Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Return to Contract-Based Arbitration as a Possible Response to Achmea

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2021

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 12))

  • 452 Accesses

Abstract

The Achmea ruling marked the end of treaty-based intra-EU arbitration. Apart from an increasing recourse to state courts, the extinction of the BIT system within the EU could lead to a revival of arbitration clauses in investor-state contracts. This begs the question of whether the arguments brought forward by the ECJ translate to contract-based arbitration.

ISDS clauses in investor-state contracts neither violate the principle of mutual trust nor the principle of non-discrimination foreseen in Article 18(1) TFEU. Concerns arise with regard to Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, as well as the autonomy of EU law. Intra-EU investment arbitral proceedings are typically governed by EU law, even if initiated on a contractual basis. Nevertheless, the arbitral tribunals do not have the power to refer questions for a preliminary ruling, while dealing with disputes which, according to the vision of the European Treaties, fall within the jurisdiction of state courts.

But even in light of these similarities, there might be a reason to assess contract-based investment arbitration differently from treaty-based arbitration and, in fact, subject it to the standard applied to commercial arbitration: the fact that ISDS clauses in investor-state contracts do not represent a system solution.

The author wishes to thank Julian Scheu, LL.M. (International Investment Law Centre Cologne) for the stimulating first discussions on this topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), pp. 254–264.

  2. 2.

    For a detailed overview of this transition see de Nanteuil (2020), paras. 1.001–1.102.

  3. 3.

    Cp. Griebel (2008), p. 93.

  4. 4.

    ICSID, The ICSID Case Load Statistics – Issue 2020-2, p. 11.

  5. 5.

    Brower (2019), p. 110.

  6. 6.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.

  7. 7.

    Cp. Lavranos N, Black Tuesday: the end of intra-EU BITs. Thomson Reuters Practical Law Arbitration Blog, 7 March 2018, http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/black-tuesday-the-end-of-intra-eu-bits/.

  8. 8.

    There were three declarations in total, because Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden, on the one hand, and Hungary, on the other hand, had diverging opinions on the impact of the Achmea ruling on the ECT and the steps necessary in this regard. For the declaration signed by the majority of 22 Member States, see Declaration on the Legal Consequences of the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on Investment Protection in the European Union, 15 January 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/190117-bilateral-investment-treaties_en.

  9. 9.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, OJ 2020 L 169/1. On the content of the agreement see Farhadi and Van Waeyenberge (2020), p. 940 f., who attest to a ‘language of moderate legal pluralism’.

  10. 10.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 55.

  11. 11.

    See e.g. European American Investment Bank AG (Austria) v. The Slovak Republic, Award on Jurisdiction (22 October 2012) PCA Case No. 2010–17, paras. 116–120; Ioan Micula et al. v. Romania, Award (11 December 2013) ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, paras. 334–336.

  12. 12.

    See e.g. Commission Decision (EU) No. 2015/1470 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania – Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013, OJ 2015 L 232/43.

  13. 13.

    European Commission, IP/15/5198.

  14. 14.

    European Commission, Written observation in Case C-284/16, para. 51.

  15. 15.

    Yackee (2008), p. 122 ff. Cp. also Puig and Shaffer (2018), p. 384 f.

  16. 16.

    Achmea B.V. (formerly known as ‘Euroko B.V.’) v. Slovak Republic, Final Award (7 December 2012) PCA Case No. 2008-13.

  17. 17.

    Higher Regional Court Frankfurt (18 December 2014) 26 Sch 3/13.

  18. 18.

    German Federal Court (3 March 2016) I ZB 2/15.

  19. 19.

    Cp. Dittert (2015), para. 1.

  20. 20.

    Cp. Andersen and Hindelang (2016), p. 997.

  21. 21.

    Cp. Paparinskis (2016), p. 935 f. who stresses the relevance of domestic law for investor’s remedies in EU law.

  22. 22.

    Cp. Klages (2018), p. 218; Andersen et al. (2016), p. 997. For an overview of the remedies available to investors to enforce their rights under EU law against Member States see Gonin and O’Reilly (2020), pp. 81–88.

  23. 23.

    Cp. Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, paras. 39–42.

  24. 24.

    See Boknik (2020), pp. 94–112.

  25. 25.

    Article 8(6) of the BIT between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, published in Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 4.

  26. 26.

    Cp. Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, paras. 41 f.

  27. 27.

    On an extensive interpretation of the provision see e.g. European Commission, Written observation in Case C-284/16, paras. 93–98. On a restrictive interpretation see e.g. Reinisch (2014), p. 153; Kaddous (2013), p. 5. At the time of the ruling, at least in German-speaking literature the opinion prevailed that Article 344 TFEU only applied to disputes between Member States and ISDS, therefore, did not fall within its scope, see e.g. Kottmann (2016), p. 519; Tietje (2011), p. 17; cp. Wehland (2008), p. 233; for a different view see Jaeger (2016), p. 225.

  28. 28.

    Dupuy (1999), p. 796 f.

  29. 29.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 59.

  30. 30.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 32.

  31. 31.

    Cp. Bermann (2019), p. 974 who refers to a ‘major development in EU law that has been brewing for a while’ in this regard.

  32. 32.

    See e.g. Opinion 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454; Opinion 1/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123; Opinion 1/91 ECLI:EU:C:1991:490.

  33. 33.

    See e.g. Opinion 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, para. 201; Joined Cases C-402/05 P and 415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, para. 282; Case C-459/03 Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2006:345, para. 123; Opinion 1/91, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490, para. 35.

  34. 34.

    Cp. Opinion 1/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:231, paras. 12, 20; Opinion 1/92, ECLI:EU:C:1992:189, paras. 32, 41.

  35. 35.

    See Opinion 1/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, para. 80.

  36. 36.

    Opinion 1/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, para. 80. Cp. also Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, paras. 292, 303.

  37. 37.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 55 [reference ommitted].

  38. 38.

    Joined Cases C-558/15 and 563/18 Miasto Łowicz v. Skarb Państwa – Wojewoda Łódzki, ECLI:EU:C:2020:234, para. 55; Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 37.

  39. 39.

    Joined Cases C-558/15 and 563/18 Miasto Łowicz v. Skarb Państwa – Wojewoda Łódzki, ECLI:EU:C:2020:234, para. 55; Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 37.

  40. 40.

    The starting-point was Case 61/65, Mrs. G. Vaassen (née Göbbels)(a widow) v. Management of the Beambtenfonds voor het Mijnbedrijf, ECLI:EU:C:1966:39.

  41. 41.

    See inter alia Case C-503/15 Ramón Margarit Panicello v. Pilar Hernández Martínez, ECLI:EU:C:2017:126, para. 27; Case C-203/14 Consorci Sanitari del Maresme v. Corporació de Salut del Maresme i la Selva, ECLI:EU:C:2015:664, para. 17; Case C-222/13 TDC A/S v. Erhvervsstyrelsen, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2265, para. 27. See also ECJ, Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, OJ 2019 C 380/01, para. 4.

  42. 42.

    Case 102/81 Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v. Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG und Co. KG et al., ECLI:EU:C:1982:107.

  43. 43.

    Case C-377/13 Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta SA v. Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1754, para. 27; Case C-555/13 Merck Canada Inc. v. Accord Healthcare Ltd et al., ECLI:EU:C:2014:92, para. 17; Case C-125/04 Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier v. Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages et Culture SA, ECLI:EU:C:2005:69, para. 13; Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV, ECLI:EU:C:1999:269, para. 34; Case 102/81 Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v. Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG und Co. KG et al., ECLI:EU:C:1982:107, paras. 11–13.

  44. 44.

    For a different opinion see Basedow (2015), p. 377 f.

  45. 45.

    For a different opinion see Paschalidis (2017), pp. 681–683.

  46. 46.

    Cp. Case C-377/13 Ascendi Beiras Litoral e Alta, Auto Estradas das Beiras Litoral e Alta SA v. Autoridade Tributaria e Aduaneira, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1754, paras. 25 f.

  47. 47.

    For a different opinion, in particular with regard to ICSID tribunals see von Papp (2013), p. 1072.

  48. 48.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, paras. 43–49.

  49. 49.

    Case 102/81 Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v. Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG und Co. KG et al., ECLI:EU:C:1982:107, paras. 14 f.

  50. 50.

    Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV, ECLI:EU:C:1999:269, para. 35.

  51. 51.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 54 [reference ommitted].

  52. 52.

    See Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 55.

  53. 53.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 55 [Reference omitted].

  54. 54.

    On the evolutionary interpretation of Article 18(1) TFEU see Boknik (2020), pp. 266–272.

  55. 55.

    See e.g. Heesen (2015), p. 336 f.; Henquet (2013), p. 377 f.

  56. 56.

    Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 61.

  57. 57.

    Case C-327/18 PPU, RO, ECLI:EU:C:2018:733, para. 34; Case C-216/18 PPU LM, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, para. 35; Case C-220/18 PPU ML, ECLI:EU:C:2018:589, para. 48; Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 34; Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas, ECLI:EU:C:2018:117, para. 30; Opinion 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, para. 168.

  58. 58.

    Case C-327/18 PPU, RO, ECLI:EU:C:2018:733, para. 34; Case C-216/18 PPU LM, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, para. 35; Case C-220/18 PPU ML, ECLI:EU:C:2018:589, para. 48; Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas, ECLI:EU:C:2018:117, para. 30; Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 34; Opinion 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, para. 168.

  59. 59.

    See Case C-34/17 Eamonn Donnellan v. The Revenue Commissioners, ECLI:EU:C:2018:282, para. 40; Case C-216/18 PPU LM, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, para. 36; Case C-220/18 PPU ML, ECLI:EU:C:2018:589, para. 49; Joined Cases C-404/15 and 659/15 PPU, Pal Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198, para. 78; Opinion 2/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454, para. 191.

  60. 60.

    See Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 58.

  61. 61.

    Cp. Case C-216/18 PPU LM, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, para. 58 f.

  62. 62.

    For an overview of this case and five other cases in the Swedish courts concerning intra-EU disputes and the impact of the Achmea ruling see Hope and Åkerlund (2020), p. 105 ff.

  63. 63.

    PL Holdings S.à.r.l. v. Republic of Poland, Partial Award (28 June 2017) SCC Case No. V 2014/163, paras. 307–317.

  64. 64.

    PL Holdings S.à.r.l. v. Republic of Poland, Final Award (28 September 2017) SCC Case No. V 2014/163.

  65. 65.

    Svea Court of Appeal (22 February 2019) T 8538-17, T 12033-17. This paper takes the unofficial translation made by www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com as a reference.

  66. 66.

    Svea Court of Appeal (22 February 2019) T 8538-17, T 12033-17, p.42.

  67. 67.

    Svea Court of Appeal (22 February 2019) T 8538-17, T 12033-17, p. 43 f., 48, 51.

  68. 68.

    Svea Court of Appeal (22 February 2019) T 8538-17, T 12033-17, pp. 52–56.

  69. 69.

    Swedish Supreme Court (4 February 2020) T 1569-19. This paper takes the request for a preliminary ruling as translated and published as working document by the ECJ in Case C-109/20 as a reference.

  70. 70.

    Swedish Supreme Court (4 February 2020) T 1569-19, para. 54.

  71. 71.

    Swedish Supreme Court (4 February 2020) T 1569-19, para. 55.

  72. 72.

    Swedish Supreme Court (4 February 2020) T 1569-19, para. 56.

  73. 73.

    Swedish Supreme Court (4 February 2020) T 1569-19, para. 57.

  74. 74.

    See already above under Sect. 2.4.

  75. 75.

    See already above under Sect. 2.5.

  76. 76.

    Boisson De Chazournes (2019), pp. 98–101.

  77. 77.

    On the corresponding qualification of the treaty-based regime see Poland, Written observation in Case C-284/16, para. 116. Cp. also Czech Republic, Written observation in Case C-284/16, para. 22.

  78. 78.

    See Yackee (2008), p. 139.

  79. 79.

    This assessment is made under the assumption that the ECJ’s favourable position towards commercial arbitration does not change. On a potentially very disruptive relationship between private arbitration and the principle of effectiveness of EU law see, however, Penades Fons (2020), p. 1069 ff.

  80. 80.

    Cp. Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 55.

  81. 81.

    On the coexistence of parallel jurisdictions in investment disputes see Audit (2015), p. 941.

  82. 82.

    Brower and Kumar (2015), p. 35 ff.

  83. 83.

    Brower (2019), p. 107 f., 113 f.

  84. 84.

    Brower (2019), p. 115; see ibid pp. 115–120 for examples of cases in which a private-public relationship underlies the dispute although no state is a direct party.

  85. 85.

    Cp. Wehland (2009), p. 319.

  86. 86.

    See Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV, ECLI:EU:C:1999:269 para. 35.

  87. 87.

    Czech Republic, Written observation in Case C-284/16, para. 21.

  88. 88.

    Cp. Czech Republic, Written observation in Case C-284/16, para. 21; von Papp (2013), p. 1059.

  89. 89.

    Czech Republic, Written observation in Case C-284/16, para. 21. See, however, Penades Fons (2020), p. 1071 who argues that even if the legislation in certain areas is aimed at regulating private relationships, the EU instruments in those areas ultimately also pursue objectives pertaining to the area of regulatory law, like the establishment of harmonized normative frameworks and standards of protection in sectors which are deemed strategic for the internal market.

  90. 90.

    von Papp (2013), p. 1059 with a further reference. Cp. also Schill (2011), p. 144.

  91. 91.

    von Papp (2013), p. 1059 f.

  92. 92.

    Cp. Brower (2019), p. 120 f.

  93. 93.

    Brower (2019), p. 108.

  94. 94.

    Cp. Van Harten (2008), p. 65.

  95. 95.

    Brower (2019), p. 120 f.

  96. 96.

    See Swedish Supreme Court (4 February 2020) T 1569-19.

  97. 97.

    See Brower and Schill (2009), p. 481 f.; but see also the evidence presented in Behn (2015), pp. 384–386 which according to the author suggests that, due to the high resources necessary for international legal claims, investment treaty arbitration, as well, is primarily geared for large and extra-large MNEs.

  98. 98.

    Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341, paras. 214–219.

References

  • Andersen TT, Hindelang S (2016) The day after: alternatives to intra-EU BITs. J World Invest Trade 17(6):984–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audit M (2015) La coexistence de procédures contentieuses en matière d’investissements étrangers. In: Leben C (ed) Droit international des investissements et de l’arbitrage transnational. Editions A. Pedone, Paris, pp 941–965

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2015) EU law in international arbitration: referrals to the European Court of Justice. J Int Arbitr 32(4):367–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn D (2015) Legitimacy, evolution, and growth in investment treaty arbitration: empirically evaluating the state-of-the-art. Georgetown J Int Law 46(2):363–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermann GA (2019) European Union law and international arbitration at a crossroads. Fordham Int Law J 42(3):967–980

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisson De Chazournes L (2019) The blurring of the line between contract-based and treaty-based investment arbitration. ITA Rev 1(2):98–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Boknik B (2020) Das Verhältnis von EuGH und Investitionsschiedsgerichten auf der Grundlage von intra-EU BIT – eine Analyse anhand des Falls Achmea. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower CN (2019) Keynote remarks: State parties in contract-based arbitration: origins, problems and prospects of private-public arbitration. ITA Rev 1(2):107–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower CN, Kumar SP (2015) Investomercial arbitration: whence cometh it? What is it? Whither goeth it? ICSID Rev 30(1):35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower CN, Schill SW (2009) Is arbitration a threat or a boon to the legitimacy of international investment law. Chicago J Int Law 9(2):471–498

