AB İÇİ VE DIŞI YATIRIM ANLAŞMALARINDA DÜZENLENEN UYUŞMAZLIK ÇÖZÜM MEKANİZMALARININ AB HUKUK DÜZENİNİN ÖZERKLİĞİNE UYGUNLUĞU

Öz

Makale AB içi ve dışı uluslararası yatırım anlaşmaları tarafından kurulan alternatif uyuşmazlık çözüm mekanizmalarının AB hukuk düzeninin özerkliğine uygunluğu meselesini irdelemektedir. Bu bağlamda Achmea Kararı ve 1/17 Sayılı Mütalaa başta olmak üzere AB hukuk düzeninin özerkliği ilkesi ışığında şekillenen ve AB hukuk düzeninin anayasallaşması sürecinin önemli basamaklarını teşkil eden ABAD içtihadının hukuki sonuçlarını AB hukuku ve uluslararası hukuk boyutlarıyla tartışmakta, mevcut, sona erdirilmiş veya gelecekteki iki veya çok taraflı AB içi ve dışı anlaşmalara etkisini ABAD’ın uluslararası mahkemelere karşı sahip olduğu münhasır yargı yetkisi çerçevesinde analiz etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• AB Hukuk Düzeninin Özerkliği
• AB Hukukunun Yorumlanması ve Uygulanması
• Yargı Yetkisi
• Yatırım Tahkimi
• AB İçi ve Dışı Anlaşmalar

Compatibility of the Dispute Settlement Mechanisms Established in the Intra-EU and Extra-EU Investment Agreements with the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order

Abstract

The Article discusses the compatibility of the alternative dispute settlement mechanisms established by the intra-EU and extra-EU international investment agreements with the autonomy of the EU legal order. In that respect, it explores the legal consequences of the European case law, in particular the seminal Achmea Judgment and Opinion 1/17, which, as constituting the signifying steps of the constitutionalisation of the EU Legal order, has been given in the light of the principle of autonomy of the EU legal order both under EU and international laws and analyses its legal effects within the framework of the exclusive jurisdiction of the JEU vis-a-vis international courts on the current, terminated or potential intra-EU and extra-EU bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Keywords

• Autonomy of the EU Legal Order
• Interpretation and Application of EU Law
• Jurisdiction; Investment Arbitration
• Intra-EU and Extra-EU Agreements

Kaynakça

1. Kitap/Kitap Bölümü ve Makaleler:
2. Contartese, Cristina and Mads Andenas, “EU autonomy and investor-state dispute settlement under inter se agreements between EU Member States: Achmea Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik v. Achmea BV, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 March 2018, EU:C:2018:158”, Common Market Law Review 56, (2019): 157.
3. Cremona, Marise. “The Opinion procedure under Article 218(11) TFEU: Reflections in the light of Opinion 1/17”, Europe and the World: A law review 4(1) (2020): 11.
4. Declève, Quentin. “Achmea: Consequences on Applicable Law and ISDS Clauses in Extra-EU BITs and Future EU Trade and Investment Agreements”, European Papers 4/1 (2019): 99.
5. Dimopoulos, Angelos. “Achmea: The principle of autonomy and its implications for intra and extra-EU BITs”, March 27, 2018, Erişim tarihi: 20.01.2023, ejiltalk.org/achmea-the-principle-of-autonomy-and-its-implications-for-intra-and-extra-eu-bits/.
6. Eckes, Christina & Laurens Ankersmit, “The Compatibility of the Energy Charter Treaty with EU Law”, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance, 2022, Erişim tarihi: Ocak 10, 2023.
7. Eckes, Christina. "The Autonomy of EU Law vis-à-vis International Law: Kadi I and Kadi II" içinde EU External Relations Law: The Cases in Context, ed. Graham Butler and Ramses A Wessel (Oxford: Hart, 2022).
8. Fanou, Maria. “Intra-European Union investor–State arbitration post-Achmea: RIP? An assessment in the aftermath of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-284/16, Achmea, Judgment of 6 March 2018, EU:C:2018:158”, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 26(2) (2019): 316.

