Europe

European Union (EU) member states have signed over 1300 investment treaties with third countries, in addition to some 200 between EU members. Non-EU European states are party to over 500 treaties. Most of these contain investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, which enable foreign corporations to take ISDS claims against states if they deem their profits or potential investment to be affected by new laws or changes in policy.

The EU has ratified four agreements with an ISDS mechanism: the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), to which 53 European and Central Asian countries are party, the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada, and agreements with Vietnam and Singapore. Only the ECT has been fully in force. The ISDS provisions in the three others will be implemented after all member states have ratified them.

These three deals also include a revised ISDS mechanism created by the European Commission, known as the investment court system. Many critics say that this new system is largely window-dressing and does not address the core of the problem behind investor-state dispute measures.

In 2015, the European Commission asked the EU member states to terminate their intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs), arguing they are incompatible with EU law, which was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its “Achmea” decision.

As of April 2020, the number of intra-EU ISDS disputes amounted to 170, approximately 17% of all cases globally, 76 of which having been brought under the ECT.

Overall investors from European countries have initiated over 600 ISDS cases, half of which are against non-European states. European countries have been targeted in about 350 cases. Grouped together, investors from EU member states have launched the majority of total disputes (over 400).

Spain, the Czech Republic, Poland, Russia and Ukraine have been among the ten most frequent respondent states, while the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Italy and Switzerland have been among the ten most frequent home states of the investor.

The most well-known cases include:

Yukos (Isle of Man) vs. Russia: US$50 billion awarded in 2014 to majority shareholders of the oil and gas company (ECT invoked).

Eureko (Netherland) vs. Poland: case settled in 2005 for about €2 billion in favour of the investor, a large European insurance company (Netherland-Poland BIT invoked).

Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka (Czech Republic) vs. Slovak Republic: €553 million awarded in 2004 to the investor, one of the largest commercial banks in the Czech Republic (Czech Republic-Slovak Republic BIT invoked).

Photo: War on Want

(April 2020)

Webmanagercenter | 5-Mar-2018
L’Etat tunisien doit dire officiellement s’il choisit le règlement amiable ou la solution arbitrale par le CIRDI.
No al TTIP | 2-Mar-2018
Inversores de Novenergia logran un laudo condenatorio en Estocolmo. El demandadente reclamaba 60 millones y otros 1.900 millones en otro arbitraje.
CNCD 11.11.11 | 2-Mar-2018
Les nouvelles balises adoptées ce mercredi au Parlement wallon concernant les accords commerciaux seront-elles déjà piétinées dès ce vendredi ?
Energy Voice | 1-Mar-2018
The tribunal found that Novenergia’s investments were achieving a reasonable rate of return. However, the tribunal held that it was sufficient for the claim to succeed that Novenergia could show “quantifiable prejudice” compared with its position when it initially made its investment.
Lexology | 1-Mar-2018
On 26 December 2017, the Commission published its decision that attacked the ECT claims brought by investors against Spain (and other EU states).
Mondaq | 1-Mar-2018
One tribunal could interpret the effect of legislative provisions differently to another. So while Eiser opens up the prospect of more claims, Blusun may narrow the basis for claims.
Clyde & Co | 1-Mar-2018
With the global financial crisis, solar power incentives schemes became unbearably costly and Spain repealed those incentives. Consequently, many investors brought arbitration claims under the Energy Charter Treaty.
El Salto | 28-Feb-2018
¿Aprobaría usted que la Unión Europea firme un acuerdo comercial con el régimen de Duterte en Filipinas o con el Gobierno ilegítimo de Temer en Brasil a pesar de graves violaciones de derechos humanos? Nadie le va a hacer esa pregunta, sin embargo, la Comisión Europea trabaja en esos y en otra decena de tratados, muchos de los cuales pueden cerrarse sin siquiera pasar por los Parlamentos nacionales.
112 | 28-Feb-2018
The lawsuit requirements come down to the amount of compensation, which has been evaluated by independent experts at over $5 billion.
No al TTIP | 27-Feb-2018
Los países de la UE planean solicitar a la Comisión Europea que no divida automáticamente la parte de la protección de la inversión de los acuerdos comerciales, sino que aplique la nueva arquitectura para los acuerdos comerciales de la UE “caso por caso, dependiendo del socio de negociación” según el borrador de Conclusiones del Consejo Informal de Ministros de Comercio de la UE