    Google Scholar 

  • de Nanteuil A (2020) International investment law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dittert D (2015) Artikel 344 AEUV. In: von der Groeben H et al (eds) Europäisches Unionsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy PM (1999) The danger of fragmentation or unification of the international legal system and the International Court of Justice. New York Univ J Int Law Polit 31(4):791–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Farhadi AA, Van Waeyenberge A (2020) Reconciling international investment law and European Union law in the wake of Achmea. Int Comp Law Q 69(4):907–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonin E, O’Reilly R (2020) Intra-EU investment protection and the rule of law. In: Stanič A, Baltag C (eds) The future of investment treaty arbitration in the EU: Intra-EU BITs, the energy charter treaty, and the multilateral investment court. Kluwer Law International, Zuidpoolsingel, pp 63–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Griebel J (2008) Internationales Investitionsrecht. C. H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Heesen J (2015) Interne Abkommen – Völkerrechtliche Verträge zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Henquet T (2013) International investment and the European Union: an uneasy relationship. In: Baetens F (ed) Investment law within international law – integrationist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 375–386

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hope J, Åkerlund T (2020) All eyes on Sweden: Swedish challenge cases post-Achmea. In: Stanič A, Baltag C (eds) The future of investment treaty arbitration in the EU: Intra-EU BITs, the energy charter treaty, and the multilateral investment court. Kluwer Law International, Zuidpoolsingel, pp 105–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger T (2016) Zum Vorschlag einer permanenten Investitionsgerichtsbarkeit. Europarecht:203–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaddous C (2013) Arbitrage, Union européenne et accords bilatéraux d’investissement. Swiss Rev Int Eur Law 23(3):3–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Klages R (2018) Autonomie sticht Schiedsklausel. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht:217–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Kottmann M (2016) Investitionsschutzrecht: EuGH-Vorlage zur Wirksamkeit von Schiedsvereinbarungen in Investitionsschutzabkommen. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht:512–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Paparinskis M (2016) Investors’ remedies under EU law and international business law. J World Invest Trade 17(6):919–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paschalidis P (2017) Arbitral tribunals and preliminary references to the EU Court of Justice. Arbitr Int 33(4):663–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Penades Fons M (2020) The effectiveness of EU law and private arbitration. Common Mark Law Rev 57(4):1069–1106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puig S, Shaffer G (2018) Imperfect alternatives: institutional choice and the reform of investment law. Am J Int Law 112(3):361–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2014) The EU on the investment path – Quo vadis Europe? The future of EU BITs and other investment agreements. Santa Clara J Int Law 12(1):111–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2011) Arbitration procedure: the role of the European Union and the Member States in investor-state arbitration. In: Kessedjian C (ed) Le droit européen et l’arbitrage d’investissement. Panthéon-Assas, Paris, pp 129–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C (2011) Bilaterale Investitionsschutzverträge zwischen EU-Mitgliedstaaten (Intra-EU-BITs) als Herausforderung im Mehrebenensystem des Rechts. Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht 104

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Harten G (2008) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Papp K (2013) Clash of ‘autonomous legal orders’: Can EU Member State courts bridge the jurisdictional divide between investment tribunals and the ECJ? A plea for direct referral from investment tribunals to the ECJ. Common Mark Law Rev 50(4):1039–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehland H (2008) Schiedsverfahren auf der Grundlage bilateraler Investitionsschutzabkommen zwischen EU-Mitgliedstaaten und die Einwendung des entgegenstehenden Gemeinschaftsrechts. Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren:222–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehland H (2009) Intra-EU investment agreements and arbitration: Is European community law an obstacle? Int Comp Law Q 58(2):297–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackee JW (2008) Do we really need BITs - toward a return to contract in international investment law. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 3(1):121–146

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Higher Regional Court of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Berta Boknik

Authors
  1. Berta Boknik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jelena Bäumler

  2. Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany

    Christina Binder

  3. Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  4. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  5. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Giesela Rühl

  6. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  7. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  8. Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boknik, B. (2022). Return to Contract-Based Arbitration as a Possible Response to Achmea. In: Bäumler, J., et al. European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2021. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2021_77

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2021_77

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05082-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05083-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation