Creative Commons

This dissertation was written as part of the MSc in Energy Law, Business, Regulation and Policy at the International Hellenic University. This Dissertation assesses the impact on investment arbitration in the energy sector derived from the decision of the Court of Justice of European Union in the Slovak Republic v. Achmea B.V. (Case C-284/16), generally known as the Achmea Judgment. The fundamental outcome of the decision was to invalidate, as incompatible with EU law, the arbitration provisions known as Investor – State Dispute Settlement (‘ISDS’) clauses in more than 200 intra – EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (‘BITs’). From the initial seismic tremors within the arbitration community, the Achmea Judgment eventually led to the European Commission and almost all 28 Member States declaring the Termination of all intra-EU BITs. This paper begins with a brief but essential analysis of the facts of the Achmea Judgment, followed by a short overview of the history of intra-EU BITs. The focus of the dissertation then is to proceed to scrutinize the ramifications of this decision, through an assessment of specific case law that followed. The analysis will then proceed to assess the role assumed by the European Commission, and how it capitalized on the uncertainty the Achmea Judgment cast on the validity of this particularly treaty subset in order to achieve the twin goals of (a) proactively terminating all existing intra-EU BITs and (b) reforming and unifying the investment protection system within the European Union. Finally, this dissertation seeks to assess the possible alternatives to the Investor – State Dispute Settlement system, both those that currently exist and others, like the Investment Court System, the formation of which are currently under discussion.