(magistrsko diplomsko delo)
Jana Šteblaj (Avtor), Peter Grilc (Mentor)

Povzetek

Veljavnost bilateralnih investicijskih sporazumov, sklenjenih med državami članicami EU (»intra-EU BIS«), je podvržena znatni pravni negotovosti. Evropska komisija že vrsto let poudarja, da tovrstni sporazumi pomenijo anomalijo na notranjem trgu, na drugi strani pa so investicijski arbitražni tribunali oblikovali jurisprudence constante o komplementarnosti varstva po intra-EU BIS in pravu EU. Trenja so dobila epilog v odločitvi Sodišča EU v zadevi Achmea, ki predstavlja bistven sodni mejnik glede vprašanja kompatibilnosti intra-EU BIS in prava EU. Sodišče je s sodbo, izdano v marcu 2018, ugotovilo, da arbitražna klavzula v intra-EU BIS nasprotuje avtonomiji prava EU, iz česar izhajajo obsežne posledice na investicijska razmerja v Evropski uniji. Države članice morajo intra-EU BIS odpovedati ali jih spremeniti na način, da iz obsega izključijo možnost arbitražnega reševanja investicijskih sporov, obenem pa morajo zavrniti priznanje in izvršitev novih arbitražnih odločb, izdanih na podlagi intra-EU BIS. Investitorji bodo po odpovedi intra-EU BIS izgubili možnost uveljavljanja zahtevkov pred arbitražnimi tribunali, kot edini forum za reševanje investicijskih sporov jim preostanejo domača sodišča držav gostiteljic. Materialnopravne garancije, ki jih vsebujejo intra-EU BIS, so po pravu EU primerljive, pri čemer pa je razmerje med javnim in zasebnim interesom po pravu EU bolj uravnoteženo. Kako se bodo na ugotovljeno neskladnost odzvali arbitražni tribunali, je še neznanka, se pa kažejo indici, da se svoji pristojnosti niso pripravljeni odpovedati, vse dokler intra-EU BIS ne bodo prenehali, vključno s klavzulami o časovni omejitvi veljavnosti. Stopnja abstrakcije v jeziku odločitve Sodišča spravlja v negotovost tudi vzpostavitev investicijskega sistema sodnega varstva, kot ga predvideva CETA, prihodnost multilateralnega investicijskega sodišča ter generalno koherentnost sobivanja prava EU in mednarodnega investicijskega prava.

Ključne besede

mednarodne investicije;intra-EU bilateralni investicijski sporazumi;Achmea;mednarodna investicijska arbitraža;avtonomija prava EU;prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva;posredna razlastitev;CETA;magistrske diplomske naloge;

Podatki

Jezik: Slovenski jezik
Leto izida:
Tipologija: 2.09 - Magistrsko delo
Organizacija: UL PF - Pravna fakulteta
Založnik: [J. Šteblaj]
UDK: 347.7:061.1EU(043.2)
COBISS: 16420945 Povezava se bo odprla v novem oknu
Št. ogledov: 1157
Št. prenosov: 396
Ocena: 0 (0 glasov)
Metapodatki: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Ostali podatki

Sekundarni jezik: Angleški jezik
Sekundarni naslov: The relationship between the European Union law and intra-EU bilateral investment treaties
Sekundarni povzetek: The validity of bilateral investment treaties concluded between the EU Member States (“intra-EU BITs”) is subject to considerable legal uncertainty. For many years, the European Commission has stressed that such treaties present an anomaly in the internal market, whereby on the other hand, arbitration tribunals have established jurisprudence constante standing up for complementarity of protection under the intra-EU BITs and the EU law. The friction has been given an epilogue in the decision of the EU Court of Justice rendered in the Achmea case, which represents an essential milestone on the question of compatibility of the intra-EU BITs and the EU law. In the judgment rendered in March 2018, the Court found that an arbitration clause contained in an intra-EU BIT contradicts the autonomy of the EU law, which shall result in far-reaching repercussions on investment relations in the EU. Member States must terminate the intra-EU BITs or modify them in such a way as to exclude the possibility of arbitrating the investment disputes, and must furthermore reject the recognition and enforcement of any new arbitral awards issued on the basis of an intra-EU BIT. After the termination of intra-EU BITs, investors will be deprived of the possibility of raising claims before arbitration tribunals, as domestic courts of the host states will remain the only forum for resolving investment disputes. The substantive legal guarantees contained in intra-EU BITs are comparable to those provided by the EU law, while the ratio between public and private interests is more balanced under EU law. It is still mostly unknown how arbitration tribunals will react to the established inconsistency, however, there are indications are that they are not willing to renounce their competence until the intra-EU BIS stop being applicable, including considering the sunset clauses contained therein. The degree of abstraction in the language of the Court's decision imposes uncertainty also upon the establishment of the investment court system as foreseen by CETA, the future of the multilateral investment court, and the general coherence of the coexistence of the EU law and the international investment law.
Sekundarne ključne besede: international investments;intra-EU bilateral investment treaties;international investment arbitration;autonomy of EU Law;prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality;indirect expropriation;
Vrsta dela (COBISS): Magistrsko delo/naloga
Študijski program: 0
Komentar na gradivo: Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Strani: 67 f.
ID: 10978733