A clash of national and international law? Examining the approach of the English High Court in GPF v Poland
In what appears to be a first for the English courts, the decision in GPF Gp S.á.r.l v Republic of Poland overturned parts of an award on jurisdiction in an investment treaty arbitration, finding the tribunal had erred in finding no jurisdiction. The claims have been sent back to the same tribunal for continuation towards the … Continue reading A clash of national and international law? Examining the approach of the English High Court in GPF v Poland
Black Tuesday: the end of intra-EU BITs
In his Opinion, Advocate General Wathelet in Achmea v Slovak Republic some six months ago argued that intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investment treaty arbitration based on those BITs are compatible with EU law. More specifically, he opined that arbitral tribunals established on the basis of intra-EU BITs should be considered similar to the domestic courts of EU … Continue reading Black Tuesday: the end of intra-EU BITs
Arbitration in 2018: evolution, revolution or repetition?
“There is nothing permanent except change.” (Heraclitus) The international arbitration world has lots in store for us in 2018. We can certainly expect more of the same when it comes to the ongoing debates on third party funding, Brexit, transparency and diversity. Naturally, we can also rely on the institutions to unveil new rules and guidance, and … Continue reading Arbitration in 2018: evolution, revolution or repetition?
2017 arbitration year in review
2017 proved a boisterous year in the world of arbitration. The Yukos saga continued, with the recipients of the largest arbitration award ever, set aside in 2016 by the Hague District Court (the jurisdiction where the arbitration was seated), dropping enforcement actions in the French and Belgian courts to focus on the Dutch appeal. Headline … Continue reading 2017 arbitration year in review
The poison pill for maintaining intra-EU BITs arbitration
The long-awaited Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Wathelet in the Achmea case has resulted in an unexpected and rather surprising Opinion. Many observers (including the present writer) had expected that the AG would hammer the final nail on the coffin of intra-EU BITs and arbitral tribunals based on these treaties. After all, the pressure by … Continue reading The poison pill for maintaining intra-EU BITs arbitration
“Expect the best, plan for the worst, and prepare to be surprised” (Denis Waitley) At the start of 2017, we predicted a lively time in the arbitration arena, and the first six months have certainly not disappointed. At the half-way mark, we find ourselves in a similar position, for example, with the continued uncertainty surrounding … Continue reading Expect the unexpected: what lies ahead in the arbitration world?
EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement: did the European Court of Justice put the final nail in the coffin of ISDS?
The European Union (EU) and Singapore concluded negotiations for a free trade agreement (FTA) in June 2015. This agreement is one of the first “new-generation” FTAs, that is to say, a trade agreement which contains, in addition to the classical provisions on the reduction of customs duties and non-tariff barriers to trade in goods and … Continue reading EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement: did the European Court of Justice put the final nail in the coffin of ISDS?
German Federal Court of Justice requests guidance from ECJ on compatibility of intra-EU BITs with EU law
The saga regarding German judicial review of the so-called “intra-EU jurisdictional objection” has reached its final stage. In the matter of Slovakia’s application to have an arbitral award of EUR 22 million in favour of Dutch insurer Achmea (formerly Eureko) set aside, the German Federal Court of Justice has requested guidance from the European Court … Continue reading German Federal Court of Justice requests guidance from ECJ on compatibility of intra-EU BITs with EU law
