State liability and the enforcement of arbitral awards infringing EU law, a zero-sum game after Tomášová?

• Autores: Carlos Javier Moreiro González
• Localización: Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, ISSN-e 1989-4570, Vol. 10, Nº. 2, 2018, págs. 567-578
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.20318/cdt.2018.4389
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Responsabilidad del estado por inejecución de laudos arbitrales que violan el derecho de la UE, ¿un juego de suma cero tras Tomášová?
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen
  • español

    La doctrina del TJUE sobre el arbitraje comercial aborda varios aspectos de las complejas relaciones entre el arbitraje y la legislación de la UE. No obstante, dado que no existe una norma reglamentaria establecida, la revisión del tribunal nacional de la conformidad de los laudos arbitrales con el ordenamiento jurídico de la UE se lleva a cabo de acuerdo con diferentes criterios.

    Dado que los tribunales nacionales se enfrentan a obligaciones de diverso grado, existe el riesgo de desvincularse de la obligación de proteger este ordenamiento jurídico, con el consiguiente impacto en la creación de situaciones que podrían dar lugar a la responsabilidad del Estado por infracciones del Derecho de la UE.

    Aunque en su sentencia en el asunto Tomášová, el TJUE reconoce motivos muy restrictivos para la responsabilidad de un Estado miembro en tales circunstancias, esto no excluye que dicha responsabilidad pueda incurrirse en circunstancias menos restrictivas, ya sea sobre la base del derecho interno o del derecho internacional.

  • English

    The CJEU doctrine regarding to commercial arbitration addresses several aspects of the complex relationships between arbitration and EU Law. Nonetheless, since there is no established regulatory standard, the national court’s review of the conformity of arbitration awards with the EU legal order is conducted according to different criteria.

    As national courts are faced with obligations of varying degrees, there is the risk of detaching themselves from the obligation to protect this legal order, with a corresponding impact on the creation of situations that could give rise to State liability for infringements of EU Law.

    Although in its judgment in the Tomášová case the CJEU recognizes very restrictive grounds for the liability of a Member State in such circumstances, this does not exclude that such liability could beincurred under less restrictive circumstances either on the basis of internal law or international law.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • M. Szpunar: “Referrals of Preliminary Questions by Arbitral Tribunals to the CJEU”, in F. Ferrari (ed.): The impact of EU Law on International...
  • S. Hindeland, ‘Repelent Forces: The CJEU and Investor. State Dispute Settlement’, 53 Archiv des Völkerrechts (2015)
  • M. Illmer: “The Arbitration Interface with the Brussels I Recast: Past, Present and Future”, in F. Ferrari (ed.), The Impact of EU Law on...
  • C. Liebscher: “European Public Policy. A Black Box?” (2000), Journal of International Arbitration, 17 (3)
  • G. Karydis: “L’ordre public dans l’ordre juridique Communautaire: un concept à contenu variable” [Public Order in the Community’s Legal Order:...
  • L. Radicati di Brozolo: “When, why and How Must Arbitrators Apply Overriding Mandatory Provisions?. The Problems and a Proposal” in F. Ferrari...
  • L. Radicati di Brozolo: “Court Review of Competition Law Awards in Setting Aside and Enforcements Proceedings,” in G. Blanke and P. Landolt...
  • P. Mayer: “The Second Look Doctrine: The European Perspective,” (2010), American Review of International Arbitration, 21 (1)
  • G. Blanke: “The ‘Minimalist’ and ‘Maximalist’ Approach to Review Competition Law Awards: A NeverEnding Saga Revisited or the Middle Way at...
  • A. Mourre: “Les rapports de l’arbitrage et du droit communautaire après l’arrêt Eco Swiss de la Cour de Justice des Communautes Européennes”...
  • S. Prechal and N. Shelkoplyas: “National Procedures, Public Policy and EC Law. From Van Schijndel to Eco Swiss and Beyond,” (2004), Eur. Rev....
  • L. Radicati di Brozolo: “Arbitrato, diritto della concurrrenza, diritto comunitario e regole di procedura nazionali” [Arbitration, Competition Law,...
  • A. Mourre: “Les rapports de l’arbitrage et du droit communautaire après l’arrêt Eco Swiss de la Cour de Justice des Communautes Européennes”...
  • S. Prechal and N. Shelkoplyas: “National Procedures, Public Policy and EC Law. From Van Schijndel to Eco Swiss and Beyond,” (2004), Eur. Rev....
  • L. Radicati di Brozolo: “Arbitrato, diritto della concurrrenza, diritto comunitario e regole di procedura nazionali” [Arbitration, Competition...
  • P. Smith, “Comments” on A. Dickinson: “Unfair arbitration clause before the ECJ,” Conflicts of Laws.net – News and Views in Private International...
  • N. Blackbay, C. Partadises, A. Redfern, M. Hunter: Redfern and Huntern on International Commercial Arbitration, 5th edition, (Oxford UP, 2009),...
  • V. Trstenjak and E. Beysen: “European Consumer Protection Law: Curia Semper Davit Remedium?”, (2011), CML Rev., 48 (1)
  • F. Della Negra: “The Uncertain Development of the Case Law on Consumer Protection in Mortgage Enforcement Proceedings: Sánchez Morcillo and...
  • J.M. Glover: “Disappearing Claims and the Erosion of Substantive Law,” (2015)
  • J. Resnik: “Diffusing Disputes: the Public in the Private of Arbitration, the Private in Courts, and the Erasure of Rights,” (2015)
  • I.S. Szalai: “Direct TV, Inc. V. Inburgia: How the Supreme Court Used a Jedi Mind Trick to Turn Arbitration Law Upside Down,” (2016)
  • R. Malcolm: “Beyond Francovich,” 56, 1, Modern Law Review, 55, (1993)
  • J. Steiner: “From Direct Effect to Francovich: ‘Member State Liability and Direct Effect: What’s the Difference After All?’ Shifting Means...
  • S. Prechal: European Business Law Review, 17, 2, (2006)
  • A. Ward: “More than an ‘Infant Disease.’ Individual Rights, EC Directives and the Case for Uniform Remedies,” in J. Prissen and A. Eschrauwen...
  • P. Craig: “Once More Unto the Breach: The Community, the State and Damages Liability,” LQ Rev., 113 (1997)
  • E. Deards: “Brasserie du Pêcheur: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory?” EL Rev., 22 (1997)
  • W. Van Gerven: “Bridging the Unbridgeable: Community and National Tort Law after Francovich and Brasserie”; Int’l and CLQ, 45, (1996)
  • N.W. Barber and H. Scott: “State Liability under Francovich for Decisions of National Courts,” L Q Rev., 120 (2004)
  • B. Marten: “State Liability for Judicial Wrongs and Community Law: The Case of Gerhard Köbler v. Austria,” EL Rev., 29, (2004)
  • C. D. Classen: “Annotation to Köbler,” CML Rev., 41, (2004)
  • P. Wattel: “Köbler, CILFIT and Wethgrove: We Can’t Go on Meeting Like This,” CML Rev., 41
  • A. Georgios: “The Allocation of Responsibility in State Liability. Actions for Breach of Community Law: A Modern Gordian Knot?” EL Rev. 26...
  • A. Georgios: “Not as Unproblematic as You Might Think: The Establishment of Causation in Governmental Liability Actions,” EL Rev., 27 (2002)
  • A. Lengauer: “Case C-302/97, Klaus Konle v. Republic of Austria,” CML Rev., 37 (2000)
  • T. Tridimas: “Liability for Breach of Community Law Growing Up and Mellowing Down?” CML Rev., 38 (2001) (2004)
  • B. Beutler: “State Liability for Breaches of Community Law by National Courts: Is the Requirement of a Manifest Infringement of the Applicable...
  • Z. Varga: “In Search of a ‘Manifest Infringement of the Applicable Law’ in the Terms Set Out in Köbler,” Review of European Administrative...
  • A. Van Duin: “Océano meets Francovich (part II): CJEU judgment on State Liability and unfair terms,” Recent Developments in European Consumer...
  • J.S. Delicostopoulos: “Towards European Procedural Primacy in European Legal Systems,” Eur. L. J., 9, 5, (2003)
  • C. Kakouris: “Do the Member States Possess Judicial Procedural Autonomy?” CML Rev., 34, (1997)