Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:19:10.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sun Behind the Clouds? Enforcement of Renewable Energy Awards in the EU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2019

Ana Mercedes López-Rodríguez Open the ORCID record for Ana Mercedes López-Rodríguez [Opens in a new window]
Ana Mercedes López-Rodríguez*
Affiliation:
Law Department, Loyola University Andalusia (Spain). Email: amlopez@uloyola.es.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of European Union (EU) countries have undertaken thorough reforms in the renewable energy sector over the past years. The regulatory changes have triggered a wave of claims from low-carbon investors asserting that the reforms have diminished or exhausted the economic viability of their investments. Unlike local investors, who typically take legal action before domestic courts, foreign investors have filed arbitration claims in accordance with the Energy Charter Treaty, notably against Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic, resulting in several awards of damages. However, recent developments in EU state aid law seem to restrict the ability of investors to obtain compensation. This article argues that such developments may undermine renewable energy policy, because arbitration enhances the regulatory stability and predictability which low-carbon investments require only if arbitral awards can be enforced effectively. The article examines the different scenarios that may arise out of the interplay between EU law and investment arbitration in the EU and concludes that the European Commission's arguable redrawing of the boundaries of state aid rules to encompass investment arbitration, combined with the EU's general quest to replace investment arbitration with alternative mechanisms of adjudication, may jeopardize climate change mitigation policies.

Keywords

Renewable energyEnergy Charter TreatyState aidInvestor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)EU lawClimate change mitigation
Type
Article
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , July 2019 , pp. 279 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers for their time and valuable suggestions. Any errors in the final version are, of course, solely those of the author.

References

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C’, 8 Oct. 2018, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15.

2 Behrens, A., ‘The Role of Renewables in the Interaction between Climate Change Policy and Energy Security in Europe’ (2010) 1(1) Renewable Energy Law and Policy, pp. 5–15Google Scholar.

3 According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), however, the costs of renewable energy will drop to meet those of fossil fuels by 2020: IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017 (IRENA, 2018), available at: https://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Jan/Renewable-power-generation-costs-in-2017.

4 T. Couture et al., A Policymaker's Guide to Feed-in Tariff Policy Design, Technical Report NREL/TP-6A2-44849 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Department of Energy, 2010), available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/44849.pdf; A. Held et al., ‘Feed-In Systems in Germany, Spain and Slovenia: A Comparison’, Oct. 2007, available at: http://www.mresearch.com/pdfs/docket4185/NG11/doc44.pdf.

5 Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), ‘Achieving the Investment Plan for Europe's Million Ambition: 12 Fixes’, 2015; Norges Bank Investment Management, Renewable Energy Investments: Discussion Note (Norges Bank Investment Management, 2015)Google Scholar, available at: https://www.nbim.no/contentassets/d4dc0aaf69ba4f73b9112da6bef259c0/nbim_discussionnotes_4-15.pdf.

6 European Commission, ‘Energy Roadmap 2050’, COM(2011) 0885 final, 15 Dec. 2011, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0885:FIN:EN:PDF.

7 According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), to reach the overall 2050 targets, USD 1.6 trillion will need to be invested: IEA, ‘Deep Energy Transformation Needed by 2050 to Limit Rise in Global Temperature’, 20 Mar. 2017, available at: https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/deep-energy-transformation-needed-by-2050-to-limit-rise-in-global-temperature.html.

8 Patrizia, C. et al. , ‘Investment Disputes Involving the Renewable Energy Industry under the Energy Charter Treaty’, in Rowley, J.W., Bishop, D. & Kaiser, G. (eds), The Guide to Energy Arbitrations, 2nd edn (Global Arbitration Review, 2017)Google Scholar, blog available at: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1142579/investment-disputes-involving-the-renewable-energy-industry-under-the-energy-charter-treaty.

9 Boute, A., ‘A Comparative Analysis of the European and Russian Support Schemes for Renewable Energy: Return on European Experience for Russia’ (2011) 4(2) Journal of World Energy Law & Business, pp. 157–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; European Commission, ‘Energy 2020: A Strategy for Competitive, Sustainable and Secure Energy’, COM(2010)639 final, 10 Nov. 2010, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0639:FIN:En:PDF.

10 Bellantuono, G., ‘The Misguided Quest for Regulatory Stability in the Renewable Energy Sector’ (2017) 10(4) Journal of World Energy Law and Business, pp. 274–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bankes, N., ‘Decarbonising the Economy and International Investment Law’ (2012) 30(4) Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, pp. 497–510, at 502CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. Sullivan & W. Blyth, ‘Climate Change Policy Uncertainty and the Electricity Industry: Implications and Unintended Consequences’, Briefing Paper, Chatham House, Aug. 2006, available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/bp0806climatechange.pdf; Boute, A., ‘The Potential Contribution of International Investment Protection Law to Combat Climate Change’ (2009) 27(3) Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, pp. 333–76, at 334–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 World Economic Forum, ‘Strategic Infrastructure Mitigation of Political & Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Projects’, Feb. 2015, available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Risk_Mitigation_Report_2015.pdf.

12 Condon, B. & Sinha, T., The Role of Climate Change in Global Economic Governance (Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Yackee, J.W., ‘Controlling the International Investment Law Agency’ (2012) 53(2) Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 392–445Google Scholar (discussing investor protection under international investment law and noting that investors are increasingly bringing bilateral and multilateral international investment agreement disputes before international arbitral tribunals).

14 Martin, A.T., ‘Dispute Resolution in the International Energy Sector: An Overview’ (2011) 4(4) Journal of World Energy Law and Business, pp. 332–68, at 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Tienhaara, K., ‘Regulatory Chill in a Warming World: The Threat to Climate Policy Posed by Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ (2018) 7(2) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 229–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schill, S.W., ‘Do Investment Treaties Chill Unilateral State Regulation to Mitigate Climate Change?’ (2007) 24(5) Journal of International Arbitration, pp. 469–77Google Scholar; Jenkins, B.W., ‘The Next Generation of Chilling Uncertainty: Indirect Expropriation under CAFTA and Its Potential Impact on Environmental Protection’ (2007) 12(2) Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, pp. 269–304Google Scholar.

16 Condon, B.J., ‘Climate Change and International Investment Agreements’ (2015) 14(2) Chinese Journal of International Law, pp. 309–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Werksman, J., Baumert, K.A. & Dubash, N.K., ‘Will International Investment Rules Obstruct Climate Protection Policies? An Examination of the Clean Development Mechanism’ (2003) 3(1) International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, pp. 59–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Boute, A., ‘Combating Climate Change through Investment Arbitration’ (2012) 35(3) Fordham International Law Journal, pp. 613–64, at 617Google Scholar; Vadi, V., ‘Beyond Known Worlds: Climate Change Governance by Arbitral Tribunals? (2015) 48(5) Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, pp. 1285–351Google Scholar.

18 World Economic Forum, n. 11 above.

19 Allee, T. & Peinhardt, C., ‘Contingent Credibility: The Impact of Investment Treaty Violations on Foreign Direct Investment’ (2011) 65(3) International Organization, pp. 401–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Pink Series Sequel: Investor-State Dispute Settlement’, 24 July 2014, available at: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Publications/Details/120.

20 E.g., in European Commission Decision, ‘State Aid SA.38517(2014/C) (ex 2014/NN): Romania – Implementation of Arbitral Award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013’, C(2014) 3192 final, 1 Oct. 2014, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/254586/254586_1595781_31_11.pdf. For further detail, see Section 4 below.

21 Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 Mar. 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158. For further detail, see Section 4 below.

22 European Commisson, Commission Staff Working Document, ‘European Commission Guidance for the Design of Renewables Support Schemes’, SWD(2013) 439 final, 5 Nov. 2013, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/com_2013_public_intervention_swd04_en.pdf; European Commission, ‘Renewable Energy: Progressing towards the 2020 Target’, COM(2011) 31 final, 31 Jan. 2011, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0031&from=EN; J. Tirado & J. Bloom, ‘Renewable Energy Reforms in Europe: Growing Threats to International Investors’ (2014) Lexology online articles, available at: http://cdn2.winston.com/images/content/8/4/v2/84476/IA-RenewableEnergyReformEurope-6-9-2014.pdf.

23 Vadi, n. 17 above; Simoes, F. Dias, ‘When Green Incentives Go Pale: Investment Arbitration and Renewable Energy Policymaking’ (2017) 45(2) Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, pp. 251–85Google Scholar; Patrizia et al., n. 8 above.

