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)

First Post | 30-Mar-2012
Fearing the Indian government will use new tax laws to trap it back around Rs 12,000 crore in taxes, the world’s largest mobile operator, Vodafone, may invoke a bilateral investment treaty between India and the Netherlands to avoid doing so.
Economic Times | 29-Mar-2012
Norway’s Telenor will seek ’compensation for all investment, guarantees and damages’ if the Indian government fails to sort out issues related to its licence cancellation within the next six months, the company said.
DTE | 13-Jan-2012
Since the 1990s developing nations have been on a treaty spree, signing a vast number of bilateral and regional investment treaties to attract funds for development. But as the figure of investment treaties has shot up so have the claims for damages from investor companies, which are seeking billions of dollars in compensation on account of regulatory laws.
Madhyam | 7-Oct-2011
This article tries to provide a first brief assessment of the leaked EU negotiation mandate for an investment protecting agreement in the EU free trade agreements with Canada, India and Singapore.
S2B | 15-Sep-2011
On Monday 12 September the General Affairs Council approved negotiating mandates for investment protection chapters in free trade agreements with Canada, India and Singapore.
| 4-Jul-2011
Despite a demand by the European Union (EU), India is unlikely to allow a clause in a proposed trade pact with the bloc that permits an overseas investor to sue a host country at an international dispute settlement agency.
Malaya | 4-Jan-2011
The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes in Washington DC has vacated or voided its ruling made on Aug. 16, 2007, finding no cause in the complaint of Fraport, a German company, that the Philippine government violated a bilateral treaty with Germany when it voided Fraport’s contract to build and operate Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Messenger | 20-Oct-2010
On October 15 Georgian law enforcers detained Israeli businessmen offering Deputy Minister of Finance, Avtandil Kharadze USD 7 million for him to convince the Georgian Government not to challenge a decision of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
| 16-Aug-2010
Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo advised President Aquino against deciding hastily on the case involving the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 (NAIA-3), warning the government could be at a disadvantage.
Marketwire | 12-Aug-2010
A legal analysis of the challenge launched by Philip Morris International found the company to be both unjustified and unreasonable in its opposition to Uruguay’s new tobacco packaging laws.