Till sidans topp

Sidansvarig: Webbredaktion
Sidan uppdaterades: 2012-09-11 15:12

Tipsa en vän

Prior Judicial Involvemen… - Göteborgs universitet Till startsida
Till innehåll Läs mer om hur kakor används på gu.se

Prior Judicial Involvement in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Lessons from the Court’s Rhetoric in Opinion 2/15

Artikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift
Författare Hannes Lenk
Publicerad i Global Trade and Customs Journal
Volym 13
Nummer/häfte 1
Sidor 19-26
ISSN 1569-755X
Publiceringsår 2018
Publicerad vid Juridiska institutionen
Sidor 19-26
Språk en
Länkar www.kluwerlawonline.com/document.ph...
Ämneskategorier EU-rätt


The Court of Justice of the European Union has long protected the integrity of the Union legal order from external impact of judicial and normcreating processes. Initially concerned with the harmonious interpretation and application of Union law, the principle has gradually developed into a shield that protects the judicial prerogatives of the Court against international courts and tribunals. Now, the Court stands before a new challenge; Opinion 1/17 on the compatibility of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada was only very recently registered on the Court ’ s docket. The assessment of core features of the post-Lisbon trade and investment policy, not least the investment court system, will be eagerly awaited. But the recent judgment of the Court in Opinion 2/15 over the allocation of competences for the conclusion of the EU – Singapore free trade agreement may already entail some hints as to the Court ’ s stand on investor-State dispute settlement provisions. In fact, the Court ’ s rhetoric resembles statements made previously in the context of the European Patents Court in Opinion 1/09. The Court is in particular concerned with the profound effect of investor-State tribunals on domestic courts in the Member States, who are deprived of hearing disputes that would otherwise come before them. In terms of competence allocation, this removes the investor-State dispute settlement provisions from the purview of exclusive Union competences. In terms of compatibility, it may put these mechanisms, and incidentally the investment court system, on a collision course with the principle of autonomy of the Union legal order.

Sidansvarig: Webbredaktion|Sidan uppdaterades: 2012-09-11

På Göteborgs universitet använder vi kakor (cookies) för att webbplatsen ska fungera på ett bra sätt för dig. Genom att surfa vidare godkänner du att vi använder kakor.  Vad är kakor?