Latest News
Clash of Legal Cultures: Micula Saga and the Conflict between EU Law and International Treaties
Clash of Legal Cultures: Micula Saga and the Conflict between EU Law and International Treaties
Introduction:
The recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in European Commission v UK Case C-516/22 sheds light on the complex interplay between EU law and international treaties, particularly in the context of investment arbitration enforcement. The case, revolving around the Micula brothers' ICSID award enforcement, highlights a clash of legal cultures between the CJEU and the UK Supreme Court (UKSC), raising fundamental questions about the hierarchy of legal authorities and the scope of EU law.
The Micula Saga:
The Micula saga dates back to investments made by the Micula brothers in Romania under an investment incentive scheme named EGO 24. Following Romania's accession to the EU, the scheme was repealed to comply with EU state aid rules, leading to a dispute between the Miculas and Romania. The Miculas obtained an ICSID award against Romania, triggering enforcement proceedings in various jurisdictions, including the UK.
The UKSC Judgment:
In the UKSC's Micula judgment, the court ruled in favour of enforcing the ICSID award, citing obligations under the ICSID Convention. Despite the EU Commission's contention that such enforcement would violate EU state aid rules, the UKSC asserted its authority to interpret the ICSID Convention independently, highlighting the clash between international treaty obligations and EU law principles.
The CJEU Judgment:
In contrast, the CJEU's recent ruling found the UKSC's decision to violate EU law, particularly the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU). The CJEU emphasized its exclusive authority to interpret EU treaties and concluded that the UK's obligation to enforce the ICSID award did not fall within the scope of Article 351 TFEU, which provides an exception to EU law primacy for prior treaty obligations to non-EU states.
Clash of Legal Cultures:
The conflicting interpretations of legal authority between the CJEU and the UKSC illustrate a clash of legal cultures. While the UKSC relied on principles of public international law and the obligations under the ICSID Convention, the CJEU upheld the supremacy of EU law and its exclusive jurisdiction to interpret EU treaties. This clash highlights the inherent tension between international obligations and EU law within the context of investment arbitration enforcement.
Implications and Next Steps:
The CJEU's judgment has binding force under the Withdrawal Agreement, requiring the UK to comply with its obligations under EU law. However, given the political implications of Brexit and the UK government's decision not to participate in the proceedings, compliance seems unlikely. The case underscores the challenges of reconciling conflicting legal regimes and raises questions about the enforcement of international treaties within the EU legal framework.
Conclusion:
The Micula saga reflects a broader issue concerning the interaction between international law and EU law, particularly in the context of investment arbitration enforcement. The clash of legal cultures between the CJEU and the UKSC highlights the complexities of navigating competing legal authorities and underscores the need for clarity in determining the hierarchy of legal obligations within the EU legal framework.
- Following Romania's accession to the EU, the scheme was repealed to comply with EU state aid rules, leading to a dispute between the Miculas and Romania.
- Despite the EU Commission's contention that such enforcement would violate EU state aid rules, the UKSC asserted its authority to interpret the ICSID Convention independently.
- This clash highlights the inherent tension between international obligations and EU law within the context of investment arbitration enforcement.
