Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T23:40:03.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charanne B.V. v. Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Björn Arp
Björn Arp*
Affiliation:
American University Washington College of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 327 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

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.)

References

1 Charanne B.V. and Construction Investments S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 062/2012 (Jan. 21, 2016), at http://www.minetur.gob.es/es-es/gabineteprensa/notasprensa/2016/Paginas/index.aspx (search for “Charanne”; then follow link “Se resuelve”) [hereinafter Award] (Spanish and Eng. trans.). For the Dissenting Opinion of Prof. Dr. Guido Santiago Tawil, see id. (Spanish only). Quotes from the Award and the dissent below, including internal citations in the text, are taken from the Tribunal’s translations. The Award and Tawil dissent, together with unofficial English translations, and all other arbitrations cited below, are available at http://italaw.com.

2 Energy Charter Treaty, Dec. 17, 1994, 2080 UNTS 95.

3 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Dec. 13, 2007, 2012 O. J. (C 326) 47.

4 See supra note 1.

5 Electrabel S.A. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, and Liability, para. 4.151 (Nov. 30, 2012); Achmea B.V. v. Slovak Republic [formerly Eureko B.V. v. Slovak Republic], PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, para. 276 (UNCITRAL Oct. 26, 2010); Eastern Sugar BV (Netherlands) v. Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 088/2004, Partial Award, paras. 119–25 (Mar. 27, 2007).

6 See, for instance, the judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in Matthews v. United Kingdom, 1999-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 251, paras.26–54; Cantoni v. France, 1996-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 1614, paras.28–34. In Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland, the European court even stated that the member states remained responsible when they merely executed rules of EU law without taking any regulatory action on their own. Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland, 2005-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 107, paras. 135–38.

7 Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton Int’l NV, 1999 ECR I-3055.

8 The European Commission has initiated infringement procedures against several EU member states for not having terminated their intra-EU bilateral investment treaties. See European Commission Press Release IP/15/ 5198, Commission Asks Member States to Terminate Their Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (June 18, 2015), at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5198_en.htm. The Commission is even leaning against investment arbitration tribunals altogether, instead proposing the establishment of permanent tribunals composed of a larger number of judges. See, e.g., Eur. Comm’n, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, ch. II, sec. 3, subsec. 4, Art. 9: Tribunal of First Instance (draft text Sept. 2015), at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/september/tradoc_153807.pdf.

9 Such a measure was, notably, LD 9/2013, which repealed RD 661/2007 and RD 1578/2008.

10 Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award, para. 332 (Sept. 11, 2007); and El Paso Energy Int’l Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case. No. ARB/03/15, Award, para. 374 (Oct. 31, 2011); respectively.

11 El Paso Energy Int’l Co., supra note 10, para. 374. See also, implicitly, Continental Cas. Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award, para. 261 (Sept. 5, 2008).

12 Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, para. 99 (Aug. 30, 2000); Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, para. 154 (May 29, 2003).

13 Tecmed, supra note 12, para. 154.

14 PSEG Global Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award, paras. 242–45 (Jan. 19, 2007); see also Award, paras. 476 –539 (analyzing the same concepts in its consideration of the legitimate expectations standard).

15 PSEG Global Inc., para. 250.