24 Infinis Plc Infinis (Re-Gen) Ltd, R (on the application of) v. Gas & Electricity Markets Authority & Anor [2011] EWHC 1873 (Admin) (10 Aug. 2011), confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ofgem (Gas & Electricity Markets Authority) v. Infinis [2013] EWCA Civ 70, Court of Appeal, 13 Feb. 2013; Breyer Group Plc & Ors v. Department of Energy and Climate Change [2014] EWHC 2257 (QB) (9 July 2014), confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Department for Energy and Climate Change v. Breyer Group Plc and Others [2015] EWCA Civ 408, Court of Appeal, 28 Apr. 2015; Constitutional Court of Bulgaria, Resolution N13/31.07.2014. The cases brought to national courts in the Czech Republic, Italy, and Spain have been all unsuccessful: see M. Alessi, J.N. Ferrer & C. Egenhofer, ‘Suspended in Legal Limbo: Protecting Investment in Renewable Energy in the EU’, CEPS Policy Insights, No. 2018/03, 23 Jan. 18, available at: https://www.ceps.eu/publications/suspended-legal-limbo-protecting-investment-renewable-energy-eu.

25 The Hague (The Netherlands), 17 Dec. 1994, in force 16 Apr. 1998, available at: https://energycharter.org/process/energy-charter-treaty-1994.

26 E.g., ECT, Art. 10. See Schreuer, C.H., ‘Selected Standards of Treatment Available under the Energy Charter Treaty’, in Coop, G. & Ribeiro, C. (eds), Investment Protection and the Energy Charter Treaty (Juris Publishing, 2008), pp. 63–99Google Scholar.

27 Selivanova, Y.S., ‘Changes in Renewables Support Policy and Investment Protection under the Energy Charter Treaty: Analysis of Jurisprudence and Outlook for the Current Arbitration Cases’ (2018) 33(2) ICSID Review, pp. 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Out of a total of 41 claims, 30 are pending, according to the ICSID Database, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/searchcases.aspx.

29 ‘El nuevo Gobierno “se come” su primer laudo contra España por los recortes renovables’, El Confidencial, 18 June 2018, available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas/2018-06-18/laudo-antin-arbitraje-ciadi-renovables-primas-termosolar_1580658 (in Spanish).

30 ICSID Database, n. 28 above.

31 Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain, SCC Case No. V 062/2012, IIC 758 (2016), available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/2082.

32 Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands BV v. Kingdom of Spain, Award, SCC Case No. V 2013/153, IIC 979 (2016), available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/5893.

33 Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/5739.

34 Eiser Infrastructure Ltd and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à.r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, IIC 950 (2017), available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/5721.

35 Jürgen Wirtgen et al. v. Czech Republic, Final Award, PCA Case No. 2014-03, 11 Oct. 2017, available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/6428.

36 Novenergia II – Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. Kingdom of Spain, Award SCC Case No. 063/2015 (2018), available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/6613.

37 Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1 (2018), available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/6608.

38 Antaris Solar GmbH and Dr Michael Göde v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-01, available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/2080.

39 Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Antin Energia Termosolar B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31, available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/2319.

40 Greentech Energy System A/S, Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.à.r.l., Foresight Luxembourg Solar 2 S.à.r.l., GWM Renewable Energy I S.P.A, GWM Renewable Energy II S.P.A v. Kingdom of Spain (SCC Case No. 2015/50) – final award – Athena Investments AS Company Announcement No. 17-2018 – 14 Nov. 2018 (unpublished).

41 RREEF Infrastructure (GP) Ltd and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à.r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30, notice of the decision available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/2317.

42 NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. and NextEra Energy Spain Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/11, notice of the decision is available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/14/11.

43 Selivanova, n. 27 above.

44 Hendel, C., ‘The Past, Present and Possible Future of the Spanish Renewable Energy Arbitration Saga’ (2018) 31(1) International Law Practicum, pp. 96–101Google Scholar, available at: https://www.araozyrueda.com/en/publicaciones/the-past-present-and-possible-future-of-the-spanish-renewable-energy-arbitration-saga; D. Behn, ‘Spain Wins First PV Solar Arbitration: A Word of Caution in Using this Case to Predict Outcome in the more than Three Dozen Cases to Come,’ Pluricourts, University of Oslo blog, 27 Jan. 2016, available at: http://www.jus.uio.no/pluricourts/english/blog/daniel-friedrich-behn/2016-01-26-arbitration-spain.html; Restrepo, T., ‘Modification of Renewable Energy Support Schemes under the Energy Charter Treaty: Eiser and Charanne in the Context of Climate Change’ (2017) 8(1) Goettingen Journal of International Law, pp. 101–37Google Scholar.

45 A. Bakos, ‘The Relationship between EU State Aid Law and Obligations Arising under Investment Treaties’, EFILA Blog, 3 Apr. 2018, available at: https://efilablog.org/2018/04/03/the-relationship-between-eu-state-aid-law-and-obligations-arising-under-investment-treaties; Kende, T., ‘Arbitral Awards Classified as State Aid under European Union Law’ (2015) 1 ELTE Law Journal, pp. 37–56Google Scholar, available at: http://eltelawjournal.hu/arbitral-awards-classified-state-aid-european-union-law.

46 European Commission Decision, ‘State Aid SA.40348 (2015/NN): Spain – Support for Electricity Generation from Renewable Energy Sources, Cogeneration and Waste’, C(2017) 7384 final, 10 Nov. 2017, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/258770/258770_1945237_333_2.pdf.

47 Eiser v. Spain, n. 34 above.

48 Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009 [2012] OJ C 326/47, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:326:FULL:EN:PDF.

49 Eiser v. Spain, n. 34 above, para 165.

50 Electrabel S.A. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB 07/19, available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/380; AES Summit Generation Ltd and AES-Tisza Erőmű Kft v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB 07/22, available at: https://www.italaw.com/cases/193; and EDF International v. Hungary, PCA Case 2009-13.

51 Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A, S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, available at: http://www.italaw.com/cases/697; Chevry, J., ‘Micula v. Romania’ (2015) 14(3) World Trade Review, pp. 540–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wehland, H., ‘The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Micula v Romania and Beyond’ (2016) 17(6) The Journal of World Investment & Trade, pp. 942–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Matei, E., ‘SA.38517 – Commission Decision of 30 March 2015 on State Aid Granted by Romania to Micula’ (2016) 15(1) European State Aid Law Quarterly: EStAL, pp. 134–41Google Scholar; Struckmann, K. et al. , ‘Micula and Others v Romania – Annotation of [2017] EWHC 31 (Comm)’ (2017) 16(2) European State Aid Law Quarterly, pp. 316–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 European Commission, Press Release, ‘State Aid: Commission Orders Romania to Recover Incompatible State Aid Granted in Compensation for Abolished Investment Aid Scheme’, 30 Mar. 2015, available at: http://www.europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4725_en.htm.

53 Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 Mar. 2015 on State Aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania – Arbitral Award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112).

54 Case T-694/15, Micula v. Commission.

55 Case C-672/13, OTP Bank Nyrt. v. Magyar Állam and Magyar Államkincstár, Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 19 Mar. 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:185; Case T-15/14, Simet SpA v. European Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 3 Mar. 2016, ECLI:EU:T:2016:124.

56 Joint Cases 106 to 120/87, Asteris AE and Others v. Hellenic Republic and European Economic Community, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 27 Sept. 1988, ECLI:EU:C:1988:457.

57 C. Tietje & C. Wackenmagel, ‘Outlawing Compliance? The Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Awards and EU State Aid Law’, Policy Papers on Transnational Economic Law, No. 41, June 2014, p. 7, available at: http://telc.jura.uni-halle.de/sites/default/files/PolicyPaper/PolicyPaper_No41.pdf; Bakos, n. 45 above.

58 Case 61/79, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Denkavit italiana Srl, Judgment of the Court, 27 Mar. 1980, ECLI:EU:C:1980:100.

59 Case T-351/02, Deutsche Bahn AG v. Commission, Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended composition), 5 Apr. 2006, ECLI:EU:T:2006:104.

60 Kende, n. 45 above.

61 Struckmann, K., Forwood, G. & Kadri, A., ‘Investor-State Arbitrations and EU State Aid Rules: Conflict or Co-existence? (2016) 15(2) European State Aid Quarterly, pp. 258–69, at 266Google Scholar.

62 Asteris, n. 56 above, para. 23.

63 Ibid., para. 101.

64 Struckmann, Forwood & Kadri, n. 61 above, p. 266.

65 Tietje & Wackenmagel, n. 57 above, p. 7.

66 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03, Giuseppe Atzeni and Others (C-346/03), Marco Scalas and Renato Lilliu (C-529/03) v. Regione autonoma della Sardegna, delivered on 28 Apr. 2005, ECLI:EU:C:2005:256, para. 198.

67 Micula et al. v. Romania, n. 51 above, para. 825.

68 Ibid., para. 827.

69 Struckmann, Forwood & Kadri, n. 61 above, p. 267.

70 C-284/16, Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 Mar. 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.

71 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, 29 Apr. 1991, in force 1 Oct. 1992, available at: https://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2080.

72 Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet delivered on 19 Sept. 2017, ECLI:EU:C:2017:699.

73 The Court did not answer the question regarding the compatibility of the BIT with Art. 18 TFEU.

74 Achmea, n. 70 above, para. 50.

75 P. Pinsolle & I. Michou, ‘Arbitration: The Achmea v Slovakia Judgment of the CJEU, Is It Really the End of Intra-EU Investment Treaties?’, 7 Mar. 2018, available at: https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/news-events/the-achmea-v-slovakia-judgment-of-the-cjeu-is-it-really-the-end-of-intra-eu-investment-treaties.

76 Vienna (Austria), 23 May 1969, in force 27 Jan. 1980, available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf.

77 As highlighted by the arbitral tribunal in NovEnergia v. Spain, n. 36 above, para. 454.

78 Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Spain, n. 37 above, paras 678–82.

79 Brussels (Belgium), 30 Oct. 2016, partially in force 21 Sept. 2017, [2017] OJ L 11, pp. 23–1079, available at: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10973-2016-INIT/en/pdf.

80 Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 30 April 2019 on Case C-1/17, Request for an Opinion by the Kingdom of Belgium on the Compatibility with the Treaties of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341, paras 126 and 127; L. Ankersmit, ‘Investment Court System in CETA to be Judged by the ECJ’, European Law Blog, 31 Oct. 2016, available at: http://europeanlawblog.eu/2016/10/31/investment-court-system-in-ceta-to-be-judged-by-the-ecj.

81 Communication from the Commission, ‘Protection of Intra-EU Investment’, COM(2018) 547 final, 19 July 2018, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0547&rid=8.

82 Hendel, n. 44 above; J.C. Peña, ‘Bruselas abre la puerta a que España evite el pago de 7.565M por el recorte a las renovables’, El Confidencial, 26 Dec. 2017, available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/economia/2017-12-26/arbitrajes-espana-renovables-bruselas-ayudas-de-estado_1498030 (in Spanish).

83 Decision T 4658-18, 16 May 2018, available at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9746.pdf (in Swedish).

84 Declaration of the Member States of 15 Jan. 2019 on the Legal Consequences of the Achmea Judgment and on Investment Protection, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/190117-bilateral-investment-treaties_en.pdf.

85 UNCTAD, n. 19 above.

86 Ramaswamy, M.P., ‘Enforcement of ICSID and Non-ICSID Arbitration Awards and the Enforcement Environment in BRICS’ (2018) 15(2) International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, pp. 73–81Google Scholar.

87 Reinstein, E., ‘Finding a Happy Ending for Foreign Investors: The Enforcement of Arbitration Awards in the People's Republic of China’ (2005) 16(1) Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, pp. 37–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It remains unclear, though, whether commitment to ISDS actually results in greater FDI inflows: Jandhyala, S. & Weiner, R.J., ‘Institutions sans Frontières: International Agreements and Foreign Investment’ (2014) 45(6) Journal of International Business Studies, pp. 649–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 R.G. Volterra & Á. Nistal, ‘Enforcing Investment Treaty Awards’, Financier Worldwide, July 2018, available at: https://www.financierworldwide.com/enforcing-investment-treaty-awards/#.W9GBeHszbIU.

89 S. Fankhauser & L. Lavric, ‘The Investment Climate for Climate Investment: Joint Implementation in Transition Countries’, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Working Paper No. 77, Jan. 2003, available at: http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/economics/workingpapers/wp0077.pdf; Boute, n. 17 above.

90 Hendel, n. 44 above.

91 New York (USA), 10 June 1958, in force 7 June 1959, available at: http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/New-York-Convention-E.pdf.

92 Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton Int'l NV, Judgment of the Court, 1 June 1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:269; confirmed in Case C-168/05, Elisa María Mostaza Claro v. Centro Móvil Milenium, Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 26 Oct. 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:675; Case C-473/00, Cofidis SA v. Jean-Louis Fredout, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 21 Nov. 2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:705; Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98, Océano Grupo Editorial SA v. Rocío Murciano Quintero (C-240/98) & Salvat Editores SA v. José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), Jost Luis Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane (C-243/9), Judgment of the Court, 27 June 2000, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346. See Prechal, S. & Shelkoplyas, N., ‘National Procedures, Public Policy and EC Law: From Van Schijndel to Eco Swiss and Beyond’ (2004) 12(5) European Review of Private Law, pp. 589–611Google Scholar; Berman, G., ‘Navigating EU Law and the Law of International Arbitration’ (2012) 28(3) Arbitration International, pp. 397–445, at 418CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Berman, ibid.

94 Washington DC (US), 18 Mar. 1965, in force 14 Oct. 1966, available at: http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/partA.htm.

95 Demirkol, B., ‘Enforcement of International Commercial Arbitration Agreements and Awards in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2015) 30(1) ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, pp. 56–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schreuer, C.H. et al. , ‘Article 54: Enforcement’, in The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 1115–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Lisbon (Portugal), 13 Dec. 2007, in force 1 Dec. 2009, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT.

97 Micula & Ors v. Romania & Anor [2017] EWHC 31 (Comm) (20 Jan. 2017), para. 64.

98 Micula & Ors v. Romania [2018] EWCA Civ 1801 (27 July 2018).

99 Decision of 25 Jan. 2016. The decision is currently on appeal before the Brussels Court of Appeal, available at: http://www.globalarbitrationreview.com/digital_assets/46aa46ba-9228-4118-a74f-1a452dcd4198/micula-belgium.pdf.

100 Gragl, P., ‘The Silence of the Treaties: General International Law and the European Union’ (2015) 57 German Yearbook of International Law, pp. 375–409Google Scholar.

101 Pernice, I., ‘Multilevel Constitutionalism and the Treaty of Amsterdam: European Constitution-Making Revisited?’ (1999) 36(4) Common Market Law Review, pp. 703–50, at 711CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schilling, T., ‘The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order: An Analysis of Possible Foundations’ (1996) 37(2) Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 389–409Google Scholar.

102 Case 6-64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL, Judgment of the Court, 15 July 1964, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66. Simma, B. & Pulkowski, D., ‘Of Planets and the Universe: Self-Contained Regimes in International Law’ (2006) 17(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 483–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Moreno-Lax, V. & Gragl, P., ‘The Quest for a (Fully Fledged) Theoretical Framework: Co-Implication, Embeddedness, and Interdependency between Public International Law and EU Law’ (2016) 35(1) Yearbook of European Law, pp. 455–70, at 457CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 Reed, L. & Consedine, S., ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Legitimate Expectations and Transparency’, in Kinnear, M. et al. (eds), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2015), pp. 283–94Google Scholar. Reisman, W.M. et al. , ‘Violation of Investor Rights under Investment Treaties’, in Bishop, D.R., Crawford, J.R. & Reisman, W.M. (eds), Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials and Commentary, 2nd edn (Kluwer Law International, 2014), pp. 753–896Google Scholar; Dumberry, P., ‘The Protection of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105’ (2014) 31(1) Journal of International Arbitration, pp. 47–74Google Scholar.

104 Reed & Consedine, ibid.

105 Selivanova, n. 27 above.

106 Case C-369/09 P, ISD Polska and Ors v. Commission, Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 24 Mar. 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:175, para. 122.

107 Giraud, A., ‘A Study of the Notion of Legitimate Expectations in State Aid Recovery Proceedings: “Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here”’? (2008) 45(5) Common Market Law Review, pp. 1399–431Google Scholar.

108 European Commission, Decision of 10 Nov. 2017, n. 46 above, para. 161.

109 Micula et al. v. Government of Romania, US District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 15 Misc. 107 (SDNY 5 Aug. 2015).

110 Petition for Recognition and Enforcement of an Arbitration Award, filed 19 May 2017 by Eiser Infrastructure Ltd and Energia Solar Luxembourg S.à.r.l. against the Kingdom of Spain, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, available at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9186.pdf; Petition for Recognition and Enforcement of an Arbitration Award, filed 27 July 2018 by Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Energia Termosolar BV against the Kingdom of Spain, US District Court for the District of Columbia, available at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9983.pdf; Petition for Enforcement of an Arbitration Award, filed 28 Sept. 2018 by Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief UA against the Kingdom of Spain. US District Court for the District of Columbia, available at: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9983.pdf.

111 Struckmann, Forwood & Kadri, n. 61 above, p. 260. However, this is a highly controversial debate. Whereas public international lawyers consider EU law as mere regional international law, the status and effects of which are to be determined on the basis of international rules on conflict of treaties and by the principles governing the internal law of international organizations, EU institutions and the CJEU, in particular, consider the EU as a subject of international law with its own independent and autonomous legal order since Case 26-62, NV Algemene Transport – en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, Judgment of the Court, 5 Feb. 1963, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, and Case 6-64, Flaminio Costa v ENEL, n. 102 above: Simma & Pulkowski, n. 102 above. See also Moreno-Lax & Gragl, n. 102 above, p. 457.

112 Struckmann, Forwood & Kadri, ibid.; Lukashuk, I.I., ‘The Principle Pacta Sunt Servanda and the Nature of Obligation under International Law’ (1989) 83(3) American Journal of International Law, pp. 513–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yackee, J.W., ‘Pacta Sunt Servanda and State Promises to Foreign Investors before Bilateral Investment Treaties: Myth and Reality’ (2009) 32(5) Fordham International Law Journal, pp. 1550–613Google Scholar.

113 Struckmann, Forwood & Kadri, ibid.

114 Database of ICSID Member States, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/about/Database-of-Member-States.aspx.

115 Micula v. Commission, n. 54 above.

116 Micula & Ors v. Romania & Anor, n. 97 above.

117 As ruled by the Court of Justice in, e.g., Case T-69/89, RTE v. Commission, Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 10 July 1991, ECLI:EU:T:1991:39.

118 In the same sense, see Struckmann, Forwood & Kadri, n. 61 above, p. 262.

119 See n. 110 above.

120 Prisecaru, P. & Calanter, P., ‘Governance of Renewable Energies in the EU’ (2017) 5(2) Global Economic Observer, pp. 31–38Google Scholar.

121 Communication from the Commission, ‘A Clean Planet For All: A European Strategic Long-term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy’, COM(2018) 773 final, 28 Nov. 2018, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_en.pdf.

122 European Commission, ‘Clean Energy for all Europeans’, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy-and-energy-union/clean-energy-all-europeans.

123 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources (Recast), COM/2016/0767 final, 30 Nov. 2016, 2016/0382 (COD).

124 Communication from the Commission, ‘A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030’, COM/2014/015 final, 22 Jan. 2014, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015&from=EN.

125 European Parliament, Amendments adopted on the Proposal for a Directive on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources (Recast), (COM/2016/0767 – C8-0500/2016 – 2016/0382(COD), 17 Jan. 2018, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT%20TA%20P8-TA-2018-0009%200%20DOC%20XML%20V0//EN.

126 Council of the EU, ‘Analysis of the Final Compromise Text with a View to Agreement’, 21 June 2018, available at: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10308-2018-INIT/en/pdf.

127 Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of 11 December 2018 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources [2018] OJ L 328/82.

128 COM/2014/015 final, n. 124 above.

129 COM/2016/0767 final, n. 123 above, Art. 15(3).

130 European Parliament, n. 125 above.

131 Directive (EU) 2018/2001, n. 127 above.

132 R. Dolzer & C. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 145–49; Bellantuono, n. 10 above; Schiereck, D. & Trillig, J., ‘Regulatory Changes and the Volatility of Stock Returns: The German Solar Energy Sector’ (2014) 8(2) International Journal of Energy Sector Management, pp. 160–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gatzert, N. & Kosub, T., ‘Determinants of Policy Risks of Renewable Energy Investments’ (2017) 11(1) International Journal of Energy Sector Management, pp. 28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dias Simões, n. 23 above, pp. 251–71.

133 Communication from the Commission, ‘Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy’, COM(2010) 343 final, 7 July 2010, p. 10, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2010/EN/1-2010-343-EN-F1-1.Pdf.

134 N. 79 above, Arts 8.27–29. See also Commission Concept Paper, ‘Investment in TTIP and Beyond: The Path for Reform’, p. 3, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF (‘CETA is the first agreement to which the U.S. is not a party which contains a clear commitment to the possible creation of an appeal mechanism’).

135 European Union's Proposal for Investment Protection and Resolution of Investment Disputes, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), 12 Nov. 2015, Arts 9–10, 12, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/november/tradoc_153955.pdf. See also Commission Concept Paper, ibid. (remarking that the TTIP contains the first EU negotiating directives that explicitly mention an appellate mechanism).

136 EU-Vietnam Trade and Investment Agreement, authentic text as of Aug. 2018, not yet binding under international law, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437.

137 Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part, Brussels (Belgium), 19 Oct. 2018, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961.

138 New EU-Mexico Agreement, agreement in principle, Brussels (Belgium), 23 Apr. 2018, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1833.

139 Council of the EU, ‘Negotiating Directives for a Convention establishing a Multilateral Court for the Settlement of Investment Disputes’, Document/ST-12981-2017-ADD-1-DCL-1, 20 Mar. 2018, available at: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12981-2017-ADD-1-DCL-1/en/pdf.

140 UNCITRAL, ‘Possible Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)’ (5 Sept. 2018), UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/3Investor_State.html.

141 Franck, S.D., ‘The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions” (2005) 73(4) Fordham Law Review, pp. 1521–625Google Scholar; G. van Harten, ‘A Case for an International Investment Court’, Society for International Economic Law, Online Proceedings, Working Paper No. 22/08, available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1153424; Schill, S.W., ‘Crafting the International Economic Order: The Public Function of Investment Treaty Arbitration and Its Significance for the Role of the Arbitrator’ (2010) 23(2) Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 401–30, at 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

142 Schill, S., ‘Editorial: Opinion 2/13: The End for Dispute Settlement in EU Trade and Investment Agreements?’ (2015) 16(3) The Journal of World Investment & Trade, pp. 379–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; L. Woods, ‘Fit for Purpose? The EU's Investment Court System’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 23 Mar. 2016, available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2016/03/23/to-be-decided.

143 Case C-1/09, Opinion delivered pursuant to Art. 218(11) TFEU, Opinion of the Court (Full Court), 8 Mar. 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123.

144 Rome (Italy), 4 Nov. 1950, in force 3 Sept. 1953, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts.

145 Case C-2/13, Draft International Agreement: Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Compatibility of the Draft Agreement with the EU and FEU Treaties, Opinion of the Court (Full Court), 18 Dec. 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.

146 Opinion C-1/17, n. 80 above. See further, G. Kübek, ‘CETA's Investment Court System and the Autonomy of EU Law: Insights from the Hearing in Opinion 1/17’, VerfBlog, 4 July 2018, available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/cetas-investment-court-system-and-the-autonomy-of-eu-law-insights-from-the-hearing-in-opinion-1-17.

147 Opinion of Advocate General Bot, delivered 29 Jan. 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:72; Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 30 April 2019 on Case C-1/17, n. 80 above.

148 Puig, S. & Shaffer, G., ‘Imperfect Alternatives: Institutional Choice and the Reform of Investment Law’ (2018) 112(3) American Journal of International Law, pp. 361–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

149 In the same sense, Roberts, A., ‘Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration’ (2018) 112(3) American Journal of International Law, pp. 410–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

150 UN Conference on Trade and Development, World Investment Report 2018, available at: https://unctad.org/en/PublicationChapters/wir2018ch3_en.pdf.

151 Selianko, I. & Lenschow, A., ‘Energy Policy Coherence from an Intra-Institutional Perspective: Energy Security and Environmental Policy Coordination within the European Commission’ (2015) 19(1) European Integration online Papers, pp. 1–29Google Scholar, available at: http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2015-002.pdf.

152 Similarly, Alessi, Ferrer & Egenhofer, n. 24 above.