Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstol (Supreme Court, Sweden) - Request for a preliminary ruling - Investment Treaty of 1987 between Poland, Luxembourg and Belgium - Provision enabling an investor from one contracting party to bring proceedings before an arbitration tribunal in the event of a dispute with the other contracting party - Inapplicability of that arbitration clause - Arbitration agreement - Entering of an appearance without raising an objection - Applicability - Compatibility with Articles 267 and 344 TFEU - Autonomy of EU law
1. In the judgment in Achmea, (2) the Court ruled that arbitration clauses in favour of investors in investment treaties between Member States are incompatible with Articles 267 and 344 TFEU and must therefore be disapplied. What are the consequences, however, if a Member State does not invoke the invalidity of the arbitration clause before the award is made? A Swedish court concluded from this, in the context of examining the validity of an arbitration award, that the Member State concerned had entered into an arbitration agreement for the dispute in question on an ad hoc basis by entering an appearance in the arbitration proceedings without raising an objection. However, the Högsta domstol (Supreme Court, Sweden) has doubts as to whether this approach is compatible with the abovementioned judgment and has therefore referred the matter to the Court.
Poland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, investment treaty, investment-related disputes, arbitration, Stockholms Handelskammares Skiljedomsinstitut, Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce