SpringerLink
Log in

Investor-State Arbitration and European Union Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rethinking Investor-State Arbitration

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 27))

  • 190 Accesses

Abstract

This Chapter examines the relationship between investor-State arbitration and EU law. It discusses how the EU and its Member States strove for the correct and uniform application of EU law in an international investment law context. In Slovak Republic v Achmea, the Court of Justice of the EU clarified that intra-EU ISDS is incompatible with EU law. This approach originates from the Opinions of the Court of Justice of the EU preventing external judiciary organs to have jurisdiction on legal acts and omissions of the EU, and is reinforced by the Member States’ Declarations of 15 and 16 January 2019, as well as the Termination Agreement of 5 May 2020 phasing out intra-EU ISDS. This Chapter further discusses landmark cases such as République de Moldavie v Komstroy; Republic of Poland v PL Holdings; and European Commission v European Food SA and Others. Finally, the inclusion of the Investment Court System in bilateral agreements with trade partners of the EU, the proposal of a Multilateral Investment Court and the work on a Standing Multilateral Mechanism for the resolution of investor-State disputes within the UNCITRAL Working Group III are endeavours to improve various pitfalls of the ISDS system.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Herrmann and Hoffmann (2021), p. 9.

  2. 2.

    European Commission (2012).

  3. 3.

    Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20.

  4. 4.

    See Arts. 107, 108 and 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

  5. 5.

    See the procedural history of the case, as detailed in the Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38,517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania—Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013.

  6. 6.

    Micula (and others) v Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB05/20), Final Award 11 December 2013.

  7. 7.

    See also Sect. 8.1.7, European Commission v European Food SA and Others, Case C-638/19 P.

  8. 8.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010, paras. 26, 151.

  9. 9.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010, para. 30.

  10. 10.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010, paras. 37, 175–96.

  11. 11.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010, paras. 176–182.

  12. 12.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010, paras. 183–184.

  13. 13.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010, paras. 185–186.

  14. 14.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, para. 187.

  15. 15.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, paras. 188–193.

  16. 16.

    Achmea v The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, para. 293.

  17. 17.

    Jagusch and Sullivan (2011).

  18. 18.

    Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.À.R.L., et al. v Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/150, BayWa r.e. Renewable Energy GmbH and BayWa r.e. Asset Holding GmbH v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/16, Stadtwerke München GmbH and others v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1, OperaFund Eco-Invest SICAV PLC and Schwab Holding AG v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/36, Hydro Energy 1 S.à r.l. and Hydroxana Sweden AB v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/42, 9REN Holding S.a.r.l v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/15, Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV and others v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/20.

  19. 19.

    United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. and AS Tallinna Vesi Claimants v Republic of Estonia Respondent, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24.

  20. 20.

    Gerlich (2017), p. 255.

  21. 21.

    Sanches Afonso (2019), pp. 242–243.

  22. 22.

    See, for example, Alicia Grace and others v Mexico, ICSID Case No UNCT/ 18/ 4, Procedural Order No 4, 24 June 2019, para. 52.

  23. 23.

    Sanches Afonso (2019), p. 243.

  24. 24.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018.

  25. 25.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 8.

  26. 26.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 9. See also Achmea B.V. (formerly known as “Eureko B.V.”) v The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Final Award, 7 December 2012, para. 12.

  27. 27.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 12.

  28. 28.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 14.

  29. 29.

    Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, Decision of 18 December 2014 – Case 26 Sch 3/13.

  30. 30.

    Bundesgerichtshof, Decision of 3 March 2016 – Case I ZB 2/15.

  31. 31.

    In contrast to the Achmea judgment, Opinion 1/17 also concerned the compatibility of substantial investment protection standards with EU law.

  32. 32.

    Lavranos and Singla (2018), p. 777.

  33. 33.

    See Order for reference of the BGH, 3 March 2016, I ZB 2/15.

  34. 34.

    In this sense, the tribunal in Vattenfall v Germany (II) analysed the potential relevance of the Achmea judgment in the context of its jurisdiction. See ICSID, Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, Decision on the Achmea issue, 31 August 2018, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, para. 139.

  35. 35.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 31.

  36. 36.

    This corresponds to the Courts findings in Opinion 1/17, at paras. 127, 129, where it is recalled that the Achmea judgment is based on the principle of mutual trust and therefore not transferable to an extra-EU context. Opinion 1/17 of the Court (Full Court), 30 April 2019. See also Segoin (2019), p. 238.

  37. 37.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 56.

  38. 38.

    Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the “Intra-EU” Jurisdictional Objection, 25 February 2019, para. 138; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. Arb/15/45, Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Reconsideration of the ‘Intra-EU’ Jurisdictional Decisions, 22 February 2023; Lemaire (2018), p. 434.

  39. 39.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 42.

  40. 40.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 42.

  41. 41.

    Particularly relevant in cases where the host State acceded to the EU after concluding the applicable BIT, EU treaties are considered as successive treaties relating to the same subject-matter in the sense of Art. 30 VCLT. See Glinski (2018), pp. 47, 60.

  42. 42.

    See Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, Decision on the Achmea issue, 31 August 2018, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, paras. 147–150.

  43. 43.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 43.

  44. 44.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 45.

  45. 45.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/166, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 43.

  46. 46.

    Soloch (2019), p. 13. See also Bonnitcha et al. (2017), p. 86.

  47. 47.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 59.

  48. 48.

    Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/166, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 51. Art. 18 (1) UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules stipulates that ‘if the parties have not previously agreed on the place of arbitration, the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case’.

  49. 49.

    See Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v Kingdom of Spain, Award, 16 May 2018, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1; UP and C.D Holding Internationale v Hungary, Award, 9 October 2018, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35; Greentech Energy Systems A/S, et al. v Italian Republic, Award, 23 December 2018, SCC Case No. V 2015/095; CEF Energia BV v Italian Republic, Award, 16 January 2019, SCC Case No. 158/2015; 9REN Holding S.a.r.l. v Kingdom of Spain, Award, 31 May 2019 ICSID Case No. ARB/15/15; Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, Decision on the Achmea issue, 31 August 2018, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v Italian Republic, Decision on Termination Request and Intra-EU Opinion, 7 May 2019, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50.

  50. 50.

    Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, Decision on the Achmea issue, 31 August 2018, para. 163; Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award, 16 May 2018, para. 682; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Termination Request and Intra-EU Opinion, 7 May 2019, paras. 167–168.

  51. 51.

    Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, Decision on the Achmea issue, 31 August 2018, para. 133; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Termination Request and Intra-EU Opinion, 7 May 2019, paras. 115, 174; Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd, and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14, Decision on the Intra-EU Jurisdictional Objection, 26 June 2019, para. 174. See also Greentech Energy Systems A/S, et al. v Italian Republic, SCC Case No. V 2015/095, Award, 23 December 2018, para. 397; Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à.r.l. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017, paras. 197–198.

  52. 52.

    European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Protection of intra-EU investment, Brussels, 19.7.2018 COM(2018) 547 final.

  53. 53.

    Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018.

  54. 54.

    Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018.

  55. 55.

    Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 33.

  56. 56.

    Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018, para. 58.

  57. 57.

    German Federal Court of Justice, Decision, Case I ZB 2/15, 31 October 2018.

  58. 58.

    Republic of Poland v PL Holdings, Svea Court of Appeal, Case No. T 8538-17, 13 June 2018.

  59. 59.

    Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12.

  60. 60.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 31(3)(c).

  61. 61.

    Landesbank Baden-Württemberg Et Al. v Kingdom Of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the “Intra-EU” Jurisdictional Objection, para. 192.

  62. 62.

    Landesbank Baden-Württemberg Et Al. v Kingdom Of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the “Intra-Eu” Jurisdictional Objection, para. 194.

  63. 63.

    Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v the Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/14/1.

  64. 64.

    Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energia Solar Luxembourg S.à.r.l. v the Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36.

  65. 65.

    Antin Energia Termosolar B.V. v the Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31.

  66. 66.

    Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12.

  67. 67.

    Antaris Solar GmbH and Dr. Michael Göde v Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-01.

  68. 68.

    Athena Investments A/S v the Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 150/2015.

  69. 69.

    RWE Innogy GmbH and another v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/34.

  70. 70.

    Declaration Of The Representatives Of The Governments Of The Member States, Of 15 January 2019, On The Legal Consequences Of The Judgment Of The Court Of Justice In Achmea And On Investment Protection In The European Union, Council of the European Union, Draft Minutes, Council of the European Union (Foreign Affairs), 15 July 2019.

  71. 71.

    Declaration Of The Representatives Of The Governments Of The Member States, Of 15 January 2019, On The Legal Consequences Of The Judgment Of The Court Of Justice In Achmea And On Investment Protection In The European Union, Council of the European Union, Draft Minutes, Council of the European Union (Foreign Affairs), 15 July 2019.

  72. 72.

    Declaration Of The Representatives Of The Governments Of The Member States, Of 15 January 2019, On The Legal Consequences Of The Judgment Of The Court Of Justice In Achmea And On Investment Protection In The European Union, Council of the European Union, Draft Minutes, Council of the European Union (Foreign Affairs), 15 July 2019.

  73. 73.

    Declaration Of The Representatives Of The Governments Of The Member States, Of 16 January On The Enforcement Of The Judgment Of The Court Of Justice In Achmea And On Investment Protection In The European Union.

  74. 74.

    Declaration Of The Representatives Of The Governments Of The Member States, Of 16 January On The Enforcement Of The Judgment Of The Court Of Justice In Achmea And On Investment Protection In The European Union.

  75. 75.

    Novenergia II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063.

  76. 76.

    Novenergia II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063.

  77. 77.

    The Hungary Declaration was dated 16 January 2019 as well.

  78. 78.

    Statement by Hungary, Council of the European Union, Draft Minutes, Council of the European Union (Foreign Affairs), 15 July 2019.

  79. 79.

    Statement by Hungary, Council of the European Union, Draft Minutes, Council of the European Union (Foreign Affairs), 15 July 2019.

  80. 80.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union L 169/1. 29.5.2020.

  81. 81.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 17 U.S.T. 1270, T.I.A.A. 6090, 575 U.N.T.S. 159, Article 52 (done at Washington on March 18, 1965, entered into force on October 14, 1966).

  82. 82.

    The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. 6997, 330 U.N.T.S 3, Articles III-VI (done at New York in June 10, 1958, entered into force on June 7, 1959, entered into force for the United States on December 29, 1970).

  83. 83.

    Termination Agreement, Arts. 6(1) and (2).

  84. 84.

    Urquhart and Sullivan (2020).

  85. 85.

    Termination Agreement art. 7(2).

  86. 86.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Art. 1.

  87. 87.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Art. 7.

  88. 88.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Annex C.

  89. 89.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Arts. 8–10.

  90. 90.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Art. 1.

  91. 91.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Art. 5.

  92. 92.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Art. 7.

  93. 93.

    Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, Art. 8.

  94. 94.

    U.S. Model BIT 2012 Article 22(3).

  95. 95.

    Termination Agreement, Articles 2 and 3.

  96. 96.

    Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union.

  97. 97.

    Conclusions of Advocate General M. Maciej Szpunar, 3 March 2021, Case C-741/19, République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, successor to the company Energoalians, para. 10.

  98. 98.

    Conclusions of Advocate General M. Maciej Szpunar, 3 March 2021, Case C-741/19, République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, successor to the company Energoalians, paras. 12–13.

  99. 99.

    Conclusions of Advocate General M. Maciej Szpunar, 3 March 2021, Case C-741/19, République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, successor to the company Energoalians, para. 14.

  100. 100.

    Conclusions of Advocate General M. Maciej Szpunar, 3 March 2021, Case C-741/19, République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, successor to the company Energoalians, para. 15.

  101. 101.

    Energoalians TOB v Republic of Moldova, UNCITRAL, Award, 13 October 2013, para. 356.

  102. 102.

    Energoalians TOB v Republic of Moldova, UNCITRAL, Award, 13 October 2013, para. 436.

  103. 103.

    Conclusions of Advocate General M. Maciej Szpunar, 3 March 2021, Case C-741/19, République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, successor to the company Energoalians, para. 17.

  104. 104.

    Cour D’appel De Paris, Pôle 1 - Chambre 1 Arrêt Du 12 Avril 2016, Numéro d’inscription au répertoire général: 13/22531, République De Moldavie contre Société Komstroy venant aux droits de la société Energoalians.

  105. 105.

    Cour de cassation, chambre civile 1, N° de pourvoi: 16-16568, ECLI:FR: CCASS:2018:C100352, 11 April 2018.

  106. 106.

    Paris Court of Appeal (Chamber 1), 24 September 2019, No. 18/14721.

  107. 107.

    Conclusions of Advocate General M. Maciej Szpunar, 3 March 2021, Case C-741/19, République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, successor to the company Energoalians, para. 23–24.

  108. 108.

    République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, Case C-741/19, para. 34.

  109. 109.

    République de Moldavie v Komstroy LLC, Case C-741/19, para. 41.

  110. 110.

    Republic of Poland v PL Holdings S.à.r.l., Case C-109/20.

  111. 111.

    Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms.

  112. 112.

    Republic of Poland v PL Holdings S.à.r.l., Case C-109/20, para. 52.

  113. 113.

    EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.

  114. 114.

    Cremona (2018), pp. 231–259.

  115. 115.

    Hainbach (2018), p. 200.

  116. 116.

    Wessel (2008), p. 175.

  117. 117.

    Kleimann and Kübek (2016), pp. 13–46.

  118. 118.

    Article 216(1) TFEU.

  119. 119.

    Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Full Court), Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU [2017] ECLI:EU:

    C:2017:376, paras. 12–14.

  120. 120.

    Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Full Court), Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU [2017] ECLI:EU:

    C:2017:376, paras. 12–14.

  121. 121.

    Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Full Court), Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU [2017] ECLI:EU:spiepr Par234C:2017:376, para. 19.

  122. 122.

    Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Art. 218(11) TFEU (Opinion 2/15) (2015/C 363/22), 3 Nov. 2015.

  123. 123.

    Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Full Court), Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU [2017] ECLI:EU:

    C:2017:376, para. 305.

  124. 124.

    Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Full Court), Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU [2017] ECLI:EU:

    C:2017:376, para. 305.

  125. 125.

    Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Full Court), Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU [2017] ECLI:EU:

    C:2017:376, para. 292.

  126. 126.

    Opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Full Court), Opinion pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU [2017] ECLI:EU:

    C:2017:376, para. 305.

  127. 127.

    Agreement Between The European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership.

  128. 128.

    EU – China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), Agreement in Principle, Section V Dispute Settlement, 30 December 2020.

  129. 129.

    European Union’s proposal for the EU-New Zealand FTA, Dispute Settlement.

  130. 130.

    European Union’s proposal for the EU-Australia FTA, Dispute Settlement.

  131. 131.

    Trade Part of the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement, Text of the Agreement in Principle, Dispute Settlement, 28 June 2019.

  132. 132.

    Modernisation of the Trade Part of the EU-Mexico Global Agreement, Text of the Agreement in Principle, Resolution of Investment Disputes, 21 April 2018.

  133. 133.

    European Parliament, CETA ratification process: Recent developments, 2017.

  134. 134.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 30 April 2019.

  135. 135.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 30 April 2019.

  136. 136.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, paras. 106–107.

  137. 137.

    Opinion 1/17  of the Court of Justice of the European Union, para. 111.

  138. 138.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, para. 115.

  139. 139.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, para. 117.

  140. 140.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, para. 122.

  141. 141.

    Article 8.31.2 CETA.

  142. 142.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, paras. 122 and 133.

  143. 143.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, para.121.

  144. 144.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, para. 121.

  145. 145.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, para. 130–131.

  146. 146.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, para. 130.

  147. 147.

    Titi (2017).

  148. 148.

    Titi (2017).

  149. 149.

    Submission from the European Union and its Member States, UNCITRAL Working Group III, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1, 24 January 2019, paras. 22–24.

  150. 150.

    Article 8.28 of CETA; Article 3.10 of the EU-Singapore IPA; Article 3.39 of the EU-Vietnam IPA; Article 12 of the EU-Mexico Trade Agreement, Section on Resolution of Investment Disputes.

  151. 151.

    Article 8.28(2) of CETA; Article 3.19(1) of the EU-Singapore IPA; Article 3.54(1) of the EU-Vietnam IPA;

    Article 30(1) of the EU-Mexico Trade Agreement, Section on Resolution of Investment Disputes. There is however a certain debate as to whether the term ‘correctness’ is appropriate when applied to international decisions.

  152. 152.

    Titi (2021).

  153. 153.

    See Sect. 9.9.3, Permanent Investment Court.

  154. 154.

    Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Submission from the European Union and its Member States A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1.

  155. 155.

    Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Submission from the European Union and its Member States A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1, para. 83.

  156. 156.

    For an example of such a mechanism, see the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part which provides in Article 3.22 that “Final awards issued pursuant to this Section by the Tribunal shall be binding between the disputing parties and shall not be subject to appeal, review, set aside, annulment or any other remedy,” and in Article 3.7(1)(f)(iii) that requires a declaration that the claimant “will not seek to appeal, review, set aside, annul, revise or initiate any other similar procedure before an international or domestic court or tribunal, as regards an award pursuant to this Section”. See also The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU and its Member States (Article 8.28(9)(b)) and the Investment Protection Agreement between Viet Nam and the EU and its Member States (Articles 3.36(3)(b) and 3.57(1)(b)).

  157. 157.

    See Langford et al. (2017), p. 328.

  158. 158.

    This idea draws on Rule 6(2) of the Working procedures for appellate review of the Appellate Body of the WTO.

  159. 159.

    Most domestic and international courts allow full-time adjudicators to engage in teaching: this could be permitted.

  160. 160.

    Susan Block-Lieb and Halliday (2017), p. 323.

  161. 161.

    Article 21, Treaty on European Union.

  162. 162.

    See also Wessel (2011), pp. 629–630.

  163. 163.

    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Frequently Asked Questions - Methods of Work.

  164. 164.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP. 149 to 152.

  165. 165.

    See Sect. 9.9.3, Permanent Investment Court.

  166. 166.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Report A/CN.9/935, para. 14.

  167. 167.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, paras. 21, 24, and 34.

  168. 168.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150, paras. 32 to 36.

  169. 169.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, para. 23.

  170. 170.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, Note A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, para. 26, and A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150.

  171. 171.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat A/CN.9/915, paras. 10–33.

  172. 172.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150, paras. 37–41.

  173. 173.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, para. 43, and Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150, paras. 44–45.

  174. 174.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, para. 41.

  175. 175.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166.

  176. 176.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149 para. 44; and Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150 para. 47.

  177. 177.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150, para. 46; Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.151, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.152.

  178. 178.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, para. 49; and Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.151, para. 19.

  179. 179.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, paras. 52 and 56, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.151, paras. 49 to 67.

  180. 180.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.167, 31 July 2019.

  181. 181.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Report, A/CN.9/1004 dated 12 October 2019, paras. 52 and 77.

  182. 182.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Report, A/CN.9/1004 dated 12 October 2019, para. 57.

  183. 183.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Report, A/CN.9/1004 dated 12 October 2019, para. 72.

  184. 184.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Report, A/CN.9/1004 dated 12 October 2019, para. 74.

  185. 185.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166, paras. 80–98.

  186. 186.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166, paras. 31–49.

  187. 187.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166.

  188. 188.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.193, 22 January 2020.

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL, Working Group III, Submission from the European Union and its Member States, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1, 24 January 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Achmea B.V. (formerly known as “Eureko B.V.”) v The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Achmea B.V. (formerly known as “Eureko B.V.”) v The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Final Award, 7 December 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Agreement Between The European Union and Japan For an Economic Partnership

    Google Scholar 

  • Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union L 169/1. 29.5.2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleimann D, Kübek G (2018) The signing, provisional application, and conclusion of trade and investment agreements in the EU: the case of CETA and opinion 2/15, Legal issues of economic integration, vol 45, no 1, pp 13–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Alicia Grace and others v Mexico, ICSID Case No UNCT/ 18/ 4, Procedural Order No 4, 24 June 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Antaris Solar GmbH and Dr. Michael Göde v Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-01, Award, 2 May 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Athena Investments A/S v the Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 150/2015

    Google Scholar 

  • BayWa r.e. Renewable Energy GmbH and BayWa r.e. Asset Holding GmbH v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/16

    Google Scholar 

  • Block-Lieb S, Halliday TC (2017) Global lawmakers. International organizations in the crafting of world markets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnitcha J, Skovgaard Poulsen LNS, Waibel M (2017) The political economy of the investment treaty regime. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesgerichtshof, Decision of 3 March 2016 – Case I ZB 2/15

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Order for reference of the BGH, 3 March 2016, I ZB 2/15

    Google Scholar 

  • CEF Energia BV v Italian Republic, SCC Case No. 158/2015, Award, 16 January 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union, Opinion 2/15, 16 May 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38,517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania—Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU and its Member States (CETA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 17 U.S.T. 1270, T.I.A.A. 6090, 575 U.N.T.S. 159

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union, Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union

    Google Scholar 

  • Cour D’appel De Paris, Pôle 1 - Chambre 1 Arrêt Du 12 Avril 2016, Numéro d’inscription au répertoire général: 13/22531, République De Moldavie contre Société Komstroy venant aux droits de la société Energoalians

    Google Scholar 

  • Cour de Cassation, chambre civile 1, N° de pourvoi: 16-16568, ECLI:FR: CCASS:2018:C100352, 11 April 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union, Opinion 1/17 of the Court (Full Court), 30 April 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremona M (2018) Sha** EU Trade Policy post-Lisbon: Opinion 2/15 of 16 May 2017. Eur Const Law Rev 14(1):231–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV and others v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/20

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, of 15 January 2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on Investment Protection in the European Union, 15 July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, of 16 January on the Enforcement of the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on Investment Protection in the European Union, 16 January 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à.r.l. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Termination Request and Intra-EU Opinion, 7 May 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) Capital Movements And Investments In The Eu Commission Services’ Paper On Market Monitoring

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2018) Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament And The Council, Protection of intra-EU investment, Brussels, 19.7.2018 COM(2018) 547 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament (2017) CETA ratification process: Recent developments

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union’s (EU) proposal for the EU-Australia FTA, Dispute Settlement

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union’s (EU) proposal for the EU-New Zealand FTA, Dispute Settlement

    Google Scholar 

  • Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.À.R.L., et al. v Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/150

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlich O (2017) More than a friend? The European Commission’s Amicus Curiae participation in investor-state arbitration. In: Adinolfi G et al (eds) International economic law. Springer International Publishing Switzerland/G. Giappichelli Editore, Cham/Torino, pp 253–269

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • German Federal Court of Justice, Decision, Case I ZB 2/15 (31 October 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Glinski C (2018) Achmea and its implications for investor dispute settlement. ZEuS 1:47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greentech Energy Systems A/S, et al. v Italian Republic, SCC Case No. V 2015/095, Final Award, 23 December 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainbach P (2018) The CJEU’s Opinion 2/15 and the future of EU investment policy and law-making. Legal Issues Econ Integr 45(2):199–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann C, Hoffmann M (2021) Investment in the European Union: competences, structures, responsibility and policy. In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrand Pohl J (2018) Intra-EU investment arbitration after the Achmea case: legal autonomy bounded by mutual trust? Eur Const Law Rev 14:767

    Google Scholar 

  • Hydro Energy 1 S.à r.l. and Hydroxana Sweden AB v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/42, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum, 9 March 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • ICSID, Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, Decision on the Achmea issue, 31 August 2018, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12

    Google Scholar 

  • Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Energia Termosolar B.V. (formerly Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Antin Energia Termosolar B.V.) v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31, Award, 15 June 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Investment Protection Agreement Between Viet Nam and the EU and its Member States

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagusch S, Sullivan J (2011) Arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty: recent decisions and a look to the future. In: Coop G (ed) Energy dispute resolution: investment protection, transit and the Energy Charter Treaty. Juris, Huntington, pp 67–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleimann D, Kübek G (2016) The Signing, Provisional Application and Conclusion of Trade and Investment. European University Institute, Working Paper 2016/58

    Google Scholar 

  • Komstroy (formerly Energoalians) v. Republic of Moldova, UNCITRAL, Award, 13 October 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. Arb/15/45, Decision on the “Intra-EU” Jurisdictional Objection, 25 February 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. Arb/15/45, Decision on the Respondent’s Application for Reconsideration of the ‘Intra-EU’ Jurisdictional Decisions, 22 February 2023

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford M, Behn D, Lie RL (2017) The revolving door in international investment arbitration. J Int Econ Law 20(2):328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N, Singla T (2018) Achmea: Groundbreaking or Overrated? Zeitschrift fuer Schiedsverfahren 16(6):348–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemaire S (2018) Chronique de jurisprudence arbitrale en droit des investissements. Revue de l’Arbitrage 2:423

    Google Scholar 

  • Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award, 16 May 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Micula (and others) v Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB05/20, Final Award, 11 December 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Modernisation of the Trade Part of the EU-Mexico Global Agreement, Text of the Agreement in Principle, Resolution of Investment Disputes, 21 April 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Moldova v Komstroy, CJEU, Case C–741/19, Opinion of Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, 3 March 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Notes by the UNCITRAL Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP

    Google Scholar 

  • Novenergia II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt, Case 26 Sch 3/13, Decision of 18 December 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • OperaFund Eco-Invest SICAV PLC and Schwab Holding AG v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/36, Award, 6 September 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris Court of Appeal (Chamber 1), 24 September 2019, No. 18/14721

    Google Scholar 

  • Republic of Moldova v Komstroy, successor to the company Energoalians, Case C-741/19, Conclusions of Advocate General M. Maciej Szpunar, 3 March 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Republic of Poland v PL Holdings, Svea Court of Appeal, Case No. T 8538-17, 13 June 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Art. 218(11) TFEU

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd, and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v Italian Republic, Decision on the Intra-EU Jurisdictional Objection, 26 June 2019, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14

    Google Scholar 

  • RWE Innogy GmbH and another v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/34, Award, 18 December 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanches Afonso FGT (2019) The European Commission as Amicus Curiae of arbitral tribunals: is it a legitimate relationship? Revista de Arbitragem e Mediação 60(2019):237–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Segoin D (2019) Les accords de protection des investissements conclus entre États membres saisis par le droit de l’Union Achmea. Revue du droit de l’Union européenne 1:225

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 March 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloch B (2019) CJEU Judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea: single decision and its multi-faceted fallout. Law Pract Int Courts Trib - LPICT 18:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadtwerke München GmbH and others v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1, Award, 2 December 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Statement by Hungary, Council of the European Union, Draft Minutes, Council of the European Union (Foreign Affairs), 15 July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Submission from the European Union and its Member States, UNCITRAL Working Group III, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add. 1, 24 January 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. 6997, 330 U.N.T.S 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2017) The European Union’s proposal for an international investment court: significance, innovations and challenges ahead. Transnatl Disp Manage 14(1):1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2021) Opinion 1/17 and the future of investment dispute settlement: implications for the design of a multilateral investment court. In: Sachs L, Johnson L, Coleman J (eds) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2019. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 514–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Trade part of the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement, Text of the Agreement in Principle, Dispute Settlement, 28 June 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL Working Group III, A/CN.9/1004, 12 October 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL Working Group III, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166, 30 July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL Working Group III, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.167, 31 July 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat A/CN.9/915, 3-21 July 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL Working Group III, Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.193, 22 January 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL Working Group III, Report A/CN.9/935

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL Working Group III, Possible reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Submission from the European Union and its Member States A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Frequently Asked Questions - Methods of Work

    Google Scholar 

  • United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. and AS Tallinna Vesi v Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Award, 21 June 2019c

    Google Scholar 

  • UP and C.D Holding Internationale v Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35, Award, 9 October 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart QE, Sullivan LLP (2020) EU Countries Sign Intra-EU BIT Termination Agreement, Ushering in Brave New World of Investor-State Dispute Settlement on the European Continent

    Google Scholar 

  • Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, Decision on the Achmea issue, 31 August 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel RA (2008) The EU as a party to international agreements: shared competences, mixed responsibilities. In: Dashwood A, Maresceau M (eds) Law and practice of EU external relations: salient features of a changing landscape. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 152–187

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel RA (2011) The legal framework for the participation of the European Union in International Institutions. Eur Integr 33(6):629–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WTO, Working procedures for appellate review of the Appellate Body (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brussels, Belgium

    Flavia Marisi

Authors
  1. Flavia Marisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Marisi, F. (2023). Investor-State Arbitration and European Union Law. In: Rethinking Investor-State Arbitration. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38184-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38184-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38183-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38184-3

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation