Prihodnost mednarodne investicijske arbitraže v Evropski uniji…
Povzetek: Sodba Sodišča Evropske unije (EU) v zadevi Achmea je močno zamajala temelje mednarodne investicijske arbitraže na območju Evropske unije, zato prispevek najprej kritično analizira sodbo v zadevi Achmea, nato pa se osredotoči na odzive mednarodnih investicijskih tribunalov, predvsem v okviru postopkov na podlagi Pogodbe o energetski listini (ECT) ter postopkov, ki potekajo pod okriljem Mednarodnega centra za reševanje investicijskih sporov (ICSID). Prispevek prek nedavnih arbitražnih odločb predstavi pomembne razlike med pravnimi okoliščinami, o katerih je odločalo Sodišče EU v zadevi Achmea, in tistimi, ki se pojavljajo v primerih, začetih na podlagi multilateralnih investicijskih sporazumov, sklenjenih z vsaj eno državo nečlanico EU (s tako imenovanim ekstra-EU elementom). Prav tako opozori na (ne)možnost učinkov sodbe Achmea v - dualistično gledano - različnih pravnih sferah mednarodnega javnega prava in pravnega reda držav članic EU. Prispevek vsebuje tudi kritično analizo Mnenja SEU 1/17 o skladnosti sporazuma CETA s pravnim redom Evropske unije in njegovega vpliva na prihodnost mednarodne investicijske arbitraže.
Ključne besede: mednarodna investicijska arbitraža, mednarodno javno pravo, pravo EU, Achmea, CETA
Title: The Future of International Investment Arbitration in the European Union and its Member States
Abstract:The judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case of Achmea rocked the foundations of international investment arbitration in the European Union. After a critical analysis of the decision in the case of Achmea, the article focuses on how international investment tribunals dealt with this decision, especially in proceedings based on the Energy Charter Treaty and in proceedings under the auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. The article showcases important legal differences between the case of Achmea and other cases based on multilateral investment treaties with at least one non-EU state party (a so-called extra-EU element) through recent arbitral awards. It highlights the (lack of) effects of the Achmea judgement in, as seen from a dualistic prism, different legal spheres of public international law and the law of EU member states. The article presents differing responses of EU member states to the Achmea judgement through multiple declarations issued by them and their possible effects. It also provides a critical analysis of the CJEU Opinion 1/17 about the compatibility of CETA with the EU legal order and its impact on the future of international investment arbitration.
Keywords: international investment arbitration, public international law, EU law, Achmea, CETA
