Advocate General finds that CETA’s “Investment Court System” is compatible with EU law

One of the Advocates General to the Court of Justice of the European Union, Advocate General Bot, has issued an opinion confirming that the mechanism for the settlement of disputes between investors and states provided for in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement  between the EU and Canada (the CETA) is compatible with European Union law.

We discuss the content of the Advocate General’s opinion on our new blog piece, published on our Public International Law blog here.

For further information please contact Andrew Cannon, Partner, Hannah Ambrose, Senior Associate, Vanessa Naish, Professional Support Consultant, Rebecca Warder, Professional Support Lawyer, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Andrew Cannon
Andrew Cannon
Partner
+44 20 7466 2852
Hannah Ambrose
Hannah Ambrose
Senior Associate
+44 20 7466 7585
Vanessa Naish
Vanessa Naish
Professional Support Consultant
+44 20 7466 2112
Rebecca Warder
Rebecca Warder
Professional Support Lawyer
+44 20 7466 3418

4th EFILA Annual Conference 2019: The EU and the future of international investment law and arbitration – 31 January 2019, London

The European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration (EFILA) will be holding its fourth Annual Conference, on 31 January 2019, at Herbert Smith Freehills’ offices in London. The conference will focus on four topics:

  1. the EU’s external investment policy;
  2. the EU’s investment policy towards Asia;
  3. constructing a multilateral investment court: the path ahead; and
  4. the EU’s Energy investment policy.

Continue reading

Indian Government launches international research project on the impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties on investment flows from/to the country

India entered into its first bilateral investment treaty (BIT), with the United Kingdom, in 1994, as part of a strategy to attract inbound foreign direct investment (FDI).  Having begun to open its economy in the 1990s, India today is a major investment destination.  The Modi government has been keen to attract further investment, including with its “Make in India” campaign.

However, in recent years, a variety of events has led to India being the recipient of a large number of claims by investors under BITs. By 2016, India was one of the most frequently-named respondent states in BIT proceedings.  Following its first loss in a BIT arbitration in 2011 (the White Industries case, discussed here.  Note: India has recently won its first BIT case, discussed here), the stance of the Indian government towards BIT protections for inbound investors appeared to harden, leading it to send notices in 2016 to terminate BITs with 58 countries, including 22 EU countries (discussed here).  This followed its publication of a new 2015 Model BIT (discussed here).  For the remaining BITs not cancelled in 2016/2017 (seemingly because they were within their initial terms), India has circulated a proposed joint interpretative statement to the counterparties to these BITs seeking to align the ongoing treaties with its 2015 Model BIT.

There are no known instances of states agreeing to a new treaty based on India’s 2015 Model BIT, although it was reported last year that the Indian government had approved a joint interpretative note to apply to India’s BIT with Bangladesh

In the meantime, the Indian government, through the Centre for Trade and Investment Law (CTIL), a think-tank established in 2016 by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in collaboration with Dr. Rishab Gupta, Partner, of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., has instituted a survey on experiences and attitudes towards BIT protections, and their importance to FDI flows into and out of India.  This outbound element is an important aspect of the analysis as Indian businesses are increasingly involved in FDI outside India, and may wish to take advantage of BIT protections over their investments.

A link to the survey can be found below, which we understand will remain active until the end of October 2018. The survey contains 10-12 questions which vary depending on the initial answers regarding the location and type of entity responding.

http://survey.sogosurvey.com/r/r1ocQs

The outcome of the questionnaire together with the rest of the study results are scheduled to be publicly released by the end of 2018. All stakeholders with experience of or insight into the BIT regime applicable to India are encouraged to participate.

For further information, please contact Nicholas Peacock, Head of the India Disputes Practice, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Nicholas Peacock
Nicholas Peacock
Partner
+44 20 7466 2803

EU and Japan formally sign economic partnership agreement

On 17 July 2018, the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) was formally signed during the EU-Japan summit in Tokyo.  The EPA – the largest free trade agreement ever negotiated by the EU – has been years in the making and took significant time and effort to get to this stage. You can read more about the steps to date in our earlier post here.

The EPA aims to remove trade barriers between the EU and Japan, making it easier for firms to sell goods and services between the two economies. It will create the world’s largest open trade zone, covering nearly a third of global GDP, almost 40 percent of world trade and more than 600 million people.

The partnership also goes beyond trade, with wider social and political implications.  Given its scope of coverage, the EPA may encourage the development of global trade rules consistent with EU and Japanese standards.  The EPA also sends a powerful signal that two of the world’s largest economies explicitly reject trade protectionism. Continue reading

The new draft Dutch BIT: what does it mean for investor mailbox companies?

The Netherlands has released a new draft investment treaty for public comment (“Draft BIT“).  If adopted, the Draft BIT may raise questions about the Kingdom’s attractiveness for foreign investors who have long taken advantage of Dutch treaty protections by structuring their investment via companies in the Netherlands.  The Netherlands proposes to use the new model as a basis for renegotiating its existing BITs with non-EU states, and, as such, the new draft’s more restrictive provisions may be significant for existing investors with protection under existing BITs, as well as those considering future investments. Key features of the Draft BIT are considered below.

Continue reading

Join us in Singapore to celebrate 60 years of the NY Convention

Enforcement of arbitration awards in SE Asia

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, commonly referred to as the “New York Convention”.  As one of the most successful international treaties of the 20th century, and a primary tool in the promotion of arbitration worldwide, the Convention established a regime to facilitate international enforcement of arbitration awards in 159 countries.

This event will discuss the impact of the Convention in Southeast Asia, and whether its objectives have been successful in practice.  Following a keynote address by Justice Anselmo Reyes of the Singapore International Commercial Court, a series of presentations and panels will discuss the history of the Convention; how it shapes the day-to-day conduct of international arbitration; practical experience of enforcement in ASEAN states (with data from a new survey); and future prospects for similar regimes that aim to support international litigation and mediated settlements.

This event is jointly hosted by Singapore Management University (a premier university, internationally recognised for world-class research in the field of international arbitration); Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (a non-profit organization supported by the Ministry of Law, and Asia’s global thought leader for learning and research in negotiation and dispute resolution); and Herbert Smith Freehills (one of the world’s leading law firms, with a global reputation for international arbitration).

The event will be a SILE accredited CPD activity.

For more information on the programme and speakers, please click here.
Date:     Tuesday, 12 June 2018
Time:     Registration: 4:30pm
Event: 5:00pm to 7:30pm, followed by a cocktail reception
Venue:
NTUC Centre,
1 Marina Boulevard
Level 7, Stephen Riady Auditorium @ NTUC
Singapore 018989

Please click here to view map
RSVP: To respond to this e-invitation, click here

Please RSVP by Tuesday, 29 May 2018 to secure your seat. Spaces are limited and will be offered on a first come, first served basis.
 

Progress towards a Multilateral Investment Court? EU-momentum building and divisions in UNCITRAL Working Group III

In the past few years, discontent about Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS, a recognised shorthand for ad hoc arbitration of investor-state disputes) has been fomenting in various parts of the world but nowhere more so than within the EU. The European Commission’s focus on ISDS has been so intense that far-reaching reform has been portrayed by many as inevitable. The Commission’s proposal is for the development of a multilateral investment court system (MIC). The proposal is ambitious, but may not be realistic or achievable. Last year, the ISDS debate moved into the auspices of UNCITRAL Working Group III (WGIII). It is recognised in the report of the 35th session of WGIII[1] that this “constitute[s] a unique opportunity to make meaningful reforms in the field”. Certainly the involvement of high level government representatives from across the world and the transparent nature of WGIII’s process suggest this forum provides the conditions for systemic reform. However, the features of the WG III process expose the Commission’s plans to global scrutiny at a relatively early stage in their development, potentially before the Commission has managed to gain significant support for wholesale change. One of the EU delegation, in its capacity as an observer, noted in the 34th session[2] that the EU was “confident that UNCITRAL is a forum where a solution can be found” even where the delegates start from different positions. The question will be whether the conclusion of the deliberations will lead to the reform that the Commission wants.

Continue reading

Upheaval and uncertainty in mineral regulation in parts of Africa: resurgence of resource nationalism highlights the importance of investment treaty protections

The last few months have seen significant changes to mining regulations in various African states, giving rise to a concern that a regional trend of resource nationalism may be (re-)emerging. In this context it is important for companies associated with the mining sector to be aware of the protection international investment treaties may provide against the impact of resource nationalism on their assets, and how to maximise that protection before risks materialise.  This bulletin briefly considers some of the last few months’ developments, before discussing how companies can use investment treaties to protect themselves against the risks they pose.

Continue reading

The English court sets aside a Tribunal’s findings of lack of jurisdiction under a BIT

In a decision dated 2 March 2018 (the “Decision“), the English High Court has set aside parts of an award on jurisdiction (the “Award“) from a London-seated arbitration (the “Arbitration“) concerning claims brought by GPF GP S.a.r.l (“Griffin“) against Poland under the bilateral investment treaty between the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union and Poland (the “BIT“).

In so doing, the Court upheld Griffin’s application under section 67 of the 1996 English Arbitration Act (the “Act“), in which Griffin submitted that the Award issued by the tribunal (the “Tribunal“) on 15 February 2017 contained two separate errors as to substantive jurisdiction, namely:

     (i)          the Tribunal’s determination that it did not have jurisdiction over Griffin’s claims for breach of the Fair and Equitable Treatment (“FET“) standard in the BIT; and

    (ii)          the Tribunal’s determination, in respect of Griffin’s claims for indirect expropriation, that it had jurisdiction to consider only the effects of one specific allegedly expropriatory event, namely a decision of the Warsaw Court of Appeal, and not all the prior conduct of Poland.

All of Griffin’s claims should now proceed to the liability phase in the Arbitration. Poland has, however, expressly reserved the right to argue the compatibility of the BIT with EU law and any rights it may have in the context of the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU“) in the case of Achmea v Slovakia, which was issued just a few days after this judgment, on 6 March 2018.

Continue reading

State-to-State dispute settlement under the EU’s draft Withdrawal Agreement: CJEU jurisdiction not arbitration

We have known for some time now that the UK and EU have very different views regarding the state-to-state dispute resolution mechanism to be contained in the Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK. The EU has never made any secret of its intention for the CJEU to adjudicate on disputes between the UK and the EU over the interpretation of, and compliance with, the Withdrawal Agreement. Yesterday the EU released a draft Withdrawal Agreement for the UK’s consideration which contains a state-to-state dispute resolution provision which is consistent with that approach. This post provides an initial reaction to this draft provision.

Continue reading