King's College London

Research portal

Digging Deeper: Summary of the Hearing before the CJEU in the Achmea Case

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Standard

Digging Deeper: Summary of the Hearing before the CJEU in the Achmea Case. / Weber, Simon; Cavedon, Antonia.

European Investment Law and Arbitration Review. ed. / Nikos Lavranos; Loukas Mistelis. Vol. 3 Brill Nijhoff, 2018. p. 225-241.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Harvard

Weber, S & Cavedon, A 2018, Digging Deeper: Summary of the Hearing before the CJEU in the Achmea Case. in N Lavranos & L Mistelis (eds), European Investment Law and Arbitration Review. vol. 3, Brill Nijhoff, pp. 225-241.

APA

Weber, S., & Cavedon, A. (2018). Digging Deeper: Summary of the Hearing before the CJEU in the Achmea Case. In N. Lavranos, & L. Mistelis (Eds.), European Investment Law and Arbitration Review (Vol. 3, pp. 225-241). Brill Nijhoff.

Vancouver

Weber S, Cavedon A. Digging Deeper: Summary of the Hearing before the CJEU in the Achmea Case. In Lavranos N, Mistelis L, editors, European Investment Law and Arbitration Review. Vol. 3. Brill Nijhoff. 2018. p. 225-241

Author

Weber, Simon ; Cavedon, Antonia. / Digging Deeper: Summary of the Hearing before the CJEU in the Achmea Case. European Investment Law and Arbitration Review. editor / Nikos Lavranos ; Loukas Mistelis. Vol. 3 Brill Nijhoff, 2018. pp. 225-241

Bibtex Download

@inbook{f4bee3565457436580c3c41efb2632f4,
title = "Digging Deeper: Summary of the Hearing before the CJEU in the Achmea Case",
abstract = "On 6 March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered itsmuch-awaited judgment in Slovak Republic v Achmea, in which it found that the arbitrationclause contained in Article 8 of The Netherlands-Slovak Republic BIT wasincompatible with EU law. While the implications of this decision are not entirelyclear yet, it is generally agreed that it is likely to have an impact on pending and futurearbitration proceedings initiated pursuant to arbitration clauses contained in intra-EUbilateral investment treaties (BITS). This article illustrates the arguments presented atthe hearing that took place before the CJEU on 19 June 2017. The contribution addressestwo main points. First, it lays out the arguments of the disputing parties, the SlovakRepublic and Achmea. Second, it sheds light on the positions of the several interestedEU Member States as argued at the hearing in Luxembourg. At the hearing, the interestedMember States presented opposing views on the interpretation of Articles 344,267, and 18 TFEU. This article facilitates the understanding of the different ways inwhich these Articles are interpreted, and have been interpreted, by the Member Statesand sets out their arguments in favour or against intra-EU BITS. The multiplicity of theviews expressed at the hearing may assist the interested audience in understandinghow the Advocate General Wathelet and the CJEU could reach such different conclusionson the same case.",
keywords = "Investment Arbitration, Achmea, Intra-EU BITs, CJEU",
author = "Simon Weber and Antonia Cavedon",
year = "2018",
month = nov,
day = "29",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "225--241",
editor = "Nikos Lavranos and Loukas Mistelis",
booktitle = "European Investment Law and Arbitration Review",
publisher = "Brill Nijhoff",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - CHAP

T1 - Digging Deeper: Summary of the Hearing before the CJEU in the Achmea Case

AU - Weber, Simon

AU - Cavedon, Antonia

PY - 2018/11/29

Y1 - 2018/11/29

N2 - On 6 March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered itsmuch-awaited judgment in Slovak Republic v Achmea, in which it found that the arbitrationclause contained in Article 8 of The Netherlands-Slovak Republic BIT wasincompatible with EU law. While the implications of this decision are not entirelyclear yet, it is generally agreed that it is likely to have an impact on pending and futurearbitration proceedings initiated pursuant to arbitration clauses contained in intra-EUbilateral investment treaties (BITS). This article illustrates the arguments presented atthe hearing that took place before the CJEU on 19 June 2017. The contribution addressestwo main points. First, it lays out the arguments of the disputing parties, the SlovakRepublic and Achmea. Second, it sheds light on the positions of the several interestedEU Member States as argued at the hearing in Luxembourg. At the hearing, the interestedMember States presented opposing views on the interpretation of Articles 344,267, and 18 TFEU. This article facilitates the understanding of the different ways inwhich these Articles are interpreted, and have been interpreted, by the Member Statesand sets out their arguments in favour or against intra-EU BITS. The multiplicity of theviews expressed at the hearing may assist the interested audience in understandinghow the Advocate General Wathelet and the CJEU could reach such different conclusionson the same case.

AB - On 6 March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered itsmuch-awaited judgment in Slovak Republic v Achmea, in which it found that the arbitrationclause contained in Article 8 of The Netherlands-Slovak Republic BIT wasincompatible with EU law. While the implications of this decision are not entirelyclear yet, it is generally agreed that it is likely to have an impact on pending and futurearbitration proceedings initiated pursuant to arbitration clauses contained in intra-EUbilateral investment treaties (BITS). This article illustrates the arguments presented atthe hearing that took place before the CJEU on 19 June 2017. The contribution addressestwo main points. First, it lays out the arguments of the disputing parties, the SlovakRepublic and Achmea. Second, it sheds light on the positions of the several interestedEU Member States as argued at the hearing in Luxembourg. At the hearing, the interestedMember States presented opposing views on the interpretation of Articles 344,267, and 18 TFEU. This article facilitates the understanding of the different ways inwhich these Articles are interpreted, and have been interpreted, by the Member Statesand sets out their arguments in favour or against intra-EU BITS. The multiplicity of theviews expressed at the hearing may assist the interested audience in understandinghow the Advocate General Wathelet and the CJEU could reach such different conclusionson the same case.

KW - Investment Arbitration

KW - Achmea

KW - Intra-EU BITs

KW - CJEU

UR - https://brill.com/abstract/journals/eilo/3/1/article-p223_11.xml

M3 - Chapter

VL - 3

SP - 225

EP - 241

BT - European Investment Law and Arbitration Review

A2 - Lavranos, Nikos

A2 - Mistelis, Loukas

PB - Brill Nijhoff

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454