Acceso usuarios
Giulia Vallar
1.Introduzione. - 2. Il caso Eureko. - 3. Il rilievo del caso MOX Plant. - 4. La posizione dell'Unione europea riguardo alle clausole compromissorie contenute negli intra-EU BITs applicabili alle controversie tra investitore e Stato. - 5. Profili di diritto internazionale: l'estinzione del BIT ai sensi dell'art. 59 o l'inapplicabilità di alcune sue disposizioni ai sensi dell' art. 30 della convenzione di Vienna sul diritto dei trattati. - 6. Profili di diritto dell'Unione europea: il divieto di discriminazione tra investitori di diversi Stati membri. - 7. Segue: le < EUcourts> hanno competenza esclusiva in relazione alle controversie tra «soggetti di diritto dell'Unione e che riguardano il diritto dell'Unione»? Il rilievo dell'art. 344 TFUE. - 8. Segue: i tribunali arbitrali competenti in materia di investimenti possono operare un rinvio pregiudiziale alla Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea? - 9. Considerazioni conclusive.
The present paper deals with one of the issues that has recently been considered within the Eureko/ Achmea V. The Slovak Republic case,namely the arbitrability of the so called intra-EU BITs disputes. In essence, it focuses on whether the investor of an EU member state can rely on the compromissory clause contained in a BIT that its country of origin had signed with another country that, in turn, at a later time, became an EU member State. To such a question arbitral tribunals have answered in the positive, while the EU in the negative, without however adopting a normative act in this sense. Throughout the paper, an analysis is conducted of those aspects of international law and of EU law that come into play in relation to the matter at hand. It is submitted that, in the absence of a definite/hard law solution, the way out should consist, for the time being. in applying soft law principles and, in particular, that of comity; nevertheless, the EUCJ and the arbitral tribunals do not appear to be very much keen to act in this sense. EU member states, on their part, are more and more frequently opting for the termination of tbe relevant BITs, allegedly on the basis of a law and economics analysis. This attitude, however, might produce negative effects on the economy of these states, since investors, seeking the protection of a BIT, could be encouraged to move their seats in third countries.
