Skip to main content Skip to page footer
elni logo elni logo

Belgium Requests an Opinion on Investment Court System in CETA

Laurens Ankersmit

elni Review 2016, Issue 2, pp. 54-57. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2016.008

On 29 of October the leaders of the Belgian federal government and the regional and community governments reached a compromise deal over the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). One of the key outcomes is that the Belgian federal government will seek the Opinion of the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of the Investment Court System (ICS) in Chapter Eight of CETA with the EU Treaties. As soon as the Belgian federal government makes the request for an Opinion, the Court will be able to express itself on this contentious legal issue. This article provides some background on the origins of the Walloon request before explaining why ICS could potentially pose a legal problem for the EU.

Access full article

References

  1. Statements to the Council minutes of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and its Member States ST 13463 2016 REV 1.
  2. Resolution of the Parliament of Wallonia of 25 April 2016 on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
  3. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2011, Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 8 March 2011. Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC. Opinion delivered pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU - Draft agreement - Creation of a unified patent litigation system - European and Community Patents Court - Compatibility of the draft agreement with the Treaties (Opinion 1/09).
  4. Legal statement on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in TTIP and CETA (October 2016).
  5. L. Ankersmit, The Compatibility of Investment Arbitration in EU Trade Agreements with the EU Judicial System, Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law 13 (2016) pp. 46-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01301004.
  6. M. Cremona, Guest Editorial: Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), Common Market Law Review 52 (2015) 52, pp. 351–362.
  7. Govaere, TTIP and Dispute Settlement: Potential Consequences for the Autonomous EU Legal Order, College of Europe Research Paper in Law 1/2016 (July 2016).
  8. J. Kokott and C. Sobotta, Investment Arbitration and EU law, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 18 (2016), pp. 3-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2016.5.
  9. G. Uwera, Investor- State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in Future EU Investment-Related Agreements: Is the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order an Obstacle?, The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 15 (2016), pp. 102-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341312.
  10. H. Lenk, Investor-state arbitration under TTIP: Resolving investment disputes in an (autonomous) EU legal order, Report for Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies (SIEPS) (2015) 2.
  11. Dimopoulos, The Compatibility of Future EU Investment Agreements with EU Law, Legal Issues of Economic Integration 39 (2012), pp. 447–471.
  12. Dimopoulos, The involvement of the EU in investor-state dispute settlement: A question of responsibilities, Common Market Law Review 51 (2014), pp. 1671–1720.
  13. Carta, Do investor-to- state dispute settlement mechanisms fit in the EU legal system? elni Review 02/2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2014.004.
  14. J. Kleinheisterkamp, Investment Protection and EU Law: The Intra- and Extra-E Dimension of The Energy Charter Treaty, Journal of International Economic Law 15 (2012), pp. 85–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgs004.
  15. S. Hindelang, Repellent Forces: The CJEU and Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Archiv des Völkerrechts 53 (2015), pp. 68–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1628/000389215X14327358584886.
  16. N. Lavranos, Designing an International Investor-to- State Arbitration System after Opinion 1/09, in M. Bungenberg and C. Herrmann (eds.), Common Commercial Policy after Lisbon 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34255-4_12.
  17. Deutscher Richterbund, Stellungnahme zur Errichtung eines Investitionsgerichts für ttip – Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission vom 16.09.2015 und 12.11.2015, February 2016.
  18. European Association of Judges, Statement from the European Association of Judges (EAJ) on the proposal from the European Commission on a new investment court system, 9 November 2015.
  19. European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2015 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (2014/2228(INI)).
  20. Legal opinion of 1 June 2016 “Investment dispute settlement provisions in the EU’s trade agreements".
  21. ClientEarth, ‘Legal Briefing EP Legal Service Opinion in CETA’ 5 September 2016.
  22. European Economic and Social Committee, 'Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Investor protection and investor to state dispute settlement in EU trade and investment agreements with third countries' (27 May 2015).
  23. European Commission, ‘Commission asks Member States to terminate their intra-EU bilateral investment treaties’ IP/15/5198 18 June 2015.
  24. European Commission Amicus Curiae submission as quoted by the arbitration tribunal in Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13 (award on jurisdiction 7 December 2012).
  25. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2014, Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014. Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU. Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU — Draft international agreement — Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties (Case Opinion 2/13).
  26. Court of Justice of the European Union, 1963, Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963. NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tariefcommissie – Netherlands (Case 26-62).
  27. EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.
  28. J. Hepburn, CETA’s New Domestic Law Clause, EJIL: Talk!.
  29. Court of Justice of the European Union, 1974, Judgment of the Court of 30 April 1974. R. & V. Haegeman v Belgian State. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles – Belgium (Case 181-73).
  30. Court of Justice of the European Union, 1982, Judgment of the Court of 6 October 1982. Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Corte suprema di Cassazione - Italy. Obligation to request a preliminary ruling (Case 283/81).
  31. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2010, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010.Françoise-Eléonor Hanssens-Ensch v European Community. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles - Belgium. Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to hear and determine an action for damages brought against the European Community on the basis of non-contractual liability - Action to make good a shortfall in assets within the meaning of Article 530(1) of the Belgian Code des sociétés - Action brought against the European Community by the insolvency administrator of a limited company - Jurisdiction of national courts to hear and determine such an action (Case C-377/09).
  32. K. Lenaerts, I. Maselis, and K. Gutman, EU procedural law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
  33. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2008, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 September 2008. Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA (FIAMM) and Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies LLC (C-120/06 P), Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America, Inc. (C-121/06 P) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities. Appeals - Recommendations and rulings of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body - Determination of the Dispute Settlement Body that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with WTO rules - Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports of certain products from various Member States - Retaliatory measures authorised by the WTO - No non-contractual Community liability - Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance - Reasonable period - Claim for fair compensation (Joined cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P).
  34. J. Kleinheisterkamp, Financial Responsibility in European International Investment Policy, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 63 (2014), pp. 449-476. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589314000116. 
  35. European Commission, 'Concept paper: Investment in TTIP and beyond - the path for reform'.
  36. R. Wish, Intel v Commission: Keep Calm and Carry on! Journal of European Competition Law & Practice (2014).
  37. M. Jacob and S. Schill, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method’ in: M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hobe (eds.), International Investment Law, 2015, pp. 700-763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845258997-749.
  38. Court of Justice of the European Union, 2013, udgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition), 12 June 2014 (publication by extracts) Intel Corp. v European Commission. Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Microprocessors market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Loyalty rebates — ‘Naked’ restrictions — Classification as abuse — As-efficient-competitor analysis — Commission’s international jurisdiction — Obligation on the Commission to investigate — Limits — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Overall strategy — Fines — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines (Case T‑286/09).
  39. European Ombudsman, Decision of the European Ombudsman closing his inquiry into complaint 1935/2008/FOR against the European Commission (14 July 2009).
  40. Opinion 2/15: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU, OJ 2015 C363/18.