Article 9 of the Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of the one part, and the Government of the People's Republic of Poland, of the other, concerning the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments, signed on 19 May 1987 ('the bilateral investment treaty', or 'the BIT'), provides as follows:