حقوق اتحادیه اروپا و معاهدات سرمایه گذاری اعضاء: با تاکید بر پیمان لیسبون

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشجوی دوره دکتری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

10.22066/cilamag.2018.31883

چکیده

پس از به‌اجرادرآمدن پیمان لیسبون و گسترش صلاحیت اتحادیه به حوزه سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی، به دلیل تعارض موافقت‌نامه‌های سرمایه‌گذاری با مقررات اتحادیه، اتحادیه اروپا با مشکلات عدیده‌ای در برابر دولت‌‌های ثالث و حتی میان اعضا روبه‌رو شد. اتحادیه تلاش کرد مشکلات خود را با دول ثالث از طریق تصویب‌نامه‌ای رفع کند و زمینه تداوم اعتبار آن را فراهم آورد. اما در مورد  موافقت‌نامه‌های میان اعضا، تأکید اتحادیه عمدتاً بر اختتام این موافقت‌نامه‌هاست. در مقابل، با ارجاع اختلافات به دیوان‌‌های داوری و صدور رأی این دیوان‌ها بر مبنای حقوق بین‌الملل و نه مقررات اتحادیه، این امر موجب اعتراض اتحادیه شد. اوج این واکنش را می‌توان در قضیه میکولا مشاهده کرد، به‌گونه‌ای که کمیسیون اروپا معتقد است اجرای رأی داوری به‌خودی‌خود، نقض مقررات اتحادیه در قالب کمک دولتی است. اما علی‌رغم مقاومت کمیسیون اروپا، این رأی در چارچوب نظام ایکسید قابلیت اجرا دارد. در مجموع، در این حوزه، مقررات اتحادیه با نوعی خلأ مواجه است که نوعی بلاتکلیفی را در مورد  سرانجام برخی از موافقت‌نامه‌های دوجانبه سرمایه‌گذاری ایجاد کرده است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

EU Law and Member States’ Investment Treaties: With Reference to the Lisbon Treaty

نویسنده [English]

  • Seyyed Jamal Seifi 1
1 Member of Faculty of Law Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]

After entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and extension of Jurisdiction European Union to foreign investment, certain conflict between investment agreements and EU rules come to light, which caused difficulties to third states and even to EU member States. The European Union tried to resolve the problem with third countries through a specific Regulation. However, with respect to the investment treaties concluded between the members States, the European union made its mission to terminate these treaties. On the other hand, reference of investment disputes to arbitration involving EU member States, has led to decision by the respective arbitral tribunals on the basis of international law rather than EU Law. This has Caused, Opposition by the EU institutions. The strongest of these reaction was made in the Micula Case. The European Commission Expressed the view that the enforcement of the arbitration award was unlawful as it constituted state aid, which is prohibited under the EU law. However, despite the European Commission’s Opposition, the award remains enforceable under the ICSID system. In summary, the EU law in this area contains ambiguities and is capable of generating uncertainty as to the fate and enforceability of bilateral investment treaties.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Lisbon Treaty
  • Bilateral Investment Treaties
  • European Commission
  • Micula Case
  • State Aid

منابع:

الف. فارسی

  • بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم؛ حقوق سازمان‌‌های بین‌المللی، مجد، 1390.
  • لونفلد، آندریاس؛ حقوق بین‌الملل اقتصادی، ترجمه: حبیبی مجنده، جنگل، 1395.

 

ب. انگلیسی

  • منابع:

    الف. فارسی

    • بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم؛ حقوق سازمان‌‌های بین‌المللی، مجد، 1390.
    • لونفلد، آندریاس؛ حقوق بین‌الملل اقتصادی، ترجمه: حبیبی مجنده، جنگل، 1395.

     

    ب. انگلیسی

    • Books & Articles:
    • Burgstaller M, “European Law and Investment Treaty”, JIA 181, 2009.
    • Denza L, “Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Rules on Free Transfer: Comment on Commission v. Austria, Commission v. Sweden, Commission v. Finland”, 35 EL REW, 2010.
    • Ghouri A, Interaction and Conflict of Treaties in Investment Arbitration, International Arbitration Library, Kluwer Law International, 2015.
    • Kokott J & Sobotta Ch, “Investment Arbitration and EU Law”, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, vol. 18, 2016.
    • Lavranos N, “Interference of European Commission in the Enforcement of Arbitration Awards: The Micula Case”, Global Investment Protection AG.
    • Lenk H, “Challenging Notion of Coherence in EU Foreign Investment Policy”, European Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 8, No. 2, 2015.
    • Lopez J, “Understanding the Notion of State Aid through Policy”, European University Institute, 2012.
    • Makrygianni Ch, “EU State Aid Law and the Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Arbitral Awards”, Master Thesis at International Hellenic University, 2016.
    • Radu A, “Foreign Investors in the EU- Which Treatment? Interaction between Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law”, 14 ELJ 237, 2008.
    • Reinisch A, “The EU on the Investment Path- Quo Vadis Europe? The Future of EU BITs and Other Investment Agreements”, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, vol. 12, 2014.
    • Sahibi T, The Relation of EU Law and Bilateral Investment Treaties, UMEA University, Master Thesis, 2015.
    • Schicho L, Member States BITs after the Treaty of Lisbon: Solid Foundation or First Victims of EU Investment Policy? Research Paper in Law, College of Europe, 2012.
    • Tietje Ch, Wackernagel C, “Outlawing Compliance? The Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Awards and EU State Aid Law”, Policy Papers on Transnational Economic Law, No. 41, 2014.
    • Wehland H, “Intra-EU Investment Agreements and Arbitration: Is European Community Law an Obstacle?”, 58 ICLQ, 2009.
    • Wehland H, “The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Misula v Romania and Beyond”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, vol. 17, Issue 6, 2016.

     

    • Cases & Documents:
    • Commission Communication “Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy”, COM 2010, 343 Final.
    • Eastern Sugar B.V. (Netherland) v. The Czech Republic, Partial Awards in March 2007.
    • Misula Case, Misula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award, 2013.
    • German Constitutional Court, Lisbon Treaty, Judgment of 30 June 2009.
    • Eureko BV v. The Slovak Republic, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, Oct 2010.
    • International Labor Organization, Opinion 2/91, Convention No. 170, 1993 E.C.R. I-1061.
    • ERTA Case, Case 22/70 Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Communities, 1971 E.C.R. 263.
    • Case Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlandse Administratie der Belastingen, 26/62, 1963, ECR.1.
    • Case C-205/06 Commission v. Austria, 2009 ECR I-01301.
    • Case C-249/06 Commission v. Sweden, 2009 ECR I-01335.
    • Case C-118/07 Commission v. Finland, 2009 ECR I-10889
    • Case C-459/03, Commission v. Ireland (Mox Plant), 2006 ECR. I-4635 125 -184.
    • Case 812/79 Burgoa, 1980 ECR, para 11. Case C-84/98 Commission v. Portugal, 2000 ECR I-5215,
    • Case C-84/98 Commission v. Portugal, 2000 ECR I-5215
    • Case 102/81, Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischrei, 1982 ECR. 1095.
    • ECJ Case 26/62, Van en Loos, 1963, ECR 3.
    • Micula v. Romania, IN the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Commercial Court, Case No: CL- 2014-000251, 2017.