In Micula v. Romania,[1] a D.C. district court judge recently enforced an investor-state arbitration award in a case brought by nationals of a European Union (“EU”) state against another EU state. This is the first decision by a U.S. court concerning enforcement of an “intra-EU” investment treaty award since the European Court of Justice’s decision in the Achmea case[2] last year, which held that such awards are not enforceable. Several cases seeking enforcement of intra-EU…
On 20 September 2019, ICSID registered a request by the Austrian construction company STRABAG SE (“Strabag”) for the initiation of…
On September 30, 2018, the United States, Mexico and Canada (the Parties) reached an agreement to replace the…
A couple of months ago a decision by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) shocked the arbitration community: The ECJ decided in its (in)famous Achmea-decision that EU member states must not settle their disputes in arbitration proceedings agreed upon in bilateral intra-EU investment treaties (see https://www.globalarbitrationnews.com/ecj-stops-investment-arbitration-intra-eu/). The reasoning of Achmea was that EU member states are bound to use the judicial system established by the European Union. Settling disputes in private arbitration proceedings would, according…
Investment treaty arbitrations may be brought under the rules of many different arbitration institutions. As can be expected,…
The recent decision of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in the case between Slovakia vs. Achmea BV…
In a groundbreaking decision of 6 March 2018, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) shook up the arbitration community. The first reaction generally is that the CJEU has virtually stopped investment arbitration proceedings if the underlying Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) had been concluded between member states of the European Union. But is that true? To recall: BITs typically stipulate that each contracting country promises to treat investors from the other contracting country in a fair and…
Getma Int’l v. Republic of Guinea, No 16-7087 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2017) In 2008, the Republic of…
Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Gov’t of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nos. 14-597, 14-1052, 14-1497, 2017…
As the NAFTA withdrawal rhetoric heats up, it would be prudent to determine whether your company has any claims against a NAFTA government that are covered by the NAFTA investor-state dispute resolution mechanism (ISDS), and, if so, whether your company should prepare to give formal notice of its intention to bring such claims. Given the NAFTA requirement that such notice be given at least ninety days in advance, and given the agreement’s six-month termination notice…