Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The International Investment Competence of the EU

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Human Rights, International Investment Law and Participation

Part of the book series: Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights ((CHREN,volume 4))

  • 513 Accesses

Abstract

The first chapter explained how human rights next to other substantive and organizational principles and objectives should inform the making and implementation of EU foreign policies. This chapter is concerned with the role that the EU can actually play in shaping the international investment regime. It delineates the regulatory reach of the EU with regards to international investment relations in order to subsequently determine which areas should be governed by the EU human rights framework. This chapter first explains the importance of this thorough analysis, that is highlighting the flexibility of current definitions and making the argument that the human rights framework goes beyond the confines of EU exclusive competence (Sect. 3.1). In order to outline the newly gained and existing powers of the EU in view of the powers needed to cover the traditional practice of international investment relations, this chapter elucidates briefly the traditional scope of international investment regulation (Sect. 3.2). As a next step, it analyses to what extent these powers are covered by exclusive competence of CCP, implied external competences and other expressed Treaty competences or remain under the competence of the Member States (Sects. 3.3–3.8). Ever since the inclusion of foreign direct investment (FDI) into CCP, the scope of the EU competence over investment regulation has been highly debated amongst scholars and between the Commission, the EP and the Member States. Each section therefore outlines the answers given by the Court in the landmark decision Opinion 2/15 in comparison to the diverging opinions in the literature. In a last step, it is explored what different policy options remain if one aims for covering the state of the art investment regulation (Sect. 3.8), while discussing what the different policy options mean for the application of the human rights framework (Sect. 3.9).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 37.

  2. 2.

    Ibid., para. 38.

  3. 3.

    Ibid., para. 36.

  4. 4.

    Ibid., para. 37.

  5. 5.

    Case C-281/01, Commission v Council (Energy Star Agreement), ECLI:EU:C:2002:761, Judgment of 12 December 2002, para. 44; C-137/12, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, Philippines Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:2013:441, Judgment of 27 June 2013, para. 82; Case C-137/12, Commission v Council (Conditional Access), ECLI:EU:C:2013:675, Judgment of 22 October 2013, para. 71; C-377/12, Commission v Council (Philippines Agreement), ECLI:EU:C:2014:1903, Judgment of 11 June 2014, para. 34.

  6. 6.

    C-377/12, Commission v Council (Philippines Agreement), ECLI:EU:C:2014:1903, Judgment of 11 June 2014, para. 39.

  7. 7.

    See David Kleimann, who argues that the Court’s requirement for a choice of legal base having to rest on ‘objective factors amenable to judicial review’ may demand to validate the specific link to trade by empirical evidence, e.g. through an economics-based analysis. Kleimann (2017), p. 8.

  8. 8.

    Opinion 1/78, Natural Rubber, ECLI:EU:C:1979:224, 4 October 1979, para. 44; Opinion 1/94, WTO Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:1994:384, 15 November 1994, para. 41.

  9. 9.

    For an overview and a categorization of the different opinions in the literature, see Shan and Zhang (2011), pp. 1060–1065.

  10. 10.

    On OECD level, negotiations on a proposed multilateral agreement on investment (MAI) started in 1995 with the intention to establish a multilateral framework for international investment liberalisation and dispute settlement procedures. The negotiations were confronted with widespread opposition by developing countries and fierce campaigning by civil society. The negotiations were discontinued with no intention to be presumed in April 1998, see generally Witherell (1995). Similarly, at WTO level any attempt to establish a comprehensive body of rules on investment was so far unsuccessful. As of yet, WTO rules only cover investment issues to a limited extent in relation to services (in the GATS) and in relation to performance requirements (in the TRIMs Agreement).

  11. 11.

    See, the discussion in Sect. 4.2.

  12. 12.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, operating under the World Bank and established in 1965.

  13. 13.

    United Nation Commission on International Trade Law endorses conventions and model laws on arbitration.

  14. 14.

    UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2017, UNCTAD/WIR/2017, June 2017, p. 111.

  15. 15.

    The different positions within the literature will be referenced in the following corresponding to the presentation of such positions.

  16. 16.

    Bischoff and Happ (2015), pp. 500–501.

  17. 17.

