Foreign investors in the EU - Which 'best treatment'? Interactions between bilateral investment treaties and EU Law

European Law Journal

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 237-260

  Radu, Anca ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65249175172     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00412.x     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. UNCTAD, International Investment Rule-Setting: Trends, Emerging Issues and Implications, Note prepared by the UNCTAD Secretariat (TD/B/COM.2/ 73, 5 January 2007), available at http://www.unctad.org/iia.
2. ibid.
3. According to UNCTAD's database of BITs; see the website available at http://www.unctad.org/iia.
4. In what follows, the term 'agreement' and the term 'treaty' are used interchangeably.
5. These countries are the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania.
6. European Commission, Press Release IP/04/618 (10 May 2004).
7. All the provisions in the EC Treaty henceforth referred to remain unchanged if the Treaty of Lisbon comes into force.
8. Article 307 EC.
9. Act of Accession 2003 and 2005, Art 6(10).
10. UNCTAD, Research Note on Recent Developments of IIAs (UNCTAD/WEB/ITE/IIT/2005/1, 2005), available at http://www.unctad.org/iia.
11. Act of Accession 2003 and 2005, Art 6(10), section 1.
12. Act of Accession 2003 and 2005, Art 6(1) and (2).
13. European Commission, Press Release IP/05/1288 (17 October 2005).
14. See UNCTAD, Dispute Settlement: Investor-State (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/30, 27 July 2003).
15. UNCTAD, World Investment Report (2007), available at http://www.unctad.org/wir/.
16. ibid.
17. At least two recent investment disputes that were made public mention measures taken in the application of EU Law: ICSID Case No ARB/04/15, Telenor Mobile Communications v Hungary, and ICSID Case No ARB/03/16 ADC&ADMC v Hungary.
18. See also Art 307 EC.
19. UNCTAD, op cit n 10 supra.
20. ibid.
21. C. Condon, 'Spectre of Lawsuit Losses Hangs over Bucharest', Financial Times, 18 April 2005.
22. See, for instance, the guidelines for an EU model BIT proposed by Joachim Karl in his article: 'The Competence for Foreign Direct Investment - New Powers for the European Union?', (2004) 5(3) Journal of World Investment 413.
23. See Commission's working document EC Law and Tax Treaties (TAXUD E1/FR DOC (05) 2306, 9 June 2005).
24. See UNCTAD, Scope and Definition (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11(Vol.II), 1 March 1999).
25. Article 1(d)(iii) in the Canada-Hungary BIT; Art 1(1)(d) in Australia's BITs with the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland and Hungary.
26. See Art 307 EC.
27. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States, the European Commission, and Acceding and Candidate Countries for accession to the European Union, chapter VI.
28. See Art 46 EC.
29. MOU, annex G.
30. ICSID Case No ARB/02/18, Tokios Tokelés v Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004, para 21.
31. Regional Economic Integration Organisation. See UNCTAD, Most Favourite Nation Treatment (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/10(Vol.III), 1 February 1999).
32. US-Bulgaria BIT, Art II(9)(a).
33. UK-China BIT, Art 3(4)(a).
34. European Commission, Press Release IP/04/618 (10 May 2004).
35. See, for instance, the EU-Morocco Association Agreement.
36. ICSID Case No ARB/97/7, Emilio Augusto Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain.
37. ICSID Cases No ARB/02/8 and ARB/03/2.
38. ICSID Case No ARB/03/24, Plama Consortium Ltd v Republic of Bulgaria, Decision on Jurisdiction of 8 February 2005, para 209.
39. See UNCTAD, National Treatment (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11(Vol. IV), 1 June 2000).
40. See Regulation (EC) No 2110/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005, [2005] OJ L344/1, Art 3.
41. Article 4, Exceptions: 'The provisions of this Agreement shall not be construed so as to oblige one Contracting Party to extend to the investors and investments by investors of the other Contracting Party the benefit of any treatment, preference or privilege by virtue of any existing or future: A) free trade area, customs union, common market, economic and monetary union or other similar regional economic integration agreement, including regional labour market agreements, to which one of the Contracting Parties is or may become a party...'.
42. Regulation 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), [2006] OJ L396/1, Art 6.1.
43. See also AMCHAM EU-CEFIC-FECC, Discussion Paper on the Trade Impact of REACH (November 2004), available at http://www.fecc.org.
44. NAFTA Arbitration under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Doc 742416:01).
45. Some tribunals favoured narrower interpretations. For instance, in Methanex v United States, Award of 3 August 2005, Part IV, Chapter B, para 12: 'In order to sustain its claim under Article 1102(3), Methanex must demonstrate, cumulatively, that California intended to favour domestic investors by discriminating against foreign investors and that Methanex and the domestic investor supposedly being favored by California are in like circumstances'.
46. Investment disputes such as Pope & Talbot Inc. v Canada and Ethyl v Canada (both NAFTA/UNCITRAL cases, available at http://www.naftaclaims.com) were also caused by trade regulations affecting foreign investors.
47. See, for instance, the US-Bulgaria BIT, Art II.2.(b).
48. See UNCTAD, Admission and Establishment (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/10(Vol.II), 1 December 1999).
49. Articles 45(1) and 46(1) EC.
50. See, for instance, the Canada-Poland BIT and the Canada-Romania BIT.
51. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers, [1992] OJ L240/1, Art 4.2.
52. MOU, annex D.
53. See UNCTAD, Host Country Measures (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/26, 20 June 2001).
54. Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, [1989] OJ L298/23, amended by Directive 97/36/EC, [1997] OJ L202/60.
55. See Regulation (EC) No 2110/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005, [2005] OJ L344/1, Art 5.
56. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway within a Member State, [1991] OJ L373/1, Art 2.1.
57. See UNCTAD, Transfer of Funds (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/20, 1 December 2000).
58. Article 57(2) EC.
59. Article 59 EC.
60. See UNCTAD, Investor-State Disputes Arising from Investment Treaties: A Review (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2005/4, 1 February 2006).
61. See UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11(Vol.III), 1 June 1999).
62. For instance the Chile-Malaysia BIT and the consequent interpretation by the tribunal in the case ICSID Case No ARB/01/7, MTD v Chile.
63. SD Myers v Canada, NAFTA Arbitration under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Doc 742416:01), Award of 13 November 2000, Chapter IX, para 266.
64. See UNCTAD, Taking of Property (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15, 1 February 2000).
65. ICSID Case No ARB/96/1, Compaña del Desarrollo de Santa Elena v Costa Rica, Final Award 17 February 2000, para 71.
66. ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/97/1, Metalclad v United Mexican States
67. ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/2, Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, SA v United Mexican Status.
68. Article 176 EC.
69. ICSID Case No ARB/05/20, Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and Others v Romania, based on the Sweden- Romania BIT.
70. Commission Decision of 24 March 2004, Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft.
71. US model BIT 2004, Art 12.
72. ICSID Case No ARB/03/16.
73. See UNCTAD, op cit n 14 supra.
74. ICSID Convention, Art 25(1).
75. Article 234 EC.
76. ICSID Case No ARB/04/15, Telenor Mobile Communications v Hungary, Final award 13 September 2006, para 50.
77. See UNCTAD, Dispute Settlement: State-State (UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2003/1, 25 July 2003).
78. The US Trade Department (http://www.state.gov) mentions the existence of a number of Additional Protocols with the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, but does not make them available. The first two are available at http://www.unctad.org/iia and they contain most of the proposed adjustments. Nothing is said about Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.