European Union: Advocate General Bot Finds The CETA Investment Court System Compatible With EU Law

Last Updated: 17 April 2019
Article by Quentin Declève

On 29 January 2019, Advocate General Bot (the 'AG') delivered his long-awaited Opinion (the 'Opinion') on whether the investment court system ('ICS') in Chapter Eight, Section F, of the European Union-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ('CETA') is compatible with European Union (EU) law, in particular with the autonomy of the EU legal order and fundamental rights. The next step in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union ('ECJ'), initiated by Belgium following complications in its ratification process, is for the ECJ to deliver its Opinion on the same question.

Questions at Issue

Belgium's request pursuant to Article 218(11) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU') for an Opinion from the ECJ was broadly formulated. It asked the ECJ for an Opinion on whether Chapter Eight, Section F of CETA is 'compatible with the Treaties, including with fundamental rights'.

The AG understood that request to raise three distinct questions (para. 36), namely whether the ICS in CETA is compatible with: (i) the exclusive jurisdiction of the ECJ regarding the interpretation of EU law; (ii) the principle of equal treatment and the requirement that EU (competition) law be effective and (iii) the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.

He added that the request does not concern the policy decision of whether or not to include ICS in agreements with third States or the economic impact of ICS on attracting foreign investment. Those are matters falling within the discretion of the EU institutions and resulting from a democratic debate within the European Union and the Member States (paras 32-33).

ICS in CETA Does Not Undermine Autonomy of EU Legal Order and Is Compatible with Exclusive Jurisdiction of ECJ

International agreements to which the European Union seeks to become a party must respect the autonomy of the EU legal order. This concept refers to the fact that the EU Treaties establish 'a new legal order, possessing its own institutions, for the benefit of which the Member States thereof have limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only those States but also their nationals' (ECJ Opinion 2/13, para. 157). One important feature is that 'it is for the national courts and for the ECJ to ensure the full application of EU law in all Member States and to ensure judicial protection of an individual's rights under that law' (ECJ Opinion 2/13, para. 175). As a result, international agreements, and the dispute settlement systems for which they provide, should not adversely affect the jurisdiction of the ECJ to interpret EU law and to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation and the validity of EU acts. In Case C-284/16 Achmea, the ECJ found that that condition was not satisfied in case of a bilateral investment agreement between two Member States providing for the possibility that an Investor-State Dispute Settlement tribunal might interpret and apply EU law (See, Van Bael & Bellis on Belgian Business Law, Volume 2018, No. 3, p. 15, available at

The AG found that the ICS in CETA does not affect the jurisdiction of the ECJ. His view was that, given the lack of direct effect of CETA (para. 62), the ICS offers judicial protection to investors through a legal system that is separate but co-existing with the judicial remedies available before the ECJ and the courts and tribunals of the Member States (para. 63). Thus, the ICS in CETA is distinct from the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism at issue in Achmea in that the latter was a parallel dispute settlement mechanism with jurisdiction to interpret and apply EU law (para. 105).

He also emphasised that, in contrast to the intra-EU agreement at issue in Achmea, international agreements with non-Member States such as CETA are not based on mutual trust between the parties. Instead, they are based on reciprocity between the European Union and a third State (paras 72-85, 107-109). Without adequate and reciprocal substantive and procedural protection of investments, the European Union might not be able to promote and encourage EU investors or attract foreign investment (para. 80). He signaled that requiring prior involvement of the ECJ might be difficult to reconcile with the reciprocity governing the mutual relations of parties such as the European Union and Canada (paras 179-182). The AG therefore recognised the importance of finding a balance between protecting the autonomy of the EU legal order and enabling the European Union to exercise an effective common commercial policy which allows for external review of the actions of the European Union and of its Member States and includes the development of a rules-based international legal order (paras 87, 118, 173-178, 212).

According to the AG, CETA offers 'sufficient guarantees to safeguard, first the role of the [ECJ] as the ultimate interpreter of EU law and, second, the cooperation mechanism between the national courts and tribunals and the [ECJ], which takes the form of the preliminary ruling procedure' (para. 116). Those guarantees are as follows:

  • The ICS's jurisdiction is limited to disputes regarding a breach of non-discriminatory treatment obligations and investment protection obligations (para. 120);
  • In resolving disputes, the ICS may apply CETA and other rules and principles of international law applicable between the European Union and Canada, but not EU law (paras 110, 121, 122);
  • The ICS may only review whether acts of either party comply with CETA with a view to granting compensation to investors. It has no jurisdiction to decide on the legality of an act adopted by a Member State or by the European Union or to annul such acts (paras 123-126). Nor can it rule on the reciprocal relations between the European Union and its Member States, between the Member States themselves or between an investor of one Member State and the other Member States (para 160);
  • Before the ICS, EU law and the law of the Member States (which includes EU law) will be considered as a question of fact, notably in the context of assessing whether a particular measure is justified by legitimate objectives in the public interest. The ICS must take EU law as it stands and follow any ECJ interpretations of EU law. Furthermore, CETA offers the necessary safeguards in order to ensure that the ICS will interpret EU law as infrequently as possible (paras 128-136, 148-152, 154);
  • In the event that the ICS would need to interpret EU law in the absence of guidance from the ECJ in order to decide a particular dispute before it, that interpretation would, in any event, not bind the EU institutions (including the ECJ) (paras 137-143);
  • Finally, the ICS does not prevent foreign investors from using judicial remedies available under domestic law. Although national courts of the Member States must not directly apply CETA, they remain an available alternative forum for judicial protection and their role in making references for a preliminary ruling from the ECJ remains intact (paras 168-172).

ICS in CETA Complies with General Principle of Equal Treatment and Requirement that EU (Competition) Law Be Effective

The AG found that CETA treats Canadian investors in the European Union more favourably by granting them judicial remedies (i.e., allowing recourse to the ICS) that are not likewise available for EU companies investing in the European Union because these categories of investors are not comparable (para. 203). The only investors who are in a comparable situation are Canadian investors in the European Union and EU investors in Canada (paras 203-207). In any event, should the ECJ nonetheless find that Canadian and EU investors in the European Union are comparable, making the ICS available only to Canadian investors in the European Union would, according to the AG, be objectively justified by the purpose of promoting foreign investment (para. 209).

Belgium had also raised questions as to whether the ICS could nullify the effect of a competition law fine imposed by the European Commission or a competition authority of one of the EU Member States, by deciding to award damages in an amount equivalent to that fine. The analysis of the AG of those questions was limited. He took the view that several substantive and procedural guarantees in CETA (including in Chapter 17 on 'Competition Policy') in fact limit the risk of the ICS having to decide that a fine imposed under EU competition law would infringe investment protection standards laid down in Chapter 8 of CETA (paras 214-218).

ICS in CETA Respects Right of Access to Independent and Impartial Tribunal

The final part of the Opinion responds to a number of objections raised by Belgium with respect to whether the ICS respects the right of access of especially small and medium-sized enterprises or 'SMEs' to an independent and impartial court under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

In his assessment of those objections, the AG stressed the 'hybrid' character of the ICS, which he considered to be 'a form of compromise between an arbitration tribunal and an international court' (para. 242). He therefore disagreed with the premise of the objections raised by Belgium that the ICS was a genuine court (para. 244). His assessment also took into account that, pursuant to CETA, the parties (acting specifically in the context of the Joint Committee) are to adopt further detailed rules on the organisation and functioning of the ICS (para. 247).

The AG took the view that Section F of Chapter 8 of CETA 'guarantee[s] a level of protection of [the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal] which is appropriate to the specific characteristics of the [Investor-State Dispute Settlement] mechanism provided for in that section' (para. 271). That conclusion was based on the following considerations:

  • The ICS does not have exclusive jurisdiction to decide on actions brought by foreign investors in the field of investment protection. It is merely an alternative method of dispute resolution (paras 252-253).
  • The rule according to which the costs of the proceedings should be borne by the unsuccessful disputing party (Article 8.39.5 of CETA) serves a legitimate objective. The application of the rule may be tempered in the light of the circumstances of the claim (para. 255) or as a result of supplemental rules adopted by the Joint Committee (para. 257). Furthermore, costs may be reduced provided the parties agree to their case being heard by a sole adjudicator or reach an amicable settlement (para. 256).
  • The remuneration model, comprising a fixed component and a component related to the volume and the complexity of the case-load, is consistent with the hybrid character of the ICS and the fact that the adjudicators will be working, at least initially, on a part-time basis (para. 260);

The conditions relating to the appointment and possible removal of the adjudicators offer sufficient safeguards (in particular, in terms of rules of ethics) so as to guarantee their independence and impartiality (para. 262-270).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions