Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension ______
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PCA Case No. 2008-13 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT ON ENCOURAGEMENT AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS AND THE CZECH AND SLOVAK FEDERAL REPUBLIC, SIGNED ON 29 APRIL 1991, ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 OCTOBER 1992 (“TREATY”) -and- THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW ARBITRATION RULES (“UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES”) -between- EUREKO B.V. (“Claimant”) -and- THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC (“Respondent,” and together with Claimant, the “Parties”) ______________________________________________________________ AWARD ON JURISDICTION, ARBITRABILITY AND SUSPENSION ______________________________________________________________ 26 October 2010 Tribunal Professor Vaughan Lowe QC Professor Albert Jan van den Berg Mr. V.V. Veeder QC Secretary to Tribunal Judith Levine, Permanent Court of Arbitration E-SR Award on Jurisdiction, etc. 26 October 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 A. The Claimant ................................................................................................................1 B. The Respondent ............................................................................................................1 C. The Dispute...................................................................................................................2 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...........................................................................................3 A. Commencement of the Arbitration...............................................................................3 B. Constitution of the Tribunal .........................................................................................4 C. Written Proceedings .....................................................................................................5 D. Hearing on the Intra-EU Jurisdictional Objection........................................................7 E. Post-Hearing Proceedings.............................................................................................8 III. HISTORICAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND...................................................10 A. The Slovak Republic’s Entry into the European Union .............................................10 B. Liberalisation of Slovak Heath Insurance Sector in 2004 and Eureko’s Entry to Market.........................................................................................................................12 C. Reforms in the Slovak Republic Health Insurance Sector in 2006 – 2009 ................13 D. Dispute Between Eureko and Slovak Republic and Complaint to the EU.................13 IV. ARGUMENTS ON THE “INTRA-EU JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION” .........14 A. Termination of the BIT under Article 59 of the Vienna Convention .........................16 1. Do the BIT and the EC Treaty relate to the same subject matter?.......................17 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................17 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................22 2. Did the Parties intend the EC Treaty to replace the BIT? ...................................25 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................25 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................28 3. Are the provisions of the EC Treaty and BIT so far incompatible that the treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time?.................................32 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................32 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................35 B. Inapplicability of the BIT’s Arbitration Clause BIT under Article 30 of the Vienna Convention...........................................................................................37 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................37 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................37 C. Inapplicability of the BIT and Incompetence of the Tribunal as a Matter of EU Law................................................................................................38 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................38 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................40 D. Non-Arbitrability as a Matter of German Law...........................................................41 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................41 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................42 i E-SR Award on Jurisdiction, etc. 26 October 2010 E. Request to Submit the Dispute to ECJ or Stay the Arbitration Pending ECJ Decision ..............................................................................................................43 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................43 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................43 F. Request that the European Commission be Invited to Participate in the Arbitration ........................................................................................................43 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................43 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................44 V. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ......................................................................................44 A. Written Observations of the Netherlands Government ..............................................45 1. Netherlands Government Letter of 10 June 2010................................................45 2. Netherlands Government Letter of 23 June 2010 appending Note Verbale from the Slovak Republic ....................................................................................47 3. Parties’ comments on Netherlands Government observations and Slovak Republic Note Verbale.........................................................................................48 Respondent’s Position..........................................................................................48 Claimant’s Position .............................................................................................48 B. Written Observations of the European Commission ..................................................49 1. Distinction between extra-EU BITs and intra-EU BITs......................................49 2. Discrimination issues with intra-EU BITs...........................................................51 3. Competing judicial and arbitral mechanisms.......................................................52 4. Termination of the Dutch-Slovak BIT is desirable but has not happened automatically under VCLT Article 59.................................................................53 5. Some BIT provisions are inapplicable under VCLT Article 30(3) .....................53 6. Suspension of proceedings until doubts resolved by ECJ ...................................54 7. Parties’ comments on the European Commission’s observations .......................55 Respondent’s Comments......................................................................................55 Claimant’s Comments..........................................................................................57 VI. RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES..............................................................59 Respondent’s Request for Relief ..........................................................................59 Claimant’s Request for Relief..............................................................................59 VII. ANALYSIS BY THE TRIBUNAL...............................................................................60 A. Termination of the BIT under Article 59 of the Vienna Convention .........................63 B. Inapplicability of the BIT under VCLT Article 30.....................................................72 C. Inapplicability of the BIT under EU Law...................................................................74 D. Non-Arbitrability of the Dispute under German Law ................................................75 E. Relationship between the Tribunal and EU Institutions.............................................76 VIII. DECISION .....................................................................................................................77 ii E-SR Award on Jurisdiction, etc. 26 October 2010 LIST OF DEFINED TERMS Term Definition 5 April 2004 E-mail Respondent’s Exhibit R-46, an e-mail dated 5 April 2004 from the Slovak Ministry of Finance to the economic and commercial counsellors at diplomatic missions of several EU Member States in Bratislava 226-Reply The Slovak Republic’s Reply of 22 January 2010 to the European Commission’s