My colleagues Nick Storrs and Michael Wietzorek look at the EU memberstates’ exit from bi-lateral investment treaties (BITs) in the wake of the Achmea decision of the European Court of Justice. This case had several appearances on this blog, as it made its way from the Frankfurt Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) and the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) to the European Court of Justice, first under its original name, Slovakia v. Eureko.
Investment arbitration under investment treaties between EU member states is a hot topic, in particular given the EU Commission’s strong views on the subject: The Commission has intervened in arbitrations in support of the position that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute. One such matter was Eureko v. Slovakia, apparently the first case where this issue was brought before a state court, when Slovakia challenged an interim award confirming the jurisdiction of the tribunal in the Frankfurt Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht). The Frankfurt court in May 2012 upheld the award (see here and here for comments). The matter proceeded to the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) for judicial review (Rechtsbeschwerde). The Federal Supreme court published its order (Beschluss) dated September 19, 2013 on its website earlier this week.
In the ICSID arbitration commenced by Vattenfall against Germany as a result of Germany’s nuclear opt-out, the tribunal has been constituted in December 2012. Albert Jan van den Berg (Netherlands) is the Chairman, and the party-appointed arbitrators are Vaughan Lowe (England) and Daniel M. Price (United States).
The 8th Frankfurt Roundtable on Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration is taking place on November 19, 2012. As allways, the event is being superbly organized by Alfred Escher and Jan Schäfer. Here’s a link to the full programme: Gesprächskreis Investitionsrecht und -schiedsgerichtsbarkeit 2012.