| Autor: |
Mauro Gatti |
| Jazyk: |
English<br />Spanish; Castilian<br />French<br />Italian |
| Rok vydání: |
2019 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
European Papers, Vol 2019 4, Iss 1, Pp 109-121 (2019) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2499-8249 |
| DOI: |
10.15166/2499-8249/259 |
| Popis: |
(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2019 4(1), 109-121 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Achmea's relevance as a precedent for Opinion 1/17. - III. Application of the Achmea test to the CETA tribunal. - IV. Conclusion: an Opinion foretold? | (Abstract) The Achmea judgment of the Court of Justice (judgment of 6 March 2018, case C-284/16 [GC]) indicates that two Member States cannot set up an investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism via a bilateral investment agreement inter se. Does this imply that the Union cannot set up an international investment tribunal through an agreement with a third State? The Court will rule on this issue in Opinion 1/17, dealing with the compatibility between the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and EU Treaties. The present Article suggests that the Court drafted Achmea having Opinion procedure 1/17 in mind. However, the Achmea judgment is ambiguous: the Court implicitly distinguished Achmea from CETA but elaborated a test potentially applicable to all investment tribunals, including the CETA Tribunal, which is at issue in Opinion procedure 1/17. Should the Court apply the Achmea test in Opinion 1/17, the fate of the CETA Tribunal might be all but sealed. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
