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)

IELP Blog | 12-Mar-2017
A dissent sends the message: beware, if one other arbitrator had gone the way that Born did, we would have won.
The Hindu | 10-Mar-2017
The tax dispute between the Indian government and Cairn Plc has been the subject of international arbitration from 2014.
Q Costa Rica | 10-Mar-2017
The ICSID Arbitral Tribunal has ruled that the Costa Rican government did not cause damage to the company of Swiss capital, Gas Nacional Zeta.
Jeune Afrique | 10-Mar-2017
L’année 2017 devrait solder l’épisode de conflit avec l’Égypte, qui confère à Veolia l’image négative d’une entreprise procédurière.
The Hindu | 8-Mar-2017
The tax demand was challenged by Cairn Energy through an international arbitration where it also made a case against the dividend freeze
Lexology | 7-Mar-2017
District court denies request to vacate award, finding that arbitrator was not partial and that tribunal did not exceed its authority in awarding damages for lost profits.
Kluwer Arbitration Blog | 7-Mar-2017
Two recently finalized cases against Latin America states provide several noteworthy points for further debates on the host states’ counterclaims towards investors.
S2B | 6-Mar-2017
Position du réseau S2B sur la proposition de la Commission d’un mécanisme multilatéral de règlement des différends investisseurs-Etats (RDIE ou ISDS en anglais).
Financial Express | 2-Mar-2017
Fresh investments by European companies in India and vice versa after April 1 won’t enjoy legal protection under any bilateral arrangement, as India has decided not to accede to requests by the European Union.