AG Wathelet in C-284/16 Achmea: Saving ISDS?
| Authors |
|
|---|---|
| Publication date | 08-01-2018 |
| Publisher | European Law Blog |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract |
A few months ago, AG Wathelet delivered a remarkable defence
of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in international investment
agreements between Member States in his Opinion in C-284/16 Achmea. The case concerned a preliminary reference by a German court (the Federal Court of Justice, or Bundesgerichtshof)
regarding the validity of an award rendered by an ISDS tribunal under
the Dutch-Slovak bilateral investment treaty (BIT). This monetary award
against the Slovak government was the result of the partial reversal of
the privatisation of the Slovak health care system. The Opinion is the
latest development in the legal controversies surrounding ISDS and EU
law after the Micula cases and, of course, the recent Request
for an Opinion by Belgium (Opinion 1/17) on the compatibility of CETA
with the EU Treaties. Although many aspects of this Opinion merit
critical commentary, this post will focus on two issues.
|
| Document type | Web publication or website |
| Note | With a correction added on 22 March 2018. |
| Language | English |
| Published at | https://doi.org/10.21428/9885764c.9f8fb4cc |
| Downloads |
sr2fgzx0y41jjk42l8lp1uw6jjehc7ng
(Final published version)
|
| Permalink to this page | |