What this blogpost strives to do is to take issue with the Court's understanding that
arbitral tribunals interpret and apply EU law in ways that pose a threat to its autonomy.
Similarly, the entire judgment and the Court's main conclusion were premised on the situation where
an arbitral tribunal interprets and applies EU law, indicating that the judgment has no impact on pending proceedings where EU law plays no (or only an indirect) role.
Not exact matches
As EU law is the «law of the land» of Member States, the Court had no trouble determining that an
arbitral tribunal set up according to the BIT's ISDS provisions «may be called on to
interpret or indeed to apply EU law, particularly the provisions concerning the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of establishment and free movement of capital» (para. 42).
On 6 March 2018 the Grand Chamber of the CJEU ruled in the Achmea decision (C - 284 / 16) that the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between The Netherlands and the Slovak Republic violated EU law because it allowed an
arbitral tribunal to
interpret provisions of EU law in a dispute between investors and (Member) States, while such interpretation...
The only expertise brought by the
arbitral tribunal to the process of
interpreting the lease was legal expertise, and the court, which is comfortable with
interpreting commercial agreements and rightly considers itself expert in doing so, undoubtedly felt that it should have little reluctance in setting the
tribunal's award aside.