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)

IP Watch | 3-Apr-2014
April Fool’s? European trade commissioner Karel de Gucht says, during a 1 April hearing in Brussels of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament, that he would agree to drop ISDS from the TTIP if the United States would agree.
Policy Mic | 25-Mar-2014
The translantic trade agreement would undermine hard-fought regulations and open up a large part of the world to greater exploitation without regulation. Fracking would go global.
Bloomberg | 20-Mar-2014
A high-profile campaign by opponents to ISDS could complicate TTIP talks long after the listening period in Europe ends.
FT via KEI | 15-Mar-2014
Germany has introduced a stumbling block to landmark EU-US trade negotiations by insisting that any pact must exclude a contentious dispute settlement provision (ISDS).
Latin American Herald Tribune | 13-Mar-2014
In a 2-1 decision, the World Bank’s arbitration panel has rejected Venezuela’s request for "reconsideration" of its September 2013 finding that it had jurisdiction and that Venezuela was liable for the expropriation of ConocoPhillips’ investments in the Latin American nation.
TNI | 10-Mar-2014
Corporations, backed by lawyers, use international investment agreements to scavenge for profits by suing Europe’s crisis countries.
AFL-CIO | 3-Mar-2014
Millions of Americans are hoping the US government will immediately initiate open and fruitful discussions on ISDS.
| 3-Mar-2014
Several local newspapers misread the recent decision by the Washington-based International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as a verdict forcing the Indonesian government to pay over US$1 billion in compensation to the plaintiff, London-listed Churchill Mining Plc, in regard to its coal mining concessions in East Kalimantan.
New York Times | 25-Feb-2014
Repsol, the Spanish oil company agreed to a $5 billion compensation deal with Argentina for the seizure of the company’s operations in that country, ending a bitter two-year dispute.
Alliance News | 25-Feb-2014
The thermal coal producer said the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes rejected Indonesia’s jurisdictional challenges and it can now pursue claims for damages under the respective Bilateral Investment Treaties Indonesia entered into with the United Kingdom and Australia.