Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Investment Law and Competition Law

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

  • 764 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the overlap between European Union (EU) state aid law and international investment law and arbitration. First, it enquires whether there is a systemic incompatibility between the fair and equitable treatmentĀ (FET) standard and EU state aid law. This chapter focuses in particular on the principle of legitimate expectations and the manner that it was applied by several arbitral tribunals in relation to state aid measures. For the purposes of this enquiry, this chapter sets out the basic components of the notion of state aid under EU law and points out the severely restrictive application by the Court of Justice of the European UnionĀ (CJEU) of the principle of legitimate expectations in the field of state aid. Second, this chapter examines whether arbitral awards granting damages to an investor can constitute, as such, incompatible and unlawful state aid. The chapter focuses on two key questions, namely whether arbitral awards can constitute an economic advantage and whether they are attributable to the member state in question. Third, this chapter looks at the issue of the fate of arbitral awards granting damages to investors in state aid matters. It examines what remedies are available to member states against such awards. In doing so, it takes into account the different legal regimes applicable to awards issued under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) and non-ICSID awards. It also examines the possibility of safeguarding the enforcement of ICSID awards that may be incompatible with EU law under Article 351 TFEU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Schuman Declaration (9 May 1950): ā€œWorld peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it [ā€¦] Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarityā€.

  2. 2.

    See Kassim and Lyons (2013), p. 9; Bacon QC (2017), para. 1.04; Hofmann and Micheau (2016), pp. 9ā€“11, 18ā€“21. For the origins of subsidy control, see Piernas LĆ³pez (2015), pp. 21ā€“44.

  3. 3.

    See Scheuer (2013), para. 1.

  4. 4.

    See Vannessa Ventures v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/6, Award, 16 January 2013, para. 222, where the arbitral tribunal held that the FET standard requires that ā€œthe treatment of investments not fall below a minimum standard of fairness and equitableness that all investors have a right to expectā€.

  5. 5.

    On the notion of state aid under EU law, see Hofmann and Micheau (2016), pp. 17ā€“90.

  6. 6.

    CJEU, Judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and RegierungsprƤsidium Magdeburg, C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415, para. 84.

  7. 7.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 16 May 2002, France v. Commission, C-482/99, EU:C:2002:294, para. 70; Judgment of 5 June 2012, Commission v. EDF, C-124/10 P, EU:C:2012:318, paras 78ā€“79; Judgment of 1 October 2015, Electrabel and Dunamenti Erőmű v. Commission, C-357/14 P, EU:C:2015:642, para. 144.

  8. 8.

    See Bacon QC (2017), para. 2.06.

  9. 9.

    CJEU, Judgment of 13 March 2001, PreussenElektra, C-379/98, EU:C:2001:160, para. 58. For the subsequent development of this notion in CJEU case-law, see Rusche (2015), pp. 79ā€“117.

  10. 10.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 19 March 2013, Bouygues and Bouygues TƩlƩcom v. Commission and Others and Commission v. France and Others, C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P, EU:C:2013:175, para. 109. See also Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268, para. 60.

  11. 11.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 19 March 2013, Bouygues and Bouygues TĆ©lĆ©com v. Commission and Others and Commission v. France and Others, C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P, EU:C:2013:175, para. 110. See also Piernas LĆ³pez (2015), pp. 172ā€“176.

  12. 12.

    CJEU, Judgment of 17 September 2014, Commerz Nederland, C-242/13, EU:C:2014:2224, para. 31. See also Judgment of 16 May 2002, France v. Commission, C-482/99, EU:C:2002:294, para. 51.

  13. 13.

    CJEU, Judgment of 16 May 2002, France v. Commission, C-482/99, EU:C:2002:294, paras 51ā€“55; Judgment of 17 September 2014, Commerz Nederland, C-242/13, EU:C:2014:2224, paras 31ā€“32.

  14. 14.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 21 December 2016, Commission v. World Duty Free Group and Others, C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P, EU:C:2016:981, para. 54 and case law cited.

  15. 15.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 21 December 2016, Commission v. World Duty Free Group and Others, C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P, EU:C:2016:981, para. 55.

  16. 16.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 17 September 1980, Philip Morris Holland v. Commission, Case 730/79, EU:C:1980:209, para. 11; Judgment of 15 December 2005, Unicredito Italiano, C-148/04, EU:C:2005:774, para. 56.

  17. 17.

    For further analysis, see Hofmann and Micheau (2016), pp. 235ā€“239; Bacon QC (2017), paras 3.09ā€“3.18.

  18. 18.

    For further analysis, see Hofmann and Micheau (2016), pp. 240ā€“307; Bacon QC (2017), paras 3.19ā€“3.3.45.

  19. 19.

    See Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, [2015] OJ L248/9. However, aid schemes meeting the requirements of the so-called General Block Exemption Regulation are deemed compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(2)-(3) TFEU and are exempted from the notification requirement of Article 108(3) TFEU. See, to this effect, Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, [2014] OJ L187/1.

  20. 20.

    See Article 16 of Regulation 2015/1589.

  21. 21.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 9 July 2015, Commission v. France, C-63/14, EU:C:2015:458, para. 48; Judgment of 6 November 2018, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v. Commission and Commission v. Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori and Ferracci, C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P, EU:C:2018:873, para. 80.

  22. 22.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 21 October 2003, van Calster and Others, C-261/01 and C-262/01, EU:C:2003:571, paras 73ā€“76.

  23. 23.

    See Tudor (2008), p. 6; Angelet (2011), paras 5ā€“6. See also Demirkol (2018), pp. 31ā€“39.Ā For a detailed analysis of the conceptual challenges posed by the FET standard, see KlƤger (2011), in particularĀ pp. 115ā€“128.

  24. 24.

    See Waste Management v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award, 30 April 2004, para. 99; Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award, 11 December 2013, para. 506.

  25. 25.

    See Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on jurisdiction, applicable law and liability, 30 November 2012, para. 7.75; Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013, para. 667; Novenergia v. Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Final Arbitral Award,15 February 2018, paras 648ā€“649.Ā See also KlƤger (2011), pp. 164ā€“187.

  26. 26.

    See, for example, Peter A. Allard v. The Government of Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Award, 27 June 2016, para. 194. For a detailed analysis of the notion of legitimate expectations in investment treaty arbitration, see Wongkaew (2019).

  27. 27.

    EDF (Services) Ltd. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, 8 October 2009, para. 217.

  28. 28.

    See Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013, para. 667. See also Electrabel S.A. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015, para. 7.77.

  29. 29.

    See McLachlan et al. (2017), p. 309; Angelet (2011), para. 6.

  30. 30.

    Saluka Investments v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2001-04, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 300.

  31. 31.

    Saluka Investments v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2001-04, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 305. See also, to the same effect, Arif v. Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award, 8 April 2013, para. 537; Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013, para. 666; Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015, paras 165ā€“166; Eiser v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017, para. 362; Novenergia v. Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Final Arbitral Award, 15 February 2018, para. 688.

  32. 32.

    See Eiser Infrastructure Limited and EnergĆ­a Solar Luxembourg S.Ć  r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017, para. 382; Novenergia v. Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Final Arbitral Award, 15 February 2018, para. 656.

  33. 33.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 15 December 2005, Unicredito Italiano, C-148/04, EU:C:2005:774, para. 104 and case law cited.

  34. 34.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 4 October 2007, Commission v. Italy, C-217/06, EU:C:2007:580, para. 23 and case law cited.

  35. 35.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 16 December 2010, Kahla ThĆ¼ringen Porzellan v. Commission, C-537/08 P, EU:C:2010:769, paras 65ā€“66. See also Bacon QC (2017), para. 18.134.

  36. 36.

    The Micula v. Romania arbitration is not listed here because it concerned an aid scheme put in place prior to accession and, therefore, at a time when EU law was not applicable to it. Whether the Micula v. Romania award constitutes per se state aid incompatible with the internal market is examined below.

  37. 37.

    See Commission Decision of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements [2009] OJ L225/53, affirmed by General Court, Judgment of 13 February 2012, Budapesti Erőmű v. Commission, T-80/06 and T-182/09, EU:T:2012:65; General Court, Judgment of 30 April 2014, Dunamenti Erőmű v. Commission, T-179/09, EU:T:2014:236; CJEU, Judgment of 1 October 2015, Electrabel and Dunamenti Erőmű v. Commission, C-357/14 P, EU:C:2015:642.

  38. 38.

    See Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, 30 November 2012, paras 6.66ā€“6.69 and 6.91.

  39. 39.

    See letter of the European Commission to the Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs dated 27 April 2010, regarding ā€œState aid SA N 691/2009 - Hungarian stranded costs compensation schemeā€, C (2010) 2532 final.

  40. 40.

    See Judgment of the Tribunal fƩdƩral (Federal Tribunal, Switzerland) of 6 October 2015, 4A_34/2015, para. 5.3.2; Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015, para. 225.

  41. 41.

    For further analysis, see Paschalidis (2018), pp. 51ā€“115.

  42. 42.

    Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paras 193. Emphasis added.

  43. 43.

    SCC Case No. 2012/062, Final Award, 21 January 2016.

  44. 44.

    SCC Case No. 2013/153, Award, 12 July 2016).

  45. 45.

    ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017.

  46. 46.

    SCC Case No. 2015/63, Final Arbitral Award, 15 February 2018.

  47. 47.

    ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award, 16 May 2018.

  48. 48.

    SCC Case No. 2015/150, Final Award, 14 November 2018.

  49. 49.

    ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30? Decision on Responsibility and on the Principles of Quantum, 30 November 2018.

  50. 50.

    9REN Holding S.a.r.l v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/15, Award, 31 May 2019.

  51. 51.

    One could also add Blusun v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Award, 27 December 2016 and Greentech & NovEnergia v. Italy, SCC Arbitration V (2015/095), Final Award, 23 December 2018, which dealt with claims arising out of Italyā€™s modification to its solar power aid regime establishing long-term fixed rates for investors investing in solar plants.

  52. 52.

    See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation dated 10 November 2017, regarding ā€œState aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) ā€“ Spain, Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and wasteā€, C(2017) 7384 final.

  53. 53.

    See Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 SĆ rl and others v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/150, Final Award, 14 November 2018, para. 381. On this point, see Partial Dissenting Opinion of Co-Arbitrator Raul E. Vinuesa, paras 22ā€“38.

  54. 54.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 15 December 2005, Unicredito Italiano, C-148/04, EU:C:2005:774, para. 104. See also Bacon QC (2017), para. 18.132.

  55. 55.

    Aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.

  56. 56.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 18 December 2008, Wienstrom, C-384/07, EU:C:2008:747, paras 28ā€“32.

  57. 57.

    See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation dated 10 November 2017, regarding ā€œState aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) ā€“ Spain, Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and wasteā€, C(2017) 7384 final, para. 84.

  58. 58.

    For example, in its decision the EC refers to Law 15/2012, which suggests that this element was not part of the original scheme. See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation dated 10 November 2017, regarding ā€œState aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) ā€“ Spain, Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and wasteā€, C(2017) 7384 final, para. 10.

  59. 59.

    CJEU, Judgment of 13 March 2001, PreussenElektra, C-379/98, EU:C:2001:160, para. 59. The EC initially hesitated as to how to interpret the principle laid down in this Judgment but it subsequently sought to limit its ambit through a series of cases brought before the CJEU. See Rusche (2015), pp. 85ā€“108.

  60. 60.

    See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation dated 10 November 2017, regarding ā€œState aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) ā€“ Spain, Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and wasteā€, C(2017) 7384 final, para. 84.

  61. 61.

    See CJEU, order of 22 October 2014, ElcogƔs, C-275/13, EU:C:2014:2314, para. 33. It is noteworthy that this case concerned another Spanish aid scheme in the field of electricity whose essential similarity with the one examined by the arbitral tribunals consisted in the fact that the amounts paid to the electricity producers were financed by the end-users. In its ElcogƔs ruling, the CJEU distinguished this scenario from the one at issue in PreussenElektra on the basis that the funds at issue in PreussenElektra originated solely from private undertakings and their payment to the aid beneficiaries never went through public undertakings. Nor had the state put in place a mechanism for the compensation of surcharges (see para. 32).

  62. 62.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268.

  63. 63.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268, paras 65ā€“71.

  64. 64.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268, paras 73ā€“76.

  65. 65.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268, paras 77ā€“85.

  66. 66.

    See to that effect, CJEU, Judgment of 15 May 2019, Achema and Others, C-706/17, EU:C:2019:407, paras 50ā€“55.

  67. 67.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea, C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158, paras 43ā€“49.

  68. 68.

    This part of the article is based on Paschalidis (2018), pp. 145ā€“154.

  69. 69.

    See Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania ā€” Arbitral award Micula v. Romania of 11 December 2013 [2015] OJ L232/43.

  70. 70.

    See GCEU, Judgment of 18 June 2019, European Food and Others v. Commission, Cases T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, EU:T:2019:423, paras 70ā€“78.Ā The Commission has lodged an appeal against the General Courtā€™s Judgment in the pending caseĀ Commission v. European Food and Others,Ā Case C-638/19 P.

  71. 71.

    See GCEU, Judgment of 18 June 2019, European Food and Others v. Commission, Cases T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, EU:T:2019:423, paras 89ā€“92 and 106ā€“109.

  72. 72.

    See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation dated 10 November 2017, C(2017) 7384 final, regarding ā€œState aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) ā€“ Spain, Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and wasteā€, at para. 165.

  73. 73.

    See Commission Decision 2015/1470, paras 109ā€“115.