9. Fanou, Maria. “The CETA ICS and the Autonomy of the EU Legal Order in Opinion 1/17 – A Compass for the Future”, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 22 (2020): 106.
10. Fanou, Maria. “The independence and impartiality of the hybrid CETA Investment Court System: Reflections in the aftermath of Opinion 1/17” Europe and the World: A law review 4/1 (2020): 17.
11. Gaillard, Emmanuel. “L’affaire Achmea ou les conflits de logiques (CJUE 6 mars 2018, aff. C-284/16)”, Revue critique de droit international privé (2018/3): 616.
12. Hepburn, Jarrod. “Applicable Law in TPP Investment Disputes”, Melbourne Journal of International Law 17 (2016): 1.
13. Kriebaum, Ursula. “The Fate of Intra-EU BITs from an Investment Law and Public International Law Perspective”, ELTE Law Journal (2015/1): 27.
14. Lenaerts, Koen. “The Autonomy of European Union Law” içinde Law in a Time of Constitutional Crisis- Studies Offered to Mirosław Wyrzykowski ed. Jakub Urbanik and Adam Bodnar (München: C.H.Beck, 2021), https://www.clientearth.org/latest/documents/the-compatibility-of-the-energy-charter-treatywitheu-law/.
15. Pohl, Jens Hillebrand. “Intra-EU Investment Arbitration after the Achmea Case: Legal Autonomy Bounded BY Mutual Trust” European Constitutional Law Review 14(4), (2018): 767.
16. Sadowski, Wojciech. “The Rule of Law and the Roll of the Dice. The Uncertain Future of Investor-State Arbitration in the EU” içinde Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States - Taking Stock of Europe’s Actions, ed. Armin von Bogdandy et. al., (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2021).
17. Tsagourias, Nicholas. “Conceptualizing the autonomy of the European Union” içinde International organizations and the idea of autonomy: Institutional independence in the international legal order, ed. Richard Collins & Nigel D. White, (London: Routledge, 2011).
18. ABAD İçtihadı
19. Case C-26/62 Van Gend EU:C:1963:1.
20. Case C-6/64 Costa/ENEL EU:C:1964:66.
21. Opinion 1/76 EU:C:1977:63.
22. Opinion 1/91 EU:C:1991:490.
23. Opinion 2/94 EU:C:1996:140.
24. Case C‑126/97 Eco Swiss EU:C:1999:269.
25. Opinion 1/00, EU:C:2002:231.
26. Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland EU:C:2006:345.
27. Case C‑168/05 Mostaza Claro EU:C:2006:675.
28. Opinion of Advocate General Maduro, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi EU:C:2008:11.
29. Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi EU:C:2008:461.
30. Opinion 1/09 EU:C:2011:123.
31. Opinion 2/13 EU:C:2014:2454.
32. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, Case C‑284/16 Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV EU:C:2017:699.
33. Case C‑284/16 Slovak Republic v Achmea BV EU:C:2018:158.
34. Opinion 2/15 EU:C:2017:376.
35. Opinion of Advocate General Bot, Opinion 1/17 EU:C:2019:72.
36. Opinion 1/17 EU:C:2019:341.
37. Case C-638/19 P Micula EU:C:2022:50.
38. Case C-741/19 Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC EU:C:2021:655.
39. Opinion 1/20 EU:C:2022:485.
40. Case C-109/20 Republiken Polen v PL Holdings Sàrl EU:C:2021:875.
41. Tahkim Kararları
42. Eastern Sugar B.V. (Netherlands) v The Czech Republic, (SCC Case No. 088/2004), Partial Award, 27 March 2007.
43. AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v The Republic of Hungary, (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22), Award, 23 September 2010.
44. Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary (ICSID CASE NO. ARB/07/19), Award, 25 Nov 2015.
45. Jürgen Wirtgen, Stefan Wirtgen, Gisela Wirtgen and JSW Solar (zwei) GmbH & Co. KG v The Czech Republic, (PCA Case No. 2014-03), Final Award, 17 October 2017.
46. Marfin Investment Group v The Republic of Cyprus, (ICSID Case No ARB/13/27), 26 July 2018.
47. Eskosol S.P.A. in liquidazione v Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50) Decision on Termination Request and Intra-EU Objection, 7 May 2019.
48. United Utilities (Tallinn) BV and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v Republic of Estonia (ICSID Case No ARB/14/24), Award, 21 June 2019.
49. Magyar Farming Company Ltd, Kintyre Kft and Inicia Zrt v Hungary (ICSID Case No ARB/17/27), Award, 13 November 2019.
50. Uluslararası Mahkeme Kararları
51. Permanent Court of International Justice, Germany v. Poland, German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1926 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 7 (May 25).
52. ABD Mahkeme Kararları
53. Viorel Micula v The Government of Romania 104 F. Supp. 3d 42 (D.D.C. 2015).