The Last Bite of the BITs—Supremacy of EU Law versus Investment Treaty Arbitration

According to Article 267 TFEU, national courts of the EU Member States can (and sometimes must) ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation and application of Community law, including international treaties and recommendations, and on the validity of Community secondary legislation. In this way, it is ensured that EU citizens are treated equally throughout the Union. However, this is not applicable when it comes to arbitral proceedings, be they commercial or investment arbitrations. The Court does not accept references for preliminary rulings from arbitral tribunals. For this reason, respondent states in international arbitral proceedings have argued that arbitration and EU law are utterly incompatible. In their submissions as respondents in arbitral proceedings, EU Member States have argued that, as a result of EU accession, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been automatically terminated. In subsidiary, they sometimes claim that, due to their incompatibility with EU law, BITs cannot apply. But if BITs are not applicable anymore, there are few remedies left for investors within the EU.     

The Constitutional Relevance of Citizenship and Free Movement in an Enlarged Union

Abstract The concept of citizenship is analysed on three seemingly contradictory levels: its integration by the recent case law of the European Court of Justice into the existing free movement acquis, its restriction in the accession treaties with new Member States concerning free movement of workers, and its redefinition by new Member States themselves. The result is a somewhat blurred picture: While the European Court of Justices uses citizenship to fill gaps left by primary and secondary law mostly with regard to non‐discrimination, the accession treaties have allowed a ‘re‐nationalisation’ of free movement, against the promises of equality inherent in the citizenship concept, which also includes nationals from new Member countries. The concept of citizenship itself in new Member countries, as the examples of Latvia and Estonia on the one hand, and Hungary on the other demonstrate, is very much related to the (somewhat sad) lessons of the past and therefore highly politicised; it has not been shaped with regard to free movement in the EU. The author suggests a gradual ‘communitarisation’ of citizenship itself even though the EU seems to miss competence in this area, for example, by paying greater attention to residence as basis for Community rights.     

Foreign Investors in the EU—Which ‘Best Treatment’? Interactions Between Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law

Abstract: This article discusses the main interactions between bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and EU law. The European Commission identified a number of incompatibilities in BITs signed by eight recent Member States with the USA, proposing solutions for their adjustment in conformity with EU law, but was this step sufficient? The risk of disputes remains, as long as the proposed adjustments do not achieve legal force and as long as other BITs still need to be harmonised with EU law. Moreover, provisions in BITs that are not in conflict with EU law could still be challenged if the application of certain EU requirements by Member States interferes with foreign investors' rights. To avoid such risks, coherence between different commitments and practices of the Member States is needed and coordination at the EU level is highly desirable.     

双边投资协定中的伞形条款解释——兼论ICSID近期相关案例

近年来由于对投资保护范围的扩大,投资者与东道国所签订的合同往往亦属于双边投资协定保护的外国投资。若东道国违反合同义务,投资者一方面可以依据合同中的争端解决条款提起合同之诉;另一方面,在特定的情况下投资者可能就东道国违反合同义务的行为根据双边投资协定提起条约之诉。由于各方对有关双边投资协定中存在的伞形条款存在不同理解,使得合同之诉与条约之诉的竞合问题并未得到最终解决。本文通过对近期ICSID有关案例的分析,辅以对伞形条款的历史分析,提出只有当合同违反是因主权行为时,伞形条款方有将合同义务提升到条约义务的效果。     

Bilateral Investment Treaties,Credible Commitment,and the Rule of (International) Law: Do BITs Promote Foreign Direct Investment?

A long line of research, beginning with Macaulay's (1963) well‐known study of “Non‐Contractual Relations in Business,” suggests that the formal trappings of domestic law often have effects on private behavior that are, at best, “indirect, subtle, and ambiguous” ( Macaulay 1984 :155). Law and society scholars have spent somewhat less time exploring whether international law's effects on behavior are similarly attenuated. In this article I examine whether foreign investors take the presence of strong formal international legal protections into account when deciding where to invest. I focus on whether the presence of bilateral investment treaties, or BITs, meaningfully influences investment decisions. I present results from a statistical analysis that examines whether the formally strongest BITs—those that guarantee investors access to international arbitration to enforce investors' international legal rights—are associated with greater investment flows. I find no clear link between treaty protections and investment, a finding consistent with past law and society research but in tension with claims common in the BIT literature that the treaties should have dramatic effects on investor behavior.     

Civil Protection Cooperation in EU Law: Is There Room for Solidarity to Wriggle Past?

This article provides insight into the under‐researched area of civil protection cooperation and disaster response capacity in EU law. It discusses how the mechanisms set up by the EU have assisted Member States in supporting one another when faced with natural or man‐made disasters, including those perpetrated by terrorists. In particular, the article provides a critique of the Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) clause, which has introduced the principle of solidarity within the EU's security strategy. The author explores the broadened notion of ‘threat’ in Europe and assesses the significance of the Solidarity Clause vis‐à‐vis the level of commitment required by Member States for its coherent implementation. The article then contrasts Article 222 TFEU with the mutual defence clause of Article 42 (7) Treaty on European Union (TEU), and finally points into certain ‘grey areas’ that may have a diminution effect upon the political message concerning the EU as a community based on solidarity.     

The Trade Union Movement and the European Union: Judgment Day

Abstract: The trade union movement faces a challenge to the legality of transnational collective action as violating economic freedoms in the EC Treaty. How are disparities in wages and working conditions among the Member States to be accommodated? Are national social models protected? Does the internal market allow for trade union collective action? How does EU law affect the balance of economic power in a transnational economy? What is the role of courts in resolving economic conflicts? This article analyses the responses to these questions as referred to the European Court of Justice by the English Court of Appeal and offers some conclusions. The purpose is to highlight the different positions adopted by the old Member States and the new accession Member States as regards the underlying substantive issues, and the options available to the Court of Justice in answering the questions posed.     

Sporting Justifications under EU Free Movement and Competition Law: The Case of the Football ‘Transfer System’

Governing bodies have significant autonomy in the organisation of professional sport in the EU, a situation now supported by Article 165 TFEU. However the post‐Lisbon competence for sport does not grant any exemption for practices that infringe fundamental freedoms or competition law; such infringements can only be justified where they are a proportionate response to an inherent need in that sport. The football ‘transfer system’ has been the subject of a series of EU law challenges, but continues to place obstacles in the way of the free movement of players between Member States and may restrict the ability of most clubs to compete for the elite players. Court of Arbitration for Sport decisions in transfer dispute cases have entrenched this situation, and recent evidence casts doubt on both the ability of the authorities to justify the current system and the 2001 decision by the European Commission to sign it off as being an acceptable balance between the rights of the stakeholders.     

Reforming the Market or the State? Article 30 and the European Constitution: Economic Freedom and Political Rights

This article takes as its starting-point the relationship between Article 30 of 30 of the EC Treaty (general rule on the free movement of goods) and the European Constitution. On the one hand, it examines Article 30 in the context of the constitutional dilemmas facing the European Union, particularly the balance of powers to be defined between Member States and the Union, between public power and the market, and between the legitimacy of Community law vis à vis that of national law. On the other hand, it reviews different conceptions of the European Economic Constitution by analysing the role of Article 30 in the review of market regulation.     

Exceptions to Article 226: Alternative Administrative Procedures and the Pursuit of Member States

This article considers the procedures used in EC law to prosecute infringements committed by Member States, in addition to the well-known Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC. It has three purposes. The first is to systematise the main categories of these, to examine the reasons for the creation of these procedures and the interaction among them, using Article 226 as the main point of reference. The basic criterion is the distinction between procedures established by the EC Treaty and procedures established by secondary legislation but without a clear legal basis in the Treaty. The second purpose is to explain why Member States have accepted the development of new procedures, even though they serve to reinforce the Commission's powers. The article argues that this acceptance can be explained, first, by the active participation of Member States, through committees, in the establishment of these procedures; and, secondly, a deliberate strategy to convince Member States, on both a sectoral basis, and a case-by-case basis, by the Commission. The article concludes, however, that the current procedures should be improved and that it is time for them to be realigned and rationalised.     

Variations in Member States’ Preliminary References to the Court of Justice—Are Structural Factors (Part of) the Explanation?

The preliminary reference procedure in Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which enables national courts to request the Court of Justice to provide a ruling on the interpretation or validity of an EU legal act, is widely considered to be the jewel in the crown of EU law. When considering the number of references from different Member States, it will become immediately apparent that there are considerable variations. This article examines to what extent these variations may be explained by three structural factors, namely (1) population size, (2) willingness to litigate and (3) Member State compliance with EU law. It is concluded that some—but not all—of the variations in number of references from Member State judiciaries may be attributed to structural factors rather than being merely a reflection of different Member State courts’ willingness to make use of Article 267 TFEU on such references (the so‐called behavioural factors).     

Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order?

The number of international law obligations that have binding force on the Union and/or its Member States is sharply increasing. This paper argues that in this light the well‐functioning of the European Union ultimately depends on the protection of the principle of supremacy from law originating outside of the EU legal order. The supremacy of EU law is essential to ensuring that Member States cannot use national rules to justify derogation from EU law. As a matter of principle, international treaties concluded by the Member States rank at the level of ordinary national law within the European legal order and below all forms of European law (both primary and secondary). Article 351 TFEU exceptionally allows Member States to derogate from primary EU law in order to comply with obligations under anterior international agreements. It does not however allow a departure from the principle of supremacy that underlies the European legal order. In Kadi I, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that Article 351 TFEU, while it permits derogation from primary law, may under no circumstances permit circumvention of the “very foundations” of the EU legal order. This introduces an additional condition that all acts within the sphere of EU law need to comply with a form of “super‐supreme law”. It also strengthened the principle of supremacy and gave the Court of Justice the role of the guardian of the Union's “foundations”. The Court of Justice acted on the necessity of defending the Union as a distinct legal order, retaining the autonomous interpretation of its own law, and ultimately ensuring that the Union can act as an independent actor on the international plane.     

National autonomy and democratic standardization: Should popular votes on European integration be regulated by the European Union?

Given the increasing use of direct democratic devices on questions of European integration, this paper explores whether or not Member States may have good reason to agree on common regulations for popular votes of this nature. Conceiving of the European Union as a political system designed to serve the interests of states and citizens, it is argued that where direct votes have the potential to undermine the territorial, functional, normative or existential integrity of the EU, then states may have good reason to sacrifice a degree of national autonomy to adopt common regulations for certain uses of direct democracy. This leads to a case for democratic standardization across Member States when it comes to withdrawal, accession, Treaty ratification and opt‐in decisions.     

论欧盟金融服务法中的最低限度协调原则

在欧盟金融服务法中,最低限度协调原则是指共同体立法只对各成员国金融监管规则的基本要素进行协调.这一原则尊重了成员国的国家主权,有助于降低金融服务市场一体化的政策成本,并能够充分发挥市场机制的作用以促成最优的监管标准.<欧共体条约>中的特别协调条款是这一原则的直接依据,金融服务指令中的协调条款是其集中体现.最低限度协调原则只适用于符合共同利益的非歧视性限制措施.在其适用范围内,各成员国只能进行执行性立法.该原则的确立和推行是以相互承认为核心、以母国控制为表现形式的一体化模式成功运用的必然结果.晚近的立法实践表明,这一原则有被边缘化的危险.     

Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC), Its Meanings and Interpretations

Research that has been conducted over the last decades shows that neither the scope of application nor the exact meaning of Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC) is clear from its wording. This article seeks to clarify its meaning through analysis of the drafting of the Article as well as the use of it by the EU's institutions and by the Member States. Article 345 TFEU, formerly Article 295 EC and, before that, Article 222 EEC, is an Article that limits, but not prevents, the application of the TFEU Treaty as a whole to the way in which rules of a Member State deal with the right of ownership of undertakings. The conclusion can be drawn that Article 345 TFEU only concerns the private or public ownership of undertakings, with which the Community shall not concern itself and which can thus be regulated by the Member States themselves. Most importantly, the Article does not concern the content of the right of ownership, nor the objects of a right of ownership. It does therefore not form an obstacle to the development of a European property law.     

Free Movement of Persons and European Solidarity1

Abstract: This article explores the tension between freedom of movement within the EC/EU and the principle of social solidarity, a tension which has increased in step with the progressive enlargement over the years of the circle of potential beneficiaries of the right to cross‐border access to the social and welfare benefits guaranteed by the social protection systems of the Member States. The article aims to re‐construct the system of Community rules regarding the free movement of persons within the EU from the point of view of the justifying criteria for the cross‐border access to national welfare systems of the different categories of ‘migrants’. The focus of the article is on the different degrees and models of solidarity which, at least at the present stage of the European integration process, justify correspondingly graduated and differentiated forms of cross‐border access to Member States' social and welfare benefits for the various categories of persons who move about within the EU.     

‘Caminante,no hay camino,se hace camino al andar’1: EU Citizenship,Direct Democracy and Treaty Ratification

Abstract: This article argues that obligatory, simultaneous, and simple Treaty ratification by referenda is the next step in the consolidation of the political core of European citizenship. In the first part, general remarks about the special nature of EU citizenship highlight the relevance of referenda on EU Treaties for EU citizenship. In the second part, the normative and empirical case in favour of direct democracy is put forward. It is followed by the assessment of direct democracy in European integration as we have known it so far. The practice is irreversible and gaining in momentum. But it is in need of substantial reform due to procedural dysfunctions and discriminatory consequences for the citizens. Section V relates this result to a legal analysis of EU citizenship. The suppression of the discriminatory consequences of the Treaty ratification procedure is necessary from a legal point of view, but it cannot be expected from the ‘judicial incrementalism’ that has characterised the development of EU citizenship regarding free movement and residence. In section VI , the conclusions of the previous sections are drawn into the final proposal of obligatory, simultaneous and simple Treaty reform by referenda in all Member States. At the end, five counter‐arguments to the proposal are discussed.     

Holding to Account a Possible European Public Prosecutor Supranational Governance and Accountability Across Diverse Legal Traditions

The Lisbon Treaty provides a legal basis for the Member States of the European Union (EU) to establish a European Public Prosecutor (EPP) with competence to prosecute, in the courts of the Member States, crimes against the financial interests of the Union. Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, provides that the Member States may unanimously, or through flexible cooperation where nine Member States agree, establish such a European-level prosecution body, with the possibility for its powers to be extended by unanimity to include serious crime having a cross border dimension or affecting more than one Member State. Within the legal traditions of the Member States, means of holding prosecution authorities to account vary considerably. Probably the strongest form of accountability exists in the civil law tradition of Member States that permit appeals to judicial bodies for decisions not to prosecute, which contrasts with the traditional common law reluctance to even give reasons for not prosecuting. Similarly, the ways in which prosecution authorities interact or overlap with police functions, and thus with general mechanisms of police and/or bureaucratic accountability, differ. Some of the particular features of EU cooperation suggest additional accountability issues, notably, questions concerning competence spill-over and problems of remoteness. This paper seeks to address how to conceptualise governance and accountability of a possible EPP outside of the context of a trial (the latter entailing a type of open legal accountability that can be studied in its own right) and including the question of the definition of competences.     

双边投资条约与发展中国家——兼论中国应对之策

双边投资条约遍及全世界,发展中国家与发达国家之间签订的双边投资条约数量比重最大。发达国家通过双边投资条约努力推广其投资自由化理念,强调发达国家海外投资保护政策,推行高标准的投资保护政策;发展中国家假定通过双边投资条约可以吸引更多的外国直接投资流入而接受发达国家的投资策略并积极主动参与双边投资协定的签订,从而导致国际投资法制向发达国家预定轨道行进,发展中国家主权、经济均受到不同程度的影响;为摆脱此两难局面,发展中国家应谨慎从事双边投资条约的谈判与签订之工作,制定本国的双边投资条约范本,重构发展中国家集体力量,割断有利于发达国家投资策略的习惯国际法的形成,维护发展中国家的经济主权与投资带来真实利益。     

Free Movement of Goods and Property Law

Although usually considered a national competence, there is an effect of internal market law on property law. When a property right is validly created in one Member State and the object on which it rests is moved to another Member State, an internal market dimension arises. Such has been the case in the ECJ's Krantz decision 25 years ago, dealing with the question on whether the rules allowing a seizure of goods owned by someone else in another Member State and leading to a potential loss of right is in conformity with EU law. More than 25 years have passed and our thinking about the internal market as well as the free movement case‐law has changed significantly. A re‐examination of this decision leads to a different conclusion: the refusal to recognise property rights validly created in another Member State violates the free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU.