Articles for author: Steffen Hindelang

Achmea Goes to Washington

Recently, a US District Court trashed a Dutch company's arbitral award against Spain. Why? Because investor-state arbitration within the EU violates European law. Yet, many tribunals keep issuing arbitral awards - especially under the infamous Energy Charta Treaty. Challenging those awards in domestic courts outside the EU, like here in Washington D.C., might work as corrective to the continuing illegal assumption of jurisdiction and blatant disregard for the EU Treaties by arbitral tribunals.

19. April 2023

, , , , , ,

Debate: A Common European Law on Investment Screening?

Volvo Personvagnar AB, Kuka, Aixtron, OSRAM Licht, Daimler, Saxo Bank, the harbour terminal in Zeebrugge, Spain’s Noatum Port, Italy’s Vado Ligure Port or the Port of Piraeus – the list of discussed controversial company takeovers and acquisitions of major stakes in Europe is getting longer and longer. The political will in the European Union (EU) and its Member States is growing to more actively screen, control, or even prevent investments flowing into Europe. Third country investments stirring controversies archetypically share three common characteristics. The target companies typically operate in “politically sensitive areas”, the owner structure of the immediate buyer is ... continue reading

4. Februar 2019

, ,

The Brexit Divorce Bill – Großbritanniens Welt der alternativen Fakten

Der Brexit könnte für das Vereinigte Königreich teuer werden. Schätzungen gehen von bis zu 100 Mrd. Euro aus. Darüber wird in den seit dem 19. Juni 2017 offiziell laufenden Austrittsverhandlungen zu sprechen sein. Bisher wollten die Britten allerdings von alledem nichts wissen. Sie glauben gar, demnächst einen Scheck aus Brüssel zu erhalten. Der nachfolgende Beitrag möchte der rechtlichen Fundierung der britischen Gedankenwelt nachgehen. Schließlich macht es verhandlungstaktisch keinen kleinen Unterschied, ob Großbritannien lediglich moralisch oder auch rechtlich zur Zahlung einer Brexit divorce bill verpflichtet ist.

24. Juni 2017

, ,

Investor-state dispute settlement – Pulling the chain tighter

Since the 1970s, almost any bilateral and regional investment treaty has provided for investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”). Based on these agreements, foreign investors can commence international arbitration against their host states, claiming administrative, regulatory, or judicial measures are in violation of substantive investment protection standards. At a global level rising numbers of investor-state disputes and newly signed investment agreements suggest the continuous importance and attractiveness of this dispute settlement mechanism. Yet, we also see contestations. A few countries did not renew or even terminated existing investment instruments. Others have withdrawn from the ICSID-Convention. What does this mean for the European Union? Simply carrying on appears no sustainable option anymore. Since the 1970s, almost any bilateral and regional investment treaty has provided for investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”). Based on these agreements, foreign investors can commence international arbitration against their host states, claiming administrative, regulatory, or judicial measures are in violation of substantive investment protection standards. At a global level rising numbers of investor-state disputes and newly signed investment agreements suggest the continuous importance and attractiveness of this dispute settlement mechanism. Yet, we also see contestations. A few countries did not renew or even terminated existing investment instruments. Others have withdrawn from the ICSID-Convention. What does this mean for the European Union? Simply carrying on appears no sustainable option anymore.

17. April 2014