Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/107216
Type of publication: master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law (S001)
Author(s): Butkutė, Eglė
Supervisor: Čerka, Paulius
Title: Ar po sprendimo priėmimo "Achmea" byloje užtikrinama lygiavertė Europos Sąjungos valstybių narių ir trečiųjų šalių investuotojų teisinė apsauga?
Other Title: Does the adoption of the decision in the Achmea case provide equivalent legal protection for the investors of the EU Member States and third countries?
Extent: 38 p.
Date: 19-Jun-2020
Keywords: Achmea;Achmea;Investuotojai;Investors;Dvišalės investicijų apsaugos ir skatinimo sutartys;Bilateral investment treaty;Daugiašalis investicinių ginčų teismas;Multilateral investment court;ICSID;ICSID
Abstract: Pagrindinis šio darbo tikslas yra išanalizuoti ar po ES Teisingumo Teismo sprendimo Achmea byloje priėmimo ir tolesnių ES valstybių narių veiksmų siekiant įgyvendinti šį sprendimą ES investuotojų teisinė apsauga išliko lygiaverte trečiųjų šalių investuotojų teisinei apsaugai. Darbo objektas - ES investuotojų teisinės apsaugos pokyčiai po sprendimo priėmimo Achmea byloje, ES valstybių narių ir trečiųjų šalių investuotojų teisinės apsaugos skirtumai. Šiuo darbu siekiama atsakyti į klausimą ar ES valstybių narių investuotojams prieinamos lygiavertės trečiųjų šalių investuotojų apsaugai taikytinos priemonės ir ar jie nediskriminuojami. Siekiant įgyvendinti pagrindinį darbo tikslą darbe atliekami šie uždaviniai: 1) išanalizuoti lygiavertiškumo, teisingo ir lygiaverčio režimo bei didžiausio palankumo režimo sampratas bei jų elementus; 2) trumpai apžvelgti iki sprendimo priėmimo Achmea byloje taikytas užsienio investuotojų teisinės apsaugos priemones; 3) aptarti ES Teisingumo Teismo sprendimą Achmea byloje ir atskleisti kaip šis sprendimas pakeitė ES valstybių narių investuotojų teisinę padėtį, palyginti ją su trečiųjų šalių investuotojų teisine padėtimi; 4) atskleisti ar po sprendimo priėmimo Achmea byloje ES valstybių narių ir trečiųjų šalių investuotojų teisinė apsauga yra lygiavertė ir ar ES valstybių narių investuotojai nėra diskriminuojami trečiųjų šalių investuotojų atžvilgiu; 5) trumpai aptarti ES investuotojų padėtį po daugiašalio investicinio teismo įkūrimo. Pirmajam uždaviniui skiriama pirmoji šio darbo dalis, antrajam ir trečiajam– antroji dalis, o trečioji darbo dalis skiriama ketvirtajam ir penktajam uždaviniui. Įgyvendinant šiuos uždavinius analizuojami Lietuvos ir užsienio teisės šaltiniai bei aktuali užsienio teismų praktika. Darbe prieita prie išvados, kad, prieštaringai vertinamas ES Teisingumo Teismo sprendimas Achmea byloje bei tolesni ES valstybių narių veiksmai, kuriais siekta įgyvendinti sprendimą, laikytini pagrįstais, skaidriais ir nuosekliais, užtikrinančiais tinkamo proceso principo įgyvendinimą, nepažeidžiamas nediskriminavimo principas. Po sprendimo Achmea byloje ir tolesnių šį sprendimą įgyvendinančių ES valstybių narių veiksmų ES investuotojų teisinė apsauga išlieka lygiaverte trečiųjų šalių investuotojų teisinei apsaugai.
The question about one of the protection mechanisms – bilateral investment treaties – compliance with the European Union law arose while Court of Justice of the European Union was examining the case of Achmea. This case‘s judgement brought relevant novelties, besause it was stated, that arbitration investment disputes‘ judgement at the level of the member states of the European Union, applied so far, became impossible, because this procedure violates the European Union law. It essentially changes the so far established order. Considering this novelty, the change in the legal protection of foreign investors is analysed in this work, also, it is analysed if the rest of the foreign investors legal protection means – disputes’ investigation in local courts, diplomatic protection and the opportunity to apply to the European Court of Human Rights – are sufficient to ensure effective legal protection of the foreign investors. It is discussed wheater the repeal of the bilateral investment treaties (and together with them the possibility to examine the dispute at the ICSID arbitration) does not violate fair and equitable treatment and the most-favored-nation status, that ensure the equivalence of the investors, in respect of the European Union investors. The main aim of this work is to analyse if after the Court of Justice of the European Union judgement in the Achmea case has been made and the further actions of the member states of the European Union in order to implement this judgement, the legal protection of European Union investors remained equivalent to the legal protection of the third countries investors. The object of the work – European investors’ legal protection changes after the judgement in the Achmea case, the differences of the legal protection of the member states of the European Union and the third countries investors’. This work aims to answer the question if the legal protection means, applied to the third countries investors are available to the investors of the member states of the European Union and if they are not discriminated. In order to achieve the main aim of work, the following tasks are implemented: 1) to analyse the concepts of equivalence, fair and equitable treatment and the most-favored-nation status and their elements; 2) briefly overview the legal protection means of the foreign investors applied before the judgement in the Achmea case; 3) to discuss the Court of Justice of the European Union judgement in the Achmea case and to reveal how this judgement changed the legal position of the member states of the European Union investors and to compare the legal protection means of the third countries investors and the member states of the European Union investors after the judgement in the Achmea case; 4) to reveal whether the legal protection of the third countries investors and the member states of the European Union investors is equivalent of after the judgement in the Achmea case and whether the member states of the European Union investors are not discriminated against in relation to the third countries investors; 5) briefly discuss the position of the Europesn Union investors after the establishment of the multilateral investment court. The first part of the work is devoted for the first task, the second part – for the second and third tasks, and the third part – for the fourth and fifth tasks. While implementing these tasks, Lithuanian and foreign countries sources of law and relevant foreign counties case laws are analysed. The Declaration of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the Legal Consequences of the Judgement of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on Investment Protection in the European Union after the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Achmea case was signed while the member states of the European Union implemented the controvertial judgement in the Achmea case. In this declaration it is stated that all the provisions, which are included in to the European Union inner bilateral investment treaties by the arbitration of investor-state dispute judgement procedures, are not applicable, because they oppose the law of the European Union. After the repeal of the limitation, that allows to resolve the dispute between the investor and the host state at the ICSID arbitration, bilateral investment treaties become irrelevant in the European Union, because, without the condition that contradicts the European Union law, a lot of bilateral investment treaties become dublicating in the agreement on the European Union actions by foreseen standart of investors protection. That is why, in 2019 November, the member states signed the agreement on the termination of the bilateral investment treaties between the member states of the European Union, by which it was aimed not only to terminate bilateral investment treaties made between the member states of the European Union, but also pending disputes at the ICSID arbitration. It is recognized that the judgement in the Achmea case and the following actions of the member states of the European Union in order to implement this judgement were consistent, because the European Commision has taken actions against the countries that implemented the judgements of the ICSID arbitration from before. These actions are reasonably related to the legitimate public policy aim – to protect the autonomy of the European Union law and the determined distribution of powers. After the changes the legal protection of the European Union investors remains equivalent to the third countries investors legal protection. The consequences of the actions mentioned above ar not violate principles of non-discrimination and due process in respect of the European Union investors.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/107216
Appears in Collections:2020 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
egle_butkute_md.pdf725.05 kBAdobe PDF   Until 2025-06-19View/Open
Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats


CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

39
checked on May 1, 2021

Download(s)

15
checked on May 1, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.