    See, e.g. FTA Singapore, Article 9.1; CETA, Article 10.3. Note that the CETA definition could possibly also be interpreted as excluding portfolio. The CETA definition requires, for instance, ‘a certain duration’. One could therefore argue that the requirement of a certain duration is meant to reflect a special commitment to a project, which would then exclude mere portfolio investment. However, apart from that criterion, the definition is very broad and an expressed exclusion is not mentioned, which makes it more convincing to assume portfolio is meant to be part thereof.

  18. 18.

    Dimopoulos (2011), p. 46. For an overview of the different scope of investment provisions included in EU Free Trade Agreements, see S Szepesi, Comparing EU free trade agreements: Investment, InBrief 6D (2004), Maastricht: ECDPM.

  19. 19.

    Glossary of Foreign Direct Investment Terms and Definitions (2008), as part of the 4th edition of the OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment and fully compatible with the 6th edition of the IMF, Balance of Payments and International Investment Positions Manual, available at http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investmentfordevelopment/2487495.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  20. 20.

    The UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2012, Methodological Note, at 3, also refers to the OECD/IMF definition, available at http://unctad.org/en/PublicationChapters/WIR2012MethodologicalNote_en.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    As first established in Case C-26/62, Van Gend en Loos, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, Judgment of 1963; Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66, Judgment of 1964.

  23. 23.

    See, e.g. Case C-286/90, Anklagemyndigheden v Poulsen and Diva Navigation, ECLI:EU:C:1992:453, Judgment of 1992; Opinion 1/75, Local Cost Standard, ECLI:EU:C:1975:145, 11 November 1975, para. 3; For an overview of this development, see Wessels and Blockmans (2014), pp. 1–9.

  24. 24.

    Dimopoulos (2011), p. 42.

  25. 25.

    The TRIPs Agreement is Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco on 15 April 1994.

  26. 26.

    C-414/11, Daiichi Sankyo, EU:C:2013:520, Judgment of 18 July 2013, para. 55.

  27. 27.

    Case C-171/08, Commission v Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2010:412, Judgment of 8 July 2010, para. 49.

  28. 28.

    C-436/08, Haribo, ECLI:EU:C:2011:61, Judgment of 10 February 2011, para. 137.

  29. 29.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, paras 314–322.

  30. 30.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, paras 80, 86.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., para. 84.

  32. 32.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 297.

  33. 33.

    See, the FTA with Singapore, Section A.

  34. 34.

    Leczykiewicz (2005), p. 1678; Bischoff (2011), pp. 1539–1540; Krajewski (2012), p. 303; Reinisch (2013), p. 181; Arguing the contrary, Karl (2004), pp. 421–422; Marc Bungenberg (2010), p. 144; Dimopoulos (2011), pp. 111–112.

  35. 35.

    Reinisch (2013), p. 181.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., pp. 181–182.

  37. 37.

    It can be read as ‘the commercial aspects of […] foreign direct investment’ or as ‘the commercial aspects of intellectual property [and] foreign direct investment’, See, ibid., p. 181.

  38. 38.

    Opinion 1/94, WTO Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:1994:384, 15 November 1994.

  39. 39.

    Reinisch (2013), p. 181.

  40. 40.

    Opinion 1/94, WTO Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:1994:384, 15 November 1994, para. 45.

  41. 41.

    Reinisch (2013), p. 181.

  42. 42.

    Opinion 1/94, WTO Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:1994:384, 15 November 1994, paras 28–33.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., para. 41; See, also Bischoff (2011), p. 1541.

  44. 44.

    C-414/11, Daiichi Sankyo, EU:C:2013:520, Judgment of 18 July 2013, para 48.

  45. 45.

    Ibid. para 52, 53.

  46. 46.

    In Case C-137/12 the envisioned convention would comprise among others seizure and confiscation measures with regards to the use of illicit devices that give unlawful access to services.

  47. 47.

    Case C-137/12, Commission v Council (Conditional Access), ECLI:EU:C:2013:675, Judgment of 22 October 2013, paras 64, 65.

  48. 48.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 498.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para. 496.

  50. 50.

    The ECJ only deems the institutional provisions as clearly ancillary, see Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, paras 257–277.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., para. 94.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., para. 95.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., paras 107, 108.

  54. 54.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, paras 327, 362.

  55. 55.

    Approximately 80% of all trade is intra-firm trade, see UNCTAD, Global Value Chains and Development; Investment and Value Added Trade in the Global Economy, 2013, http://unctad.org/en/publicationslibrary/diae2013d1_en.pdf.

  56. 56.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 332.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., paras 331, 336.

  58. 58.

    Reinisch (2013), p. 180; Dimopoulos (2011), p. 16; Basedow (2016).

  59. 59.

    Krajewski (2012), p. 304; Bischoff (2011), p. 1540.

  60. 60.

    Basedow (2016), pp. 761–762.

  61. 61.

    Reinisch (2013), p. 180.

  62. 62.

    For an analysis of the relevance of historical interpretation in the ECJ case law, see Leisner (2007).

  63. 63.

    Karl (2004), pp. 421–422; Benyon (2010); Marc Bungenberg (2010), pp. 144–145; Kuijper (2010), p. 269; Dimopoulos (2011), pp. 23–25, 111–112; Ortino and Eeckhout (2012), p. 319.

  64. 64.

    For a comprehensive critique of this development, see Fernández-Pons et al. (2017).

  65. 65.

    Arguing against the inclusion of expropriation protection, Ceyssens (2005), pp. 279–281; Tietje (2009), p. 14.

  66. 66.

    Sornarajah (2010), p. 193.

  67. 67.

    Article 14 of the German Constitution states: ‘Property entails social responsibility’.

  68. 68.

    These tensions are discussed in detail in Chap. 4.

  69. 69.

    For an overview of the scarce literature, see Akkermans and Ramaekers (2010), p. 293.

  70. 70.

    C-452/01, Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg, ECLI:EU:C:2003:493, Judgment of 23 September 2003, para. 24 with reference to further case-law.

  71. 71.

    Akkermans and Ramaekers (2010), pp. 302, 308; C-244/11, Commission v Greece, ECLI:EU:C:2012:694, Judgment of 11 August 2012, para. 17.

  72. 72.

    Wernicke (2016), paras 13, 15.

  73. 73.

    European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy’, COM(2010)343 Final, 8.

  74. 74.

    See, e.g., CETA, Article 8.12.

  75. 75.

    Dimopoulos (2011), pp. 110–111; Ortino and Eeckhout (2012), p. 320 who understand protection against unlawful expropriation as a general principle of EU law.

  76. 76.

    As argued by Kuijper (2010), p. 269; Benyon (2010), pp. 101–102.

  77. 77.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 107.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., paras 107, 108.

  79. 79.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 333.

  80. 80.

    The fundamental freedoms provisions were not substantially amended by the Lisbon Treaty so that the expansion of investment powers only flows from the new CCP. Therefore, looking at the fundamental freedoms as they stand today can help to determine the intentions behind the CCP amendments. For the CJEU applying a contextual approach, see Case 283/81, CILFIT, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335, Judgment of 6 October 1982, para. 20. (‘Every provision of Community law must be placed in its context and interpreted in the light of the provisions of Community law as a whole, regard being had to the objectives thereof and to its state of evolution at the date on which the provision in question is to be applied.’)

  81. 81.

    Benyon (2010), p. 3; Hindelang and Maydell (2011), p. 6; Case 203/80, Casati, ECLI:EU:C:1981:261, Judgment of 11 November 1981; Joined cases 286/82 and 26/83, Luisi and Carbone, ECLI:EU:C:1984:35, Judgment of 31 January 1984.

  82. 82.

    See, e.g. C-367/98, Commission v Portugal, ECLI:EU:C:2002:326, Judgment of 4 June 2002, para. 45.

  83. 83.

    For an overview of the development of the case-law on this, see Benyon (2010), pp. 72–88.

  84. 84.

    Ortino and Eeckhout (2012), pp. 316–317; Bischoff (2011), p. 1536.

  85. 85.

    Bischoff (2011), p. 1536.

  86. 86.

    Dimopoulos (2011), p. 78.

  87. 87.

    Hindelang and Maydell (2011), pp. 10–11. However, this argument might have to been in light of Hindelang’s and Maydell’s conviction that freedom of capital would apply directly to third-country investments, Ibid., p. 26.

  88. 88.

    Benyon (2010), p. 83.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., p. 83.

  90. 90.

    European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy’, COM(2010)343 Final, 8.

  91. 91.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 64.

  92. 92.

    Hindelang and Maydell (2011), pp. 15–17; Dimopoulos (2011), p. 74 with further reference to; Dashwood (2010), pp. 360–362.

  93. 93.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, paras 120, 121; Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 231.

  94. 94.

    Case 22-70, European Agreement on Road Transport (ERTA), ECLI:EU:C:1971:32, Judgment of 31 March 1971; Opinion 1/03, Lugano Convention, ECLI:EU:C:2006:81, 7 February 2006; Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America (ATAA), ECLI:EU:C:2011:864, Judgment of 21 December 2011.

  95. 95.

    Case 22-70, European Agreement on Road Transport (ERTA), ECLI:EU:C:1971:32, Judgment of 31 March 1971, paras 21, 22; Opinion 1/03, Lugano Convention, ECLI:EU:C:2006:81, 7 February 2006, para. 126.

  96. 96.

    See, e.g., Stock Exchange Directive 2001/34/EC [2001] OJ L184/1; Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC [2004] OJ L145/1.

  97. 97.

    Dimopoulos (2011), p. 105.

  98. 98.

    Opinion 1/03, Lugano Convention, ECLI:EU:C:2006:81, 7 February 2006, paras 126, 131; Confirmed by Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 125.

  99. 99.

    As required by Opinion 1/94, WTO Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:1994:384, 15 November 1994, para. 96.

  100. 100.

    As required by Opinion 1/03, Lugano Convention, ECLI:EU:C:2006:81, 7 February 2006, para. 133; See, e.g. Dimopoulos (2011), p. 105; Ortino and Eeckhout (2012), pp. 317–318.

  101. 101.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM(2010) 343 final, 8.

  102. 102.

    Such evidence is only reviewed if provided for by the party bringing forward the argument, Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 125; For an analysis of the legislation on transport services, see Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, paras 14, 15, 182–193.

  103. 103.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 279.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., para. 277.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., para. 277.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., para. 289.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., para. 352.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., para. 353 with reference to; Opinion 2/92, National treatment, ECLI:EU:C:1995:83, 24 March 1995; and Opinion 1/94, WTO Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:1994:384, 15 November 1994.

  109. 109.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 354.

  110. 110.

    ESM Treaty signed on 2 February 2012.

  111. 111.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, paras 355, 356.

  112. 112.

    Case C-370/12, Pringle, ECLI:EU:C:2012:756, Judgment of 27 November 2012, paras 103, 104.

  113. 113.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 235.

  114. 114.

    Ibid., paras 233, 234.

  115. 115.

    Hindelang and Maydell (2011), pp. 23–26.

  116. 116.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 364.

  117. 117.

    Dimopoulos (2011), p. 105.

  118. 118.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 364.

  119. 119.

    Ibid., para. 365.

  120. 120.

    Ibid., para. 367.

  121. 121.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 240.

  122. 122.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 294.

  123. 123.

    Thym D (2017) Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/mixity-after-opinion-215-judicial-confusion-over-shared-competences/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  124. 124.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 289.

  125. 125.

    See, also Thym D (2017) Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/mixity-after-opinion-215-judicial-confusion-over-shared-competences/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  126. 126.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 97.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., paras 101, 102.

  128. 128.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 335; Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 102.

  129. 129.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 103.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., paras 107, 108.

  131. 131.

    See, e.g. European Parliament INTA Committee (2016) Legal opinion ‘Investment dispute settlement provisions in the EU’s trade agreements’.

  132. 132.

    See, e.g. the EU Citizens’ Initiative, https://stop-ttip.org/about-stop-ttip/.

  133. 133.

    Legal Statement by Law Professors from October 2016, https://stop-ttip.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/28.10.16-Updated-Legal-Statement_EN.pdf.

  134. 134.

    Marwedel (2016); Krajewski (2014), p. 16; Schill (2013).

  135. 135.

    Belgium obliged itself to request such an opinion. See, the resolution between the Belgian federal government and the regional and community governments from 27th October 2017, http://rf.llb.be/file/6f/5811e50fcd70fdfb1a589e6f.pdf.

  136. 136.

    Opinion 1/17, Opinion of Advocate General Bot (CETA), ECLI:EU:C:2019:72, 29 January 2019.

  137. 137.

    German Association of Judges on February 2016, http://www.drb.de/fileadmin/docs/Stellungnahmen/2016/DRB_160201_Stn_Nr_04_Europaeisches_Investitionsgericht.pdf.

  138. 138.

    European Association of Judges on 9th November 2015, http://www.iaj-uim.org/iuw/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/EAJ-report-TIPP-Court-october.pdf.

  139. 139.

    Opinion 1/76, Inland Waterway Vessels, EU:C:1977:63, 26 April 1977, para. 5; Opinion 1/78, Natural Rubber, ECLI:EU:C:1979:224, 4 October 1979, para. 56; Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 276.

  140. 140.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 298; with reference to Opinion 1/91 (First Opinion on the EEA Agreement), EU:C:1991:490, 14 December 1991, paras 40, 70; Opinion 1/09, Unified Patent Litigation System, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, 8 March 2011, pt. 74; Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, EU:C:2014:2454, 18 December 2014, para. 182.

  141. 141.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 299.

  142. 142.

    Opinion 1/09, Unified Patent Litigation System, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, 8 March 2011, para. 89.

  143. 143.

    Opinion 1/76, EEA Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490, 14 December 1991, paras 45, 46; Opinion 1/09, Unified Patent Litigation System, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, 8 March 2011, paras 73–89.

  144. 144.

    Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland (MOX plant), ECLI:EU:C:2006:345, 30 May 2006, para. 123.

  145. 145.

    See, Article 9.16 FTA Singapore.

  146. 146.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 290.

  147. 147.

    See, FTA Singapore, Article 9.17.1(f).

  148. 148.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 292.

  149. 149.

    Ibid., para. 293.

  150. 150.

    See, e.g. Kleimann D, Kübek G (2017) The Singapore Opinion or the End of Mixity as We Know It. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/the-singapore-opinion-or-the-end-of-mixity-as-we-know-it/. Accessed 14 March 2019; Thym D (2017) Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/mixity-after-opinion-215-judicial-confusion-over-shared-competences/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  151. 151.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 303.

  152. 152.

    Ibid., paras 301, 302; For a detailed discussion, see von Papp (2013).

  153. 153.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 526 with reference to; Opinion 1/09, Unified Patent Litigation System, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, 8 March 2011, para. 74; Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, EU:C:2014:2454, 18 December 2014, para. 182.

  154. 154.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, paras 526, 531; with reference to Opinion 1/78, Natural Rubber, ECLI:EU:C:1979:224, 4 October 1979, para. 60.

  155. 155.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 528 with reference to; Opinion 2/91, ILO Convention, EU:C:1993:106, 19 March 1993, paras 3–5.

  156. 156.

    Thym D (2017) Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/mixity-after-opinion-215-judicial-confusion-over-shared-competences/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  157. 157.

    See, e.g., the ECJ refers to ‘shared competences’ in the context of GATS which in fact describes a situation involving retained Member States competence, Opinion 1/94, WTO Agreement, ECLI:EU:C:1994:384, 15 November 1994, para. 98.

  158. 158.

    This reading is suggested by Ankersmit L (2017) Opinion 2/15 and the future of mixity and ISDS. In: Eur. Law Blog. http://europeanlawblog.eu/2017/05/18/opinion-215-and-the-future-of-mixity-and-isds/. Accessed 14 March 2019; See, also Kleimann D, Kübek G (2017) The Singapore Opinion or the End of Mixity as We Know It. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/the-singapore-opinion-or-the-end-of-mixity-as-we-know-it/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  159. 159.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 244.

  160. 160.

    Thym D (2017) Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/mixity-after-opinion-215-judicial-confusion-over-shared-competences/. Accessed 14 March 2019; Kleimann D, Kübek G (2017) The Singapore Opinion or the End of Mixity as We Know It. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/the-singapore-opinion-or-the-end-of-mixity-as-we-know-it/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  161. 161.

    See, also Kleimann D, Kübek G (2017) The Singapore Opinion or the End of Mixity as We Know It. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/the-singapore-opinion-or-the-end-of-mixity-as-we-know-it/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  162. 162.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 268, 278.

  163. 163.

    Articled 9.10 FTA Singapore.

  164. 164.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 248 with reference to; Joined cases 21 to 24-72, International Fruit Company, EU:C:1972:115, Judgment of 12 December 1972, paras 10–18.

  165. 165.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 254 with reference to further case-law.

  166. 166.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 303.

  167. 167.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 256.

  168. 168.

    Joined cases 21 to 24-72, International Fruit Company, EU:C:1972:115, Judgment of 12 December 1972, para. 18.

  169. 169.

    Opinion 2/15, Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2016:992, 21 December 2016, para. 396.

  170. 170.

    Thym D (2017) Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/mixity-after-opinion-215-judicial-confusion-over-shared-competences/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  171. 171.

    Sornarajah (2010), pp. 9, 196.

  172. 172.

    Ibid., p. 196.

  173. 173.

    Bungenberg (2010), pp. 148, 150.

  174. 174.

    Hoffmeister and Ünüvar (2013), pp. 57, 70.

  175. 175.

    Marc Bungenberg (2010), pp. 148, 150.

  176. 176.

    The fact that so-called ESG factors have been established to assess environmental, social and governance risks of projects that are part of portfolio investment shows that such interrelations have already been recognized.

  177. 177.

    Roberts A (2017) A Turning of the Tide against ISDS? In: EJIL Talk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-turning-of-the-tide-against-isds/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  178. 178.

    Gáspár-Szilágyi S (2017) Opinion 2/15: Maybe it is time for the EU to conclude separate trade and investment agreements. In: Eur. Law Blog. http://europeanlawblog.eu/2017/06/20/opinion-215-maybe-it-is-time-for-the-eu-to-conclude-separate-trade-and-investment-agreements/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  179. 179.

    Roberts A (2017) A Turning of the Tide against ISDS? In: EJIL Talk. https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-turning-of-the-tide-against-isds/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  180. 180.

    Sarmiento D (2017) The Singapore Silver Bullet. In: Verfassungsblog. http://verfassungsblog.de/the-singapore-silver-bullet/. Accessed 14 March 2019.

  181. 181.

    Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland (MOX plant), ECLI:EU:C:2006:345, Judgment of 30 May 2006, paras 179–182 which concerned dispute resolution under mixed agreement in a field where the competences of the Member States and of the EU were according to the Court closely interrelated.

  182. 182.

    Case C-246/07, Commission v Sweden (PFOS), EU:C:2010:203, Judgment of 2010, para. 103 which concerned the decision making under the framework of a mixed agreement, in which Member State (Sweden) diverged from a common EU strategy that has not been formally adopted yet.

  183. 183.

    Opinion 2/91, ILO Convention, EU:C:1993:106, 19 March 1993, para. 36.

  184. 184.

    Case C-246/07, Commission v Sweden (PFOS), EU:C:2010:203, Judgment of 2010, para. 74; For a critical view on this, see Larik and Casteleiro (2011).

  185. 185.

    C-205/06, Commission v Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2009:118, Judgment of 3 March 2009; C-249/06, Commission v Sweden, ECLI:EU:C:2009:119, Judgment of 3 March 2009; See, also Lavranos (2009), p. 720.

  186. 186.

    Hillion (2009), pp. 10, 11.

  187. 187.

    Ibid., p. 20.

  188. 188.

    Ibid., p. 22.

  189. 189.

    Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland (MOX plant), ECLI:EU:C:2006:345, Judgment of 30 May 2006, para. 176.

  190. 190.

    Casolari (2012), p. 34.

  191. 191.

    Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, Judgment of 2008; Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, Commission and Others v Kadi, ECLI:EU:C:2013:518, Judgment of 18 July 2013.

  192. 192.

    Opinion 2/15, Singapore, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, 16 May 2017, para. 284 in the context of cross-cutting transparency rules.

