موانع اجرای آراء ایکسید در اتحادیه اروپا: تحلیلی بر رای میکولا

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

وزارت امور خارجه

10.22054/qjpl.2020.30366.1782

چکیده

در پرونده میکولا؛ دیوان داوری، دولت رومانی را به دلیل لغو مشوق‌های سرمایه‌گذاری تعهد شده و با استناد به نقض اصل رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه مقرر در موافقت‌نامه دوجانبه میان سوئد و رومانی به پرداخت غرامت محکوم کرد. کمیسیون اروپا که وجود مشوق‌های سرمایه‌گذاری را ناقض مقررات اتحادیه در زمینه کمک دولتی می‌دانست، اقدام به صدور تصویب‌نامه‌ای در مورد منع دولت‌های عضو از اجرای رای کرد. با توجه به صدور رای داوری بر اساس مقررات ایکسید و تاکید مواد 53 و 54 این کنوانسیون بر لازم الاجرا بودن آرای صادره، اقدام کمیسیون اروپا در وضع چنین تصویب‌نامه‌ای و امتناع دولت‌های عضو از اجرای رای، به معنای اولویت دادن به مقررات اتحادیه نسبت به مقررات حقوق بین‌الملل است که این اقدام به عنوان نقض تعهدات بین‌المللی محسوب می‌شود. این نوشتار می‌کوشد به روش توصیفی- تحلیلی مواضع طرفین و دیدگاه‌های محاکمی که درخواست اجرا از آنها شده بود را بیان داشته و ماهیت این اقدامات را تبیین نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Problems of Enforcement of ICSID Awards: An Analysis of Micula Case

نویسنده [English]

  • ali hasankhani
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
چکیده [English]

In the case Micula A.O. v. Romania, the arbitration tribunal established under the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) sentenced Romania to pay a compensation for the revocation of investment incentives and for the breach of fair and equitable treatment principle that had been laid down in a bilateral investment treaty between Sweden and Romania. Considering investment incentives as a breach of the EU regulations regarding state aids, the European Commission then rendered a directive, prohibiting the enforcement of the arbitration award by the member states. As articles 53 and 54 of ICSID emphasize that the awards are binding, the EU Commission’s act of rendering the aforementioned directive, and the member states refusal to comply with the award equals to giving the EU law primacy over international law, which should be considered as a breach of their international obligations. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to explain the viewpoints of the parties and the courts which were asked to enforce the award, as well as to determine the nature of their acts.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Micula Case
  • EU Commission
  • Romania State
  • Enforcement of ICSID Award
  • State Aid
الف- فارسی

-        سیفی، سیدجمال، (1382)، «رای دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه سکوهای نفتی: دیپلماسی قضایی در دادرسی‌های بین‌المللی»، مجله پژوهش های حقوقی، شماره 4.

-        فرخی، رحمت ا...، رمضانی قوام آبادی محمدحسین و زمانی، قاسم، (1394)، «نقش دیوان اروپایی دادگستری در توسعه وحدت حقوقی اتحادیه اروپا»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی، سال هفدهم، شماره 49.

 

ب- انگلیسی

Articles

-            Hancher, L, (2010), “Long-term Contracts and State Aid- A New Application of the EU State Aid Regime or a Special Case?”, Eur. St. Aid L.Q. Vol. 9, No. 2.

 -            Kende T, (2015), “Arbitral Award Classified as State Aid under European Union Law”, ELTE L.J, Vol.37, No. 1.

 -            Lavranos N, (2014), “Interference of European Commission in the Enforcement of Arbitration Awards: The Micula Case”, Global Investment Protection AG, Vol. 2, No. 3.

 -            Matei E, (2016), “SA.38517- Commission Decision of 30 March 2015 on State Aid Granted by Romania to Micula”, European State Aid Law Quarterly, Vol.15, No. 1.

 -            Smutny A C, Smith A, Pittt M, (2016), “Enforcement of ICSID Convention Arbitral Awards in US Courts”, Pepp. L. Rev. Vol. 43, No. 5.

 -            Stanivukovic M, (2017), “Legitimate Expectations: A Commentary of Micula v. Romania”, 5 Y.B. on Int’l Arb. Vol. 165, No. 5.

 -            Struckmann K, Forwood G, Kadri A, (2016), “Investo-State Arbitration and EU State Aid Rules: Conflict or Co-existence?”, Eur. St. Aid L.Q, Vol. 15. No. 2.

 -            Tietje Ch, Wackernagel C, (2015), “Enforcement of Intra-EU ICSID Award, Multilevel Governance, Investment Tribunals and the Lost Opportunity of the Micula Arbitration”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 16. No. 2.

 -            Tietje Ch, Wackernagel C, (2014), “The Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Awards and EU State Aid Law”, Policy Paper on Transnational Economic Law. Vol. 1, No. 41.

 -            Wehland H, (2016), “The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Misula v Romania and Beyond”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 17, No. 6.

 -            Wilske S & Edworthy Ch, (2016), “The Future of Intra-European Union BITs: A Recent Development in International Investment Treaty Arbitration against Romania and Its Potential Collateral Damage”, Journal of International Arbitration. Vol. 33, No. 4.

 

Cases & Orders

-            Case 61/79, ECR, 1205, 1980.

 -            Case T-646/14, Micula and Others v. Commission, ECJ, 2014.

 -            Deutsch Bahm AG v. Commission, Case T-351/02, ECR II-1047, 2006.

 -            Eastern Sugar B.V.(Netherland) v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, 2007.

 -            ECJ Case 26/62, Van Gen den Loos, ECR 3, 1963.

 -            Electrabel v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, 30 Nov 2012.

 -            Eureko v. Republice of Slovakia, Award on jurisdiction, arbitrability and suspension, PCA Case No. 2008-13, 2010.

 -            European Commission, Decision of 30 March 2015, Arbitral Reward Micula v. Romania, EU 2015/1470, 2015.

 -            High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Commercial Court, Micula v. Romania, In the Matter of the Arbitration Act 1966, Case No: CL-2014-000251, 2017.

 -            Letter from European Commission to Romania, State Aid A.38517, 2014.

 -            Micula Case, Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award, 2013.

-            Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz Jarabo Colomer in Joined Cases C-346/03 & C-529/03 Atzori, 2005.

 -            ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche, OJ EC No. L144/37, 2006.

 -            United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Micula v. Romania, (On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of New York), 15-3109-cv, 2017.

 -            United States Court of Appels for the Second Circuit, Micula v. Romania, Summary Order, 15-3109-cv, 2017.

 -            United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Micula v. Romania, Civil No. 1:14-cv-00600(APM, 2014.

 -            United States District Court Southern District of New York, Micula v. Romania, Opinion & Order, 2015.

 -            United States District Court Southern District of New York, Micula v. Romania, Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Order of Satisfaction of judgment, Case No.1:15-mc-00107-p1, 2016.

 

Electronic Sources

-            Commission Decision 2015/1470, State Aid SA.38517, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32015D1470.

 -            European Commission Letter to Romania, https:// www. italaw. com/ sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4066.pdf, 2014.