Opinion 1/17 in Light of Achmea: Chronicle of an Opinion Foretold?

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2019 4(1), 109-121 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Achmea's relevance as a precedent for Opinion 1/17. - III. Application of the Achmea test to the CETA tribunal. - IV. Conclusion: an Opinion foretold? | (Abstract) The Achmea judgment of the Court of Justice (judgment of 6 March 2018, case C-284/16 [GC]) indicates that two Member States cannot set up an investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism via a bilateral investment agreement inter se. Does this imply that the Union cannot set up an international investment tribunal through an agreement with a third State? The Court will rule on this issue in Opinion 1/17, dealing with the compatibility between the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and EU Treaties. The present Article suggests that the Court drafted Achmea having Opinion procedure 1/17 in mind. However, the Achmea judgment is ambiguous: the Court implicitly distinguished Achmea from CETA but elaborated a test potentially applicable to all investment tribunals, including the CETA Tribunal, which is at issue in Opinion procedure 1/17. Should the Court apply the Achmea test in Opinion 1/17, the fate of the CETA Tribunal might be all but sealed.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.