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)

Delfi | 2-Aug-2021
The Ukrainian owners of Lithuania’s air defense systems developer and producer LiTak-Tak has submitted a claim to the Lithuanian government, saying they will turn to international arbitration if no deal is reached within six months.
Capital Monitor | 30-Jul-2021
The Energy Charter Treaty, which gives oil and gas companies a route to suing governments, is increasingly hindering climate policy reform, say campaigners. And it is not the only agreement of its type.
TASS | 30-Jul-2021
The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office stressed that Russia’s well-founded position had made it possible to reject most of requirements made by Yukos Capital.
Bloomberg | 30-Jul-2021
The Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that Russia illegally expropriated loans provided by Yukos Capital Sarl to its former parent company.
Swiss Info | 28-Jul-2021
La Unesco declaró hoy la antigua mina romana de Rosia Montana, en Rumanía, Patrimonio Mundial de la Humanidad, una decisión que cierra la puerta a la explotación de las toneladas de minerales preciosos que hacen del subsuelo de la zona la mayor reserva de oro de Europa.
Balkan Insight | 28-Jul-2021
The derailment of the plans led Canadian mining company Gabriel Resources to sue the Romanian government for $5.7 billion before the Washington-based ICSID.
GEO | 28-Jul-2021
Une compagnie canadienne, Gabriel Resources, avait demandé en 2015 un arbitrage international et réclamé 4,4 milliards de dollars de dédommagements à la Roumanie.
Ouest France | 23-Jul-2021
Dénonçant une "expropriation", Gabriel Resources a saisi en 2015 la juridiction d’arbitrage international de la Banque mondiale (Cirdi) et réclamé 4,4 milliards de dollars de dédommagements à la Roumanie.
France 24 | 23-Jul-2021
Meanwhile, Gabriel Resources has taken Romania before the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, seeking $4.4 billion (3.7 billion euros) in damages.
CIAR Global | 20-Jul-2021
La Comisión Europea va a examinar con detenimiento si el laudo del arbitraje del fondo Antin contra España se ajusta a las normas de la Unión Europea en materia de ayudas estatales.