Originally from The American Review of International Arbitration (ARIA)

PREVIEW PAGE

ABSTRACT

The Achmea judgment has profoundly impacted the EU legal order, emphasizing the supremacy of EU law and the central role of national courts in intra-EU investment disputes. Grounded in principles like mutual trust and EU legal autonomy, the judgment curtails the role of international arbitration tribunals within the EU. National courts now bear the primary responsibility for adjudicating these disputes, requiring them to engage with both EU and international investment law. This development highlights the reliance on national courts to uphold the uniformity and integrity of EU law. However, this new role presents challenges as they must balance investor rights under international agreements with EU law autonomy. Looking ahead, national courts are poised to contribute significantly to the development of harmonized jurisprudence in international investment law within the EU, enhancing legal predictability and the region’s attractiveness for investments. The Achmea judgment fundamentally positions national courts as guardians of EU law supremacy, shaping its future in the context of investment arbitration.

The Achmea judgment (Slovak Republic v. Achmea B.V.) marked a shift in the EU legal order, concretely reasserting the supremacy of European Union (EU) Law by reinforcing the role of national courts in adjudicating intra-EU investment dispute.  This judicial recalibration effectively limits the jurisdiction of international arbitration tribunals in matters in which EU law is implicated, thereby underscoring the primacy of EU legal norms and the indispensable role of national courts in their enforcement.  The main argument in this article is that the Achmea judgment not only redefines the boundaries between national judicial authority and international arbitration within the EU but also signifies a strategic repositioning of national courts in maintaining the integrity of the EU law in the face of international investment agreements.

The conceptual framework for this article is anchored on three key analytical pillars. First, it critically examines the legal principles and doctrines invoked by the European Court, especially those relating to the autonomy of EU law and the principle of mutual trust among Member States. This analysis elucidates how the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) interpretation of these principles led to the redefinition of the jurisdictional boundaries between national courts and international arbitration tribunals. The second pillar focuses on assessing the jurisdictional realignment prompted by the Achmea. This involves an  analysis of the  judgment’s implications for the role of international arbitration in resolving intra-EU investment disputes. The final pillar entails an evaluation of post-Achmea jurisprudence. It scrutinizes how national courts have applied and interpreted the Achmea ruling in subsequent cases, particularly those involving investment disputes. This part of the framework is essential for gauging the practical impact of the ruling and understanding how national courts are fulfilling their expanded responsibilities in maintaining the coherence of EU law.