Why Komstroy Cannot be the Last Word: more investment into greening the economy requires to bury Achmea, Komstroy, Micula and others (Part II)

By Herbert Woopen[1] In Part I, this post explored and analysed domestic regulations in Italy concerning investment and ECJ’s decisions stemming from those. Now, Part II will look at international law solutions and will analyse how the European Union could and should amend past erroneous decisions. III. The role of International Law where EU Law… Read More Why Komstroy Cannot be the Last Word: more investment into greening the economy requires to bury Achmea, Komstroy, Micula and others (Part II)

Why Komstroy Cannot be the Last Word: more investment into greening the economy requires to bury Achmea, Komstroy, Micula and others (Part I)

By Herbert Woopen[1] I. Introduction: The EU’s ambition The EU has for a long time wished to be the frontrunner for innovative investments in green technology and strived to secure future economic growth for European companies exporting products for a sustainable world economy, products that are and will be invented in Europe. These intentions deserve… Read More Why Komstroy Cannot be the Last Word: more investment into greening the economy requires to bury Achmea, Komstroy, Micula and others (Part I)

Prof. Dr. Alexander Reuter * The ECJ’s Achmea and CETA rulings [1]; as well as the entire debate conducted on the issue so far, disregard one legal factor, that is, the binding legal effect of investors’ rights under investment treaties. That factor is, however, at the heart of the matter and decisive. Under EU procedural… Read More Taking Investors’ Rights Seriously: The Achmea and CETA Rulings of the European Court of Justice do Not Bar Intra-EU Investment Arbitration