  74. 74.

    See Commission Decision 2015/1470, para. 116.

  75. 75.

    See Commission Decision 2015/1470, paras 117ā€“121.

  76. 76.

    See Commission Decision 2015/1470, paras 92ā€“108.

  77. 77.

    See Judgment of 16 May 2002, France v. Commission, C-482/99, EU:C:2002:294, para. 56; Judgment of 17 September 2014, Commerz Nederland, C-242/13, EU:C:2014:2224, para. 33.

  78. 78.

    See letter of the European Commission COMP/E3/ON/AB/arkāˆ—2014/61460 dated 12 June 2014 quoted at Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in DEI v. Commission, C-228/16 P, EU:C:2017:133, para. 8 at footnote 2.

  79. 79.

    See Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania ā€” Arbitral award Micula v. Romania of 11 December 2013 [2015] OJ L232/43, paras 118ā€“120. The validity of this decision is challenged before the General Court of the European Union in pending Joined Cases European Food and others v. Commission, T-624/15, and Micula v. Commission, T-694/15. The hearing took place on 20 March 2018.

  80. 80.

    See letter of the European Commission to the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs dated 25 March 2015 regarding ā€œSA.38101 (2015/NN) (ex 2013/CP) ā€“ Greece ā€“ Alleged State aid to Aluminium SA in the form of electricity tariffs below cost following Arbitration Decisionā€ C(2015) 1942 final. The case has been referred back to the General Court (see Judgment of 31 May 2017, DEI v. Commission, C-228/16 P, EU:C:2017:409).

  81. 81.

    CJEU, Judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and RegierungsprƤsidium Magdeburg, C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415, para. 84.

  82. 82.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 19 September 1985, Greece v. Commission, 192/83, EU:C:1985:356.

  83. 83.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 19 September 1985, Asteris and Others v. Commission, 194/83 to 206/83, EU:C:1985:357.

  84. 84.

    CJEU, Judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87, EU:C:1988:457, para. 23.

  85. 85.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87, EU:C:1988:457, paras 25ā€“27.

  86. 86.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87, EU:C:1988:457, para. 28.

  87. 87.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87, EU:C:1988:457, para. 29.

  88. 88.

    See GCEU, Judgment of 18 June 2019, European Food and Others v. Commission, Cases T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, EU:T:2019:423, para. 103.

  89. 89.

    See Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Achmea, C-284/16, EU:C:2017:699, para. 236.

  90. 90.

    See Article 4(3), second paragraph, of the Treaty on European Union, according to which ā€œ[t]he Member States shall take any appropriate measure [ā€¦] to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the [EU] Treaties or resulting from acts of the institutions of the Unionā€.

  91. 91.

    Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

  92. 92.

    See Articles 52ā€“54 of the ICSID Convention. See also Schreuer et al. (2009), pp. 890ā€“1151; Alexandrov (2009), KĆ”posznyĆ”k (2019), pp. 428ā€“430; de Stefano (2019), p. 443.

  93. 93.

    See CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Genentech, C-567/14, EU:C:2016:177, footnote 39.

  94. 94.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 10 March 1998, T. Port, C-364/95 and C-365/95, EU:C:1998:95, para. 61; Opinion 2/15 (EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement) of 16 May 2017, EU:C:2017:376, para. 254.

  95. 95.

    ā€œEach Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final Judgment of a court in that State. A Contracting State with a federal constitution may enforce such an award in or through its federal courts and may provide that such courts shall treat the award as if it were a final Judgment of the courts of a constituent state.ā€

  96. 96.

    See Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania ā€” Arbitral award Micula v. Romania of 11 December 2013 (2015) OJ L232/43, para. 129.

  97. 97.

    ā€œAny dispute arising between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall be referred to the International Court of Justice by the application of any party to such dispute, unless the States concerned agree to another method of settlement.ā€

  98. 98.

    See Broches (1972), p. 379; Schreuer et al. (2009), p. 1109. See also Micula and Others v. Romania (2018) EWCA Civ 1801, paras 190ā€“195 (per Arden LJ).

  99. 99.

    See Paschalidis (2018), pp. 140ā€“141.

  100. 100.

    See Judgment No. 71/18, of 21 March 2018, of the Luxembourg Court of Appeal in Romania v. Micula and Others, p. 20 (ā€œEn lā€™espĆØce, la DĆ©cision de la Commission du 30 mars 2015 est exĆ©cutoire et elle entrave lā€™exĆ©cution du titre constituĆ© par la Sentence arbitrale. Elle est obligatoire dans tous ses Ć©lĆ©ments et dans tous les Ɖtats membres en vertu de lā€™article 288 du TFUE et mĆŖme si elle fait actuellement lā€™objet dā€™un recours devant les juridictions [de lā€™Union], ce recours nā€™est pas suspensif en vertu de lā€™article 278 du TFUEā€).

  101. 101.

    See Nacka District Court, decision of 23 January 2019 in Micula and others v. Romania, Case No Ƅ 2550-17, pp. 8ā€“9 and 13.

  102. 102.

    Micula and Others v. Romania (2017) EWHC 31 (Comm) para. 132.

  103. 103.

    See Micula and Others v. Romania (2018) EWCA Civ 1801, paras 120ā€“121 (per Arden LJ).

  104. 104.

    See Micula and Others v. Romania (2018) EWCA Civ 1801, paras 124ā€“132 (per Arden LJ), paras 162ā€“163 (per Hamblen LJ) and paras 257ā€“262 (per Leggatt LJ).

  105. 105.

    See Micula and Others v. Romania (2018) EWCA Civ 1801, paras 153ā€“165 (per Hamblen and Leggatt LJJ).

  106. 106.

    See CJEU, Judgment of 1 June 1999, Eco Swiss, C-126/97, EU:C:1999:269. See also Judgment of 7 July 2016, Genentech, C-567/14, EU:C:2016:526.

  107. 107.

    See CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Gazprom, C-536/13, EU:C:2014:2414, paras 173ā€“177.

References

  • Alexandrov SA (2009) Enforcement of ICSID awards: Articles 53 and 54 of the ICSID convention. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International investment law for the 21st century: essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. OUP, Oxford, pp 322ā€“337

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Angelet N (2011) Fair and equitable treatment. In: Wolfrum R (dir) Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol 3. OUP, Oxford, pp 1094ā€“1103

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Bacon QC K (ed) (2017) European Union law of state aid, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Broches A (1972) The convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states. Collect Courses Hague Acad Int Law 136:331ā€“410

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • de Stefano C (2019) The circulation of international investment awards under the New York Convention In: Fach GĆ³mez K, LĆ³pez RodrĆ­guez AM (eds) 60 years of the New York Convention: key issues and future challenges. Kluwer AH, Alpena an den Rijn, pp 441ā€“455

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Demirkol B (2018) Judicial acts and investment treaty arbitration. CUP, Cambridge

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Hofmann H, Micheau C (eds) (2016) State aid law of the European Union. OUP, Oxford

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • KĆ”posznyĆ”k A (2019) The expanding role of the New York Convention in enforcement of international investment arbitral awards In: Fach GĆ³mez K, LĆ³pez RodrĆ­guez AM (eds) 60 years of the New York Convention: key issues and future challenges. Kluwer AH, Alpena an den Rijn, pp 425ā€“440

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Kassim H, Lyons B (2013) The new political economy of EU state aid policy. J Ind Compet Trade 13:1ā€“21

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • KlƤger R (2011) ā€œFair and Equitable Treatmentā€ in International Investment Law. CUP, Cambridge

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • McLachlan C, Shore L, Weiniger M (2017) International investment arbitration: substantive principles, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Paschalidis P (2018) International investment law and EU law: are there systemic conflicts and incompatibilities? In: Gaillard E, Ruiz Fabri H (eds) EU law and international investment arbitration, IAI Series No. 11. JURIS, Huntington, New York, pp 7ā€“169

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Piernas LĆ³pez JJ (2015) The concept of state aid under EU law. OUP, Oxford

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Rusche TM (2015) EU renewable electricity law and policy: from national targets to a common market. CUP, Cambridge

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Scheuer Ch (2013) Investments, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (dir) Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol 6. OUP, Oxford, pp 328ā€“343

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID convention: a commentary, 2nd edn. CUP, Cambridge

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Tudor I (2008) The fair and equitable treatment standard in the international law of foreign investment. OUP, Oxford

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Wongkaew T (2019) Protection of legitimate expectations in investment treaty arbitration: a theory of detrimental reliance. CUP, Cambridge

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shearman & Sterling LLP, Paris, France

    Paschalis Paschalidis

Authors
  1. Paschalis Paschalidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedĀ Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paschalis Paschalidis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    Katia Fach GĆ³mez

  2. Athens Public International Law Center, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Anastasios Gourgourinis

  3. French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)-CERSA, University Paris II PanthƩon-Assas, Paris, France

    Catharine Titi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Ā© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Paschalidis, P. (2020). The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration. In: Fach GĆ³mez, K., Gourgourinis, A., Titi, C. (eds) International Investment Law and Competition Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33915-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33916-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation