Konflikten mellan BIT:s och EU:s rättsordning - Analys av Achmea-domen

Sammanfattning: This paper examines the Achmea Judgement that the Court of Justice European Union (CJEU) Grand Chamber ruled the 6th of March 2018. This paper deals with the context of Achmea Judgement and the debate that has been the result of the Judgement. The debate is regarding the Judgments legal significance and potential consequences for Investor-State Arbitration within the EU. Bilateral Investment Agreements (BIT) is a contract between two countries in order to promote foreign investment. These Agreements usually includes an Arbitration clause. These clauses mean that if the BIT is being violated, the parties have agreed to handle the conflict in an Arbitration Court. After the Achmea Judgement, these Arbitration clauses in BITs between EU member states will no longer be valid. According to the CJEU ruling theses Arbitration clauses are not compatible with the EU legal order. The main argumentation in the Judgement is about EU Law autonomy and the importance that its practice is standardized. The dialogue between the CJEU and the national courts is important to make the EU Law standardized. That dialogue including the right of preliminary ruling can not be secured when it comes to the Arbitration Courts according to the CJEU. The Arbitration Courts works too independently and that may result in EU Law being interpreted and practiced without the control of the CJEU. The Achmea Judgement is criticized on many different aspects, and one of the main reasons is that the function of Arbitration Courts in conflicts between investors and states is being ignored. These Arbitration Courts based on BITs between countries have played a part in solving these conflicts. It remains an unresolved question what the alternative conflict resolution mechanism for investor-state conflicts between EU investors and EU member states will be.