Published on 11 October 2023 in Client Alerts
Writing in the Financial Times’s The Banker magazine in December 2021, Volterra Fietta partners Robert Volterra and Gunjan Sharma explained that the reasoning of the CJEU in Achmea BV v Slovak Republic did not just potentially invalidate treaty-based arbitration in Europe. They also noted that it put at risk contractual arbitration agreements between private parties and EU Member States (and those States’ subsidiary constituent bodies, organs and instrumentalities and agencies).
In Achmea, the CJEU ruled that treaty-based agreements to arbitrate an investment dispute violated exclusive judicial competence over European law under articles 267 and 344 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). As Mr Volterra and Mr Sharma explained, there was no logical basis for claiming that the same reasoning would not be equally applicable to contract-based agreements to arbitrate investment and other administrative disputes.
Mr Volterra’s and Mr Sharma’s warning has now come to pass. The ruling of the Hellenic Supreme Administrative Court in the Greek Case confirms that private investors should continue to be wary of arbitrating any investment disputes with European States in any European seat.
Even commentators who supported the Achmea decision have expressed frustration at the reasoning in Greek Case – although, in truth, the judgment merely extends the ratio decidendi of the CJEU’s Achmea and PL Holdings judgments in a logical way.
Nevertheless, for general counsel and businesspeople, the consequence of the Greek Court’s decision is clearer: private investors who are negotiating contractual arbitration agreements with EU Member States (and their agencies, organs and instrumentalities or constituent subdivisions) should seek to have the seat of arbitration outside the EU. When negotiating a contract, it is not sufficient to consider merely what the current state of the law is. A private entity must consider where the law may evolve. In this case, that means evaluating the public reasoning of Europe’s highest judicial authority – the CJEU – in a tactical and even-handed manner. Undoubtedly, other European courts may also adopt reasoning similar to that of the Greek Court.
Indeed, a party that sees a tactical advantage in doing so may even argue that the Achmea decision’s reasoning applies to a commercial arbitration in the EU, as long as the arbitration involves (as it likely would) an element of EU law. This represents a risk that must be considered when negotiating contracts with European parties.
Thus, if only from a risk-aversion perspective, investors agreeing to arbitration with EU parties should press for agreement to non-EU seats of arbitration, such as primarily London and New York followed by Geneva, Singapore and Hong Kong. They should also consider continued reliance on investment treaty protections to supplement contractual protections.
For further information, please contact Gunjan Sharma (Gunjan.Sharma@volterrafietta.com) or Robert G. Volterra (Robert.Volterra@volterrafietta.com).
In the brief 60 years of space flight, humanity has sent over 60,000 space objects and 1 million pieces of smaller debris into orbit around the planet. This has created the risk of a legal and physical log-jam in space. The congestion and space-junk problems are projected to become even more acute as the space race broadens its participants.
Learn moreDuring the 29th annual session of the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”), Malta, Tuvalu, Honduras, Guatemala and Austria declared their support for a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. To date, now over thirty States have called for a halt in the exploitation of the deep seabed minerals. These calls come as the ISA struggles to adopt a final set of regulations on mining exploitation.
Learn moreOn 30 May 2024, the European Council adopted decisions enabling the European Union (“EU”) to denounce (the proper international law term for ‘withdraw from’) the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”).
Learn moreThe COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant gaps in the global health system, leading to immense human and economic losses. In response, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) and its member States decided to draft a comprehensive international treaty—the Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Accord.
Learn more