The present paper deals with one of the issues that has recently been considered within the Eureko/Achmea v. The Slovak Republic case, namely the arbitrability of the so called intra-EU BITs disputes. In essence, it focuses on whether the investor of an EU member state can rely on the compromissory clause contained in a BIT that its country of origin had signed with another country that, in turn, at a later time, became an EU member State. To such a question arbitral tribunals have answered in the positive, while the EU in the negative, without however adopting a normative act in this sense. Throughout the paper, an analysis is conducted of those aspects of international law and of EU law that come into play in relation to the matter at hand. It is submitted that, in the absence of a definite/ hard law solution, the way out should consist, for the time being, in applying soft law principles and, in particular, that of comity; nevertheless, the EUCJ and the arbitral tribunals do not appear to be very much keen to act in this sense. EU member states, on their part, are more and more frequently opting for the termination of the relevant BITs, allegedly on the basis of a law and economics analysis. This attitude, however, might produce negative effects on the economy of these states, since investors, seeking the protection of a BIT, could be encouraged to move their seats in third countries.
|Titolo:||L'arbitrabilità delle controversie tra un investitore di uno Stato membro ed un altro Stato membro : alcune considerazioni a margine del caso Eureko/Achmea v. The Slovak Republic|
VALLAR, GIULIA MARGHERITA (Primo)
|Parole Chiave:||Intra-EU BITs; Eureko; Achmea; Mox Plant; arbitrability; intra-EU jurisdicitonal objection; comity; application of successive treaties relating to the same subject-matter; termination of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty; non-discrimination; EU Courts exclusive competence; arbitrators competence to ask for a preliminary ruling; arbitrabilità; applicazione di trattati successivi aventi per oggetto la stessa materia; estinzione di un trattato per conclusione di un trattato successivo; divieto di discriminazione; competenza esclusiva dei giudici UE; capacità degli arbitri di operare un rinvio pregiudiziale.|
|Settore Scientifico Disciplinare:||Settore IUS/13 - Diritto Internazionale|
Settore IUS/14 - Diritto dell'Unione Europea
|Data di pubblicazione:||2014|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||01 - Articolo su periodico|