The Energy Charter Treaty and the intra-EU treaty objection post Charanne and REEF cases: the latest developments in Blusun v. Italy

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10547/622277
Title:
The Energy Charter Treaty and the intra-EU treaty objection post Charanne and REEF cases: the latest developments in Blusun v. Italy
Authors:
Baltag, Crina
Abstract:
Until 2010, the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) was relied on in less than thirty investment arbitration cases. Fast-forward seven years and there are more than one hundred cases. Most of these cases arise out of the repeal of the incentives granted to photovoltaic solar electricity investments under the EU regulations and majority of such disputes necessarily involve an investor of an European Union (EU) Member State, as Claimant, and an EU Member State, as Respondent. As a rule, the European Commission requested participation as amicus curiae in these cases and argued that the ECT is not meant to be applied between the EU Member States, as Contracting Parties to the ECT. Such claim is necessarily based on the fact that the ECT was signed by both the EU (the European Communities at that time) and the EU Member States because of the shared competences under the EU Law in matters addressed by the ECT. Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italy is yet another case in which the Tribunal rejects this argument and concludes that the ECT was entered into by the EU Member States in their own capacity and no ‘disconnection clause’ was included in the ECT to prevent the intra-EU application of the ECT.
Citation:
Baltag C. (2018) 'The Energy Charter Treaty and the intra-EU treaty objection post Charanne and REEF cases: the latest developments in Blusun v. Italy', Revista Romana de Arbitraj.
Journal:
Revista Romana de Arbitraj
Issue Date:
1-May-2018
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10547/622277
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
1842-6859
Appears in Collections:
Law

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorBaltag, Crinaen
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-12T09:32:24Z-
dc.date.available2017-10-12T09:32:24Z-
dc.date.issued2018-05-01-
dc.identifier.citationBaltag C. (2018) 'The Energy Charter Treaty and the intra-EU treaty objection post Charanne and REEF cases: the latest developments in Blusun v. Italy', Revista Romana de Arbitraj.en
dc.identifier.issn1842-6859-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/622277-
dc.description.abstractUntil 2010, the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) was relied on in less than thirty investment arbitration cases. Fast-forward seven years and there are more than one hundred cases. Most of these cases arise out of the repeal of the incentives granted to photovoltaic solar electricity investments under the EU regulations and majority of such disputes necessarily involve an investor of an European Union (EU) Member State, as Claimant, and an EU Member State, as Respondent. As a rule, the European Commission requested participation as amicus curiae in these cases and argued that the ECT is not meant to be applied between the EU Member States, as Contracting Parties to the ECT. Such claim is necessarily based on the fact that the ECT was signed by both the EU (the European Communities at that time) and the EU Member States because of the shared competences under the EU Law in matters addressed by the ECT. Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italy is yet another case in which the Tribunal rejects this argument and concludes that the ECT was entered into by the EU Member States in their own capacity and no ‘disconnection clause’ was included in the ECT to prevent the intra-EU application of the ECT.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectenergyen
dc.subjectEuropean Unionen
dc.subjectinvestment treaty arbitrationen
dc.subjectinternational arbitrationen
dc.titleThe Energy Charter Treaty and the intra-EU treaty objection post Charanne and REEF cases: the latest developments in Blusun v. Italyen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalRevista Romana de Arbitrajen
dc.date.updated2017-10-12T09:25:12Z-
dc.description.noteIf this is to be eligible for REF, it is going to need a full text file attached. I can't find any information about which version this publisher will permit, I would suggest the post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) RVO 9/10/17. Researcher has re-submitted with no file so validating as metadata only. RVO 12/10/17-
All Items in UOBREP are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.