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)

Politis | 22-Jan-2019
Cent cinquante ONG, syndicats et associations s’associent pour demander la fin des « tribunaux arbitraux » qui protègent les multinationales. Elles espèrent imposer le « devoir de vigilance » comme une nouvelle norme.
No al TTIP | 22-Jan-2019
Coincidiendo con el inicio del Foro Económico Mundial en Davos 2019, una coalición de organizaciones de la sociedad civil, movimientos sociales y sindicatos de más de 18 países de la UE lanzan la campaña ‘Derechos para las personas, obligaciones para las multinacionales. Stop ISDS’.
European Commission | 18-Jan-2019
The EU and its Member States submitted two papers to the UN Working Group under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
New Europe | 18-Jan-2019
22 of the 28 EU nations have committed to terminate their bilateral investment treaties and use their influence as home states and respondent-states to notify tribunals of the non-arbitrability of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties and Energy Charter Treaty claims.
CIAR Global | 18-Jan-2019
El pasado 15 de enero, los Estados miembros de la UE emitieron una declaración en la que se comprometen a rescindir los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión (TBIs) entre ellos como consecuencia jurídica del caso Achmea.
Jeune Afrique | 16-Jan-2019
En mai, le Cirdi a débouté Veolia mais le groupe français assure vouloir poursuivre son action au Caire afin que sa filiale puisse être dûment indemnisée.
European Papers | 15-Jan-2019
If the European Court of Justice applied in Opinion 1/17 the same test it used in Achmea, it would probably conclude that the CETA tribunal is not compatible with EU law.
Medias24 | 15-Jan-2019
La société allemande, qui dénonce des mesures "discriminatoires et arbitraires" imposées par le gouvernement marocain dans le secteur de la sidérurgie, réclame 60 millions d’euros au Maroc.
Lexology | 9-Jan-2019
The Ukrainian Supreme Court refused recognition and enforcement of the emergency award in Ukraine, based on the grounds that enforcement of the emergency award would be contrary to the public policy of Ukraine