References

  • Akkermans B, Ramaekers E (2010) Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC), its meanings and interpretations. Eur Law J 16:292–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basedow R (2016) A legal history of the EU’s international investment policy. J World Invest Trade 17:743–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benyon FS (2010) Direct investment, national champions and EU treaty freedoms: from Maastricht to Lisbon. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff JA (2011) Just a little bit of mixity? The EU’s role in the field of international investment protection law. Common Mark Law Rev 48:1527–1569

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff JA, Happ R (2015) The notion of investment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 495–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2010) Going global? The EU common commercial policy after Lisbon. In: Herrmann C, Terhechte JP (eds) European yearbook of international economic law 2010. Springer, Berlin, pp 123–151

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Casolari F (2012) The principle of loyal cooperation: a ‘master key’ for EU external representation? Princ Pract EU Extern Represent CLEER Work Pap 20125, pp 11–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceyssens J (2005) Towards a common foreign investment policy? Foreign investment in the European Commission. Leg Issues Econ Integr 32:259–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Dashwood A (2010) Mixity in the era of the treaty of Lisbon. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements revisited: the EU and its member states in the world. Hart, Oxford, p 351

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos A (2011) EU foreign investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Pons X, Polanco R, Torrent R (2017) CETA on investment: the definitive surrender of EU law to GATS and NAFTA/BITS. Common Mark Law Rev:1319–1358

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillion C (2009) Mixity and coherence in EU external relations: the significance of the duty of cooperation. CLEER Working Paper 2009/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindelang S, Maydell N (2011) The EU’s common investment policy – connecting the dots. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S (eds) International investment law and EU law. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F, Ünüvar G (2013) From BITS and pieces towards European investment agreements. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A, Tietje C (eds) EU and investment agreements: open questions and remaining challenges. Hart, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl J (2004) Competence for foreign direct investment: new powers for the European Union. J World Invest Trade 5:413

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleimann D (2017) Reading opinion 2/15: standards of analysis, the Court’s discretion, and the legal view of the Advocate General. EUI RSCAS Work Pap 201723

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2012) The reform of the common commercial policy. In: Biondi A, Eeckhout P, Ripley S (eds) EU law after Lisbon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 292–311

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2014) Modalities for investment protection and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in TTIP from a trade union perspective

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuijper PJ (2010) Foreign direct investment: the first test of the Lisbon improvements in the domain of trade polity. Leg Issues Econ Integr 37:261

    Google Scholar 

  • Larik J, Casteleiro AD (2011) The duty to remain silent: limitless loyalty in EU external relations? Eur Law Rev 36:524–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N (2009) Commission v. Austria. Case C-205/06. Judgment; Commission v. Sweden. Case C-249/06. Judgment. Am J Int Law 103:716–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leczykiewicz D (2005) Common commercial policy: the expanding competence of the European Union in the area of international trade. Ger Law J 6:1673–1686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisner G (2007) Die subjektiv-historische Auslegung des Gemeinschaftsrechts. Der “Wille des Gesetzgebers” in der Judikatur des EuGH. EuR 6:689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortino F, Eeckhout P (2012) Towards and EU policy on foreign direct investment. In: Biondi A, Eeckhout P, Ripley S (eds) EU law after Lisbon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 312

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marwedel M (2016) Investment protection in the EU-canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA): a critical analysis, 12 May 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2013) The future shape of EU investment agreements. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 28:179–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/sit007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2013) Luxembourg limits: conditions for investor-state dispute settlement under future EU investment agreements. Transl Dispute Manag 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Shan W, Zhang S (2011) Treaty of Lisbon: half way toward a common investment policy. Eur J Int Law 21:1049–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sornarajah M (2010) The international law on foreign investment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C (2009) Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon. In: Tietje C, Kraft G (eds) Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht, Halle

    Google Scholar 

  • von Papp K (2013) Clash of “autonomous legal orders”: can EU Member State courts bridge the jurisdictional divide between investment tribunals and the ECJ? – A plea for direct referral from investment tribunals to the ECJ. Common Mark Law Rev 50:1039–1081

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernicke S (2016) AEUV Art. 345 Eigentumsordnung. Recht Eur. Union

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels R, Blockmans S (2014) Between autonomy and dependence: the EU legal order under the influence of international organisations. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Witherell WH (1995) The OECD multilateral agreement on investment. Transl Corp 4:1–14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hamburg, Germany

    Vivian Kube

Authors
  1. Vivian Kube
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kube, V. (2019). The International Investment Competence of the EU. In: EU Human Rights, International Investment Law and Participation. Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20607-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20607-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20606-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20607-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation