United Utilities (Tallinn) BV and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v. Republic of Estonia,Case No. ARB/14/24
Thehas deemed that the included in the Canada– is consistent with EU law, issuing its final opinion on April 30, 2019.
Twenty-twomember states endorsed a political declaration on January 15, 2019, where they announced a series of actions involving existing intra-EU BITs and upcoming or ongoing investment arbitration.
Advocate General Yves Bot issued a non-binding opinion on January 29, 2019, deeming that the included in the Canada– is compatible with EU law. Bot assessed the ICS against the EU Treaty, the and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
GREENTECH ENERGY SYSTEMS A/S & ORS. V. THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC,ARBITRATION V (2015/095)
European Union signs trade and investment agreements with Singapore; EU–Japan EPA to enter into force on February 2019
On October 19, 2018, Singapore and the European Union signed political and trade agreements as well as the–Singapore Investment Protection Agreement (IPA).
European Commission communication on protection of intra-EU investment rejects ECT as a basis for intra-EU ISDS
On July 19, 2018, the European Commission () published a communication to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union ( ) titled Protection of Intra-EU Investment.
Current and future investment treaties and chapters involvingmember states or the Union itself may be profoundly impacted by a landmark ruling of the European Court of Justice ( ). In this piece, the author explores the judgement from an EU constitutional point of view and analyzes potential consequences. Did the Achmea ruling come as a surprise to EU law insiders?
On September 6, 2017, Belgium submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union () a request for an opinion on the compatibility of the with the European Treaties.
In theory, the common European market works based on principles that protect intra-cross-border investments. In practice, can these principles be reconciled with dozens of intra-EU still in place?
The European Court of Justice published its Opinion 2/15 on the European Union–Singaporeon May 16, 2017.
Can the European Union act alone in concluding agreements such asand the –Singapore ? Or must EU member states also ratify them? Advocate General Sharpston discusses the allocation of powers in the field of investment under EU law.
CETA signed; Canada and European Union to “work expeditiously” on creating a Multilateral Investment Court
On October 30, during the 16th European Union–Canada Summit held in Brussels, the two negotiating partners signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (), after seven years of negotiations.
Advocate General renders opinion on Finland’s investment treaties with non-EU countries; Sweden begins compliance with earlier ECJ decision
October 2, 2009 Correction: The original version of this article indicated that thehad rendered a decision in the case Finland. In fact, an Advocate General has issued an opinion, which is not binding on the Court. The article has been revised accordingly. An Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) […]
European Court of Justice rules that certain Swedish and Austrian BITs are incompatible with the EC Treaty
The European Court of Justice () has ruled that certain clauses in Sweden and Austria’s bilateral investment treaties are incompatible with the European Community ( ) Treaty.
By Damon Vis-Dunbar 17 July 2008 Theadvocate general sides with the European Commission in arguing that Austria and Sweden should have amended some of the pre-accession BITs with non- countries. In an opinion issued on 10 July 2008, the European Court of Justice’s advocate general argues that provisions guaranteeing the free movement of […]