU BITs. Nevertheless, full implementation of the Achmea judgment remains a complex issue, entangled in political and legal controversies concerning intra-EU BITs which have been present for more than a decade. On a more general level, the implementation process is simultaneously entwined in two other significant debates: the specifics of the rights of investors, and the relationship between EU law and international law.

PDF

References

  1. Agreement for the termination of bilateral investment treaties between the member states of the European Union, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/2019/12/a-draft-agreement-has-been-leaked.pdf [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  2. Andersen T.T., Hindelang S., The Day After: Alternatives to Intra-EU BITs, 17 Journal of World Investment & Trade 984 (2016).
  3. Ankersmit L., Achmea: The Beginning of the End for ISDS in and with Europe?, Investment Treaty News, 24 April 2018, https://bit.ly/38Q4los [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  4. Aufhebung eines schiedsspruchs: aufhebungsgrund des fehlens einer schiedsvereinbarung; un-anwendbarkeit von schiedsklauseln in einem bilateralen investitionsschutzabkommen zwischen Mitgliedsstaaten der EU, BGH 1. Zivilsenat, 31 October 2018, I ZB 2/15, https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/wzl-31-10-2018-i-zb-215/ [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  5. Award in respect of damages of 31 May 2002 in the case Pope & Talbot v. Government of Canada, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0686.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  6. Award of 21 June 2019 in the case United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, https://www.italaw.com/cases/3147 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  7. Award of 26 February 2019 in Juvel Ltd. and Bithell Holdings Ltd v. Poland, ICC Case no. 19459/MHM, https://bit.ly/3jk62jC [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  8. Award of 26 July 2018 in the case of Marfin Investment Group v. The Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case no. ARB/13/27.
  9. Award of 28 January 2019 in the case Sodexo Pass International SAS v. Hungary, ICSID Case no. ARB/14/20 (unpublished).
  10. Award of 9 October 2018 in the case UP (formerly Le Chèque Déjeuner) and C.D Holding Internationale v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35, https://www.italaw.com/cases/6902 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  11. Award of the Tribunal of13 November 2019 in the case Magyar Farming Company Ltd, Kintyre Kft and Inicia Zrt v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/27, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw10914.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  12. Award on jurisdiction of 22 October 2012 in the case European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM) v. Slovak Republic, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4226.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  13. Award on jurisdiction of 6 June 2007 in the case Rupert Joseph Binder v. Czech Republic, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4214.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  14. Award on jurisdiction, arbitrability and suspension of 26 October 2010 in the case Eureko B.V. v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case no. 2008–13, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0309.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  15. Basener N., Investment Protection in the European Union, Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden: 2017.
  16. Bilanová A., Kudrna J., Achmea: The End of Investment Arbitration as We Know It?, 3(1) European Investment Law and Arbitration Review 261 (2018).
  17. Binder C., A Treaty Law Perspective on Intra-EU BITs, 17 Journal of World Investment & Trade 964 (2016).
  18. Bjorge E., EU Law Constraints on Intra-EU Investment Arbitration?, 16 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 71 (2017).
  19. Bohm E., Motaabbed M.-C., The European Union and the Unloved BITs of Its Member States, Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration 371 (2014).
  20. Bota A.G.Y., Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 29 January 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:72.
  21. Bungenberg M., Hobe S., The Relationship of International Investment Law and European Union Law, [in:] M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hobe, A. Reinisch, Y-I Kim (eds.), International Investment Law: A Handbook, Hart, Oxford: 2015.
  22. Burgstaller M., The Future of Bilateral Investment Treaties of EU Member States, [in:] M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hindelang (eds.), International Investment Law and EU Law, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg: 2011.
  23. Centeno Huerta S., Kuplewatzky N., On Achmea, The Autonomy of Union Law, Mutual Trust and What Lies Ahead, 4(1) European Papers 61 (2019).
  24. Charlotin D., Peterson I.E., Analysis: Four Additional Takeaways from Achmea-related Declarations by EU Member States, IA Reporter, 17 January 2019, https://bit.ly/2zqqopk [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  25. CJEU judgement in the case C-370/12 Thomas Pringle v. Government of Ireland and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2012:756.
  26. CJEU judgement in the case C-648/15 Republic of Austria v. Federal Republic of Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2017:664.
  27. Commission asks Member States to terminate their intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, 18 June 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ ip-15-5198_en.htm [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  28. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Protection of intra-EU investment, Brussels, 19 July 2018, COM(2018)547 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0547&rid=8 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  29. Contartese C., Andenas M., EU Autonomy and Investor-State Dispute Settlement under inter se Agreements between EU Member States: Achmea, 56 Common Market Law Review 157 (2019).
  30. Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states of 1965, 575 The United Nations Treaty Series (1965).
  31. Dahlquis J., Swedish Supreme Court to send Achmea-related question to European Court of Justice, IAR Rreporter, 14 December 2019.
  32. Decision on annulment of 26 February 2016 in the case Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and Others v. Romania, ICSID Case no. ARB/05/20, https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-ioan-micula-viorel-micula-and-others-v-romania-i-decision-on-annulment-friday-26th-february-2016#decision_568 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  33. Decision on jurisdiction and admissibility of 7 February 2020 in the case Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v. Cyprus, ICSID Case no. ARB/15/49, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw11238.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  34. Decision on jurisdiction of 30 April 2010 in the case Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita1073_0.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  35. Decision on jurisdiction, applicable law and liability of 30 November 2012 in the case Electrabel SA v. Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/19, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1071clean.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  36. Decision on jurisdiction, liability and directions on quantum of 2 December 2019 in the case BayWa r.e. Renewable Energy GmbH and BayWa r.e. Asset Holding GmbH v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/16, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw15000.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  37. Decision on jurisdiction, liability, and certain issues of quantum of 30 December 2019 in the case RWE Innogy GmbH and RWE Innogy Aersa S.A.U. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case no. ARB/14/34, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw11004.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  38. Dimopoulos A., Achmea: The Principle of Autonomy and Its Implications for Intra and Extra-EU BITs, EJIL: talk!, 27 March 2018, https://bit.ly/303M4tX [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  39. Dimopoulos A., The Compatibility of Future EU Investment Agreements with EU Law, 39 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 447 (2012).
  40. Dokument wypowiedzenia przez Rzeczpospolitą Polską Umowy między Rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i Rządem Republiki Portugalskiej w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji, sporządzonej w Lizbonie dnia 11 marca 1993 r., Dz.U. 2018, item 17.
  41. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Polską Rzecząpospolitą Ludową a Republiką Austrii w sprawie popierania i ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Austria], Dz.U. 2019, item 762.
  42. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Polską Rzecząpospolitą Ludową a Republiką Federalną Niemiec w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Germany], Dz.U. of 2019, item 774.
  43. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między rządem Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej a rządem królestwa Szwecji w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Sweden], Dz.U. 2019, item 764.
  44. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między rządem Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej a rządem Zjednoczonego Królestwa Wielkiej Brytanii i Irlandii Północnej w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and the UK], Dz.U. 2019, item 780.
  45. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między rządem Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej a Rządem Republiki Francuskiej w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and France], Dz.U. 2019, item 791.
  46. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej a Rządem Republiki Finlandii o popieraniu i ochronie inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Finland], Dz.U. 2019, item 937.
  47. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej a rządem Republiki Bułgarii w sprawie wzajemnego popierania i ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Bulgaria], Dz.U. 2019, item 1485.
  48. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Królestwem Hiszpanii w sprawie wzajemnego popierania i ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Spain], Dz.U. 2019, item 960.
  49. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Cypru w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Cyprus], Dz.U. 2019, item 203.
  50. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Grecji w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Greece], Dz.U. 2019, item 939.
  51. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Litewską w sprawie wzajemnego popierania i ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Lithuania], Dz.U. 2019, item 941.
  52. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Węgierską w sprawie wzajemnego popierania i ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Hungary], Dz.U. 2019, item 950.
  53. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Chorwacji w sprawie wzajemnego popierania i ochrony inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Croatia], Dz.U. 2019, item 1163.
  54. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Słowenii o wzajemnym popieraniu i ochronie inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Slovenia], Dz.U. 2019, item 948.
  55. Dokument wypowiedzenia umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską i Królestwem Holandii o popieraniu i wzajemnej ochronie inwestycji [Act of denunciation of the bit between Poland and Netherlands], Dz.U. 2019, item 205.
  56. Draft conclusions on subsequent agreements and subsequent practice in relation to the interpretation of treaties 2018, adopted by the international law Commission at its 17th session in 2018, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/73/10), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/252/67/PDF/G1825267.pdf?OpenElement [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  57. EC announcement of 24 October 2019, https://bit.ly/399cift [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  58. ECHR judgement of 11 November 1996 in the case Cantoni v. France (app. no. 17862/91).
  59. EFC Report to the Commission and the Council on the Movement of Capital and the freedom of payments, 8 January 2008, https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vi7jgt7lx2y9 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  60. Eilmansberger T., Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law, 46 Common Market Law Review 383 (2009).
  61. EU Member States sign an agreement for the termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/200505-bilateral-investment-treaties-agreement_en. [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  62. Fact Sheet on Intra-European Union Investor – State Arbitration Cases, 3 International Investment Agreements 2018.
  63. Fecak J., International Investment Agreements and EU Law, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen Aan den Rijn: 2016.
  64. Fecak T., Czech Experience with Bilateral Investment Treaties: Somewhat Bitter Taste of Investment Protection, 2 Czech Yearbook of Public and Private International Law 233 (2011).
  65. Final award of 10 March 2017 in the case Anglia Auto Accessories Limited v. The Czech Republic, Case v 2014/181, Final award of 10 March 2017 in the case Anglia Auto Accessories Limited v. The Czech Republic, Case v 2014/181 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  66. Final award of 10 March 2017 in the case I.P. Busta & J.P. Busta v. The Czech Republic, Case v 2015/014, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8558.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  67. Final award of 11 October 2017 in the case Jürgen Wirtgen, Stefan Wirtgen, Gisela Wirtgen and JSW Solar (zwei) GmbH & Co. KG v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-03rl-10, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9498.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  68. Final award of 27 December 2016 in the case Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case no. ARB/14/3, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8967.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  69. Final award of 7 December 2012 in the case Achmea B.V. (formerly known as “Eureko B.V.”) v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case no. 2008–13, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3206.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  70. Freeman A.V., Recent Aspect of Calvo Doctrine and the Challenge to International Law, 40 American Journal of International Law 190 (1946).
  71. Gaffney J.P., Akcay Z., European Bilateral Approaches, [in:] M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hobe, A. Reinisch, Y-I Kim (eds.), International Investment Law: A Handbook, Hart, Oxford: 2015.
  72. Gáspár-Szilágy S., The CJEU Strikes Again in Achmea. Is this the End of Investor-State Arbitration under Intra-EU BITs?, IELP Blog, 7 March 2018, https://bit.ly/2Cztly4 [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  73. Gáspár-Szilágyi S., It Is Not Just About Investor-State Arbitration. A Look at Case C-284/16, Achmea BV, 3(1) European Papers 357 (2018).
  74. Gáspár-Szilágyi S., Usynin M., The Uneasy Relationship between Intra-Eu Investment Tribunals and the Court of Justice’s Achmea Judgment, 4 CEVIA Working Paper Series (2019), pp. 31-36.
  75. Ghouri A.A., Interaction and Conflict of Treaties in Investment Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen Aan den Rijn: 2015.
  76. Hess B., The Fate of Investment Dispute Resolution after the Achmea Decision of the European Court of Justice, MPIlux Research Paper 3 (2018).
  77. Hindelang S., The Limited Immediate Effects of CJEU’s Achmea Judgment, available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/the-limited-immediate-effects-of-cjeus-achmea-judgement/ [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  78. ICSID annulment decision in the case Committee in Edenred S.A. V. Hungary, ICSID Case no. ARB/13/21 (unpublished).
  79. ILC Fifty-eighth session, Geneva, 1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006, https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  80. Intra-EU investment treaties, non-paper from Austria, Finland, France, Germany and the Netherlands, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  81. Jones T., ICSID panel declines to revisit intra-EU award, Global Arbitration Reporter, 13 February 2019, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/icsid-panel-declines-revisit-intra-eu-award [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  82. Judgment of Svea Court of Appeal of 22 February 2019 in the case PL Holdings v. Poland, https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-pl-holdings-s-a-r-l-v-poland-judgment-of-svea-court-of-appeal-friday-22nd-february-2019#decision_5045 [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  83. Judgment of the CJEU in the case Budějovický Budvar, C-478/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:521.
  84. Judgment of the CJEU of 27 September 1988 in the case Annunziata Matteucci v Communauté Française of Belgium and Commissariat Général aux Relations Internationales of the Communauté Française of Belgium. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Conseil d'Etat, 235/87., ECLI:EU:C:1988:460.
  85. Klabbers J., Treaty Conflict and the European Union, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2009.
  86. Kokott J., Sobotta C., Investment Arbitration and EU Law, 18 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 1 (2016).
  87. Koutrakos P., The Autonomy of EU Law and International Investment Arbitration, 18 Nordic Journal of International Law 41 (2019)
  88. Koutrakos P., The Relevance of EU Law for Arbitral Tribunals: (Not) Managing the Lingering Tension, 17 Journal World Investment & Trade 873 (2016).
  89. Krajewski M., Hoffmann R.T., Research Handbook on Foreign Direct Investment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham: 2019.
  90. Kriebaum U., The Fate of Intra-EU BITs from an Investment Law and Public International Law Perspective, 1 ELTE Law Journal 27 (2015).
  91. Kułaga Ł., Brave A., New, International Investment Court in Context: Towards a Paradigm Shift of the ISDS, 38 Polish Yearbook of International Law 115
  92. Kulaga L., ISDS During a Period of Transformation. Favoring Domestic Courts and Selective Judicialization in USMCA, 17(3) Transnational dispute Management 1 (2020).
  93. Lavranos N., The EU Plurilateral Draft Termination Agreement for All Intra-EU BITs: An End of the Post-Achmea Saga and the Beginning of a New One, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 1 December 2019, https://bit.ly/3jegitX [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  94. Mcrae D., Countermeasures and Investment Arbitration, [in:] M. Kinnear et al. (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen Aan den Rijn: 2015.
  95. Memoire of the office of the un secretary General, denunciation of the ICCPR by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 23 September 1997, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/Cn/1997/Cn.467.1997-frn.pdf [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  96. Opinion CJEU GC no 1/17 of 30 April 2019 pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (CETA), ECLI:EU:C:2019:341.
  97. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet Delivered on 19 September 2017 in the case C-
  98. Order of 24 June 2003 on Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits, and Request for Further Provisional Measures in the case the MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), PCA Case 2002-01, https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-mox-plant-case-ireland-v-united-kingdom-order-no-3-tuesday-24th-june-2003#decision_2248 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  99. Oświadczenie Rządowe z dnia 18 grudnia 2018 r. w sprawie wypowiedzenia przez Rzeczpospolitą Polską Umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Cypru w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji, sporządzonej w Warszawie dnia 4 czerwca 1992 r., Dz.U. 2019, item 204.
  100. Partial award of 27 March 2007 in the case Eastern Sugar BV (Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, SCC Case no. 088/2004, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0259_0.pdf [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  101. Perry S., Hungary hit with another intra-EU BIT award, Global Arbitration Reporter of 5 February 2019.
  102. Pinsolle P., Michou I., Arbitration: The Achmea v. Slovakia Judgment of the CJEU, Is It Really the End of Intra-EU Investment Treaties?, 7 March 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2Wgz1io [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  103. Porozumienie z dnia 11 kwietnia 2018 r. między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Czeską o zmianie i zakończeniu obowiązywania umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Czeską o popieraniu i wzajemnej ochronie inwestycji [Agreement of 11 April 2018 between the Republic of Poland and the Czech Republic on the amendment and termination of the agreement between the Republic of Poland and the Czech Republic on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments], Dz.U. 2019, item 1502.
  104. Porozumienie z dnia 16 października 2017 r. między Rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej a Rządem Królestwa Danii o zmianie i zakończeniu obowiązywania Umowy między Rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej a Rządem Królestwa Danii w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji, podpisanej w Kopenhadze dnia 1 maja 1990 r., Dz.U. 2019, poz. 191.
  105. Porozumienie z dnia 18 czerwca 2018 r. między rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej a rządem Rumunii o zakończeniu obowiązywania umowy między rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej a rządem Rumunii w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji [Agreement of 18 June 2018 between the Government of Republic of Poland and the Government of Romania on termination of the agreement between the Government of the Republic of Poland and the Government of Romania on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments], Dz.U. 2019, item 793.
  106. Porozumienie z dnia 19 marca 2018 r. między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Estońską o zmianie i zakończeniu obowiązywania umowy między Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Republiką Estońską o wzajemnym popieraniu i ochronie inwestycji [Agreement of 19 March 2018 between the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Estonia on the amendment and termination of the agreement between the republic of Poland and the Republic of Estonia on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments], Dz.U. 2019, item 264.
  107. Porozumienie z dnia 28 grudnia 2017 r. między Rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej a Rządem Republiki Łotewskiej o zmianie i zakończeniu obowiązywania Umowy między Rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i Rządem Republiki Łotewskiej w sprawie wzajemnego popierania i ochrony inwestycji, sporządzonej w Warszawie dnia 26 kwietnia 1993 r., Dz.U. 2019, item 65.
  108. President of the European Court of Justice Koen Lenaerts at II Law TTIP Joint Conference: EU law, trade agreements, and dispute resolution mechanisms: contemporary challenges (March 2019), https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/audiovisual-library.asp [accessed: 30.06. 2020].
  109. Reinisch A., The Decisions on Jurisdiction in the Eastern Sugar and Eureko Investment Arbitrations, 2 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 157 (2012).
  110. Roberts A., Power and Persuasion in Investment Treaty Interpretation: The Dual Role of States, 104 American Journal of International Law 179 (2010).
  111. Rządowy projekt ustawy o wypowiedzeniu Umowy między Rządem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i Rządem Republiki Portugalskiej w sprawie popierania i wzajemnej ochrony inwestycji, sporządzonej w Lizbonie dnia 11 marca 1993 r., Druk sejmowy [Sejm Paper], no. 1775, 18 july 2017.
  112. Sadowski W., Protection of the rule of law in the European Union through investment treaty arbitration: is judicial monopolism the right response to illiberal tendencies in Europe?, 55 Common Market Law Review 1025 (2018).
  113. Schreuer C., Denunciation of the ICSID Convention and Consent to Arbitration, [in:] M. Waibel et al. (eds.), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality, Wolters Kluwer 2010.
  114. Soloch B., CJEU Judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea: Single Decision and Its Multi-Faceted Fallout, 18 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 3 (2019).
  115. Stefan F., Brace for Impact? Examining the Reach of Achmea v. Slovakia, Kluwer arbitration blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/06/24/brace-for-impact-examining-the-reach-of-achmea-v-slovakia/ [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  116. Sturma P., Reform of Investment Dispute Settlement and Developments in EU Investment Law: Is There Any Future for Investment Treaty Arbitration in Europe? Some Comments in the Light of Achmea Decision, [in:] European Society of International Law (ESIL) 2018 Annual Conference , ESIL, Manchester 2018, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3364013 [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  117. Termination of intra-EU BITs, https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/termination_of_intra_eu_bits#incoming-10643 [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  118. The minutes from a meeting of the representative of the European Commission (DG financial stability) with the director of Businesseurope held on 15 September 2015, https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/termination_of_intra_eu_bits#incoming-10643 [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  119. Titi C., Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment, Survival Clauses and Reform of International Investment Law, 33(5) Journal of International Arbitration 425 (2016).
  120. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Fifty-second session Vienna, 8–26 July 2019 - Report of Working Group III (Investor-state dispute settlement reform) on the work of its thirty-sixth session (Vienna, 29 October–2 November 2018), UNCITRAL, A/CN.9/964, 6 November 2018, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/964 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  121. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) Thirty-seventh session, New York, 1–5 April 2019, Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), Submission from the European Union and its Member States, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1 [accessed: 16.07.2021].
  122. Von Papp K., Clash of “Autonomous Legal Orders”: Can EU Member State Courts Bridge the Jurisdictional Divide between Investment Tribunals and the ECJ? – A Plea for Direct Referral from Investment Tribunals to the ECJ, 50 Common Market Law Review 1039 (2013).
  123. Voon T., Mitchell A., Munro J., Parting Ways: The Impact of Mutual Termination of Investment Treaties on Investor Rights, 29(2) ICSID Review 451 (2014).
  124. Voon T., Mitchell A.D., Denunciation, Termination and Survival: The Interplay of Treaty Law and International Investment Law, 31(2) ICSID Review 413 (2016).
  125. Wehland H., Intra-EU Investment Agreements and Arbitration: Is EC Law an Obstacle?, 2 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 297 (2009).
  126. Wehland H., The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Micula v. Romania and beyond, 17 Journal of World Investment & Trade 942 (2016), https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/190117-bilateral-investment-treaties_en [accessed: 30.06.2020].
  127. Yin B., Goldsmith L.P., Intra-EU BITs: Competence and Consequences, [in:] N. Kaplan, M. Moser (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen Aan den Rijn: 2018.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.