ISDS is not only an unwelcome tool that allows multinational corporations to put pressure on public interest decision-making, it is also incompatible with EU law.
The tribunal found that Novenergia’s investments were achieving a reasonable rate of return. However, the tribunal held that it was sufficient for the claim to succeed that Novenergia could show “quantifiable prejudice” compared with its position when it initially made its investment.
One tribunal could interpret the effect of legislative provisions differently to another. So while Eiser opens up the prospect of more claims, Blusun may narrow the basis for claims.
With the global financial crisis, solar power incentives schemes became unbearably costly and Spain repealed those incentives. Consequently, many investors brought arbitration claims under the Energy Charter Treaty.
Profit is king. People are the pawns, and the Government will seem to be in favour of supra-national conglomerates if it signs this “new” TPP inclusive of the ISDS.
Despite the fact that the ECT was initiated and designed by the EU, there are compelling grounds to doubt the compatibility of the ECT’s arbitration clause with the principles underpinning the EU’s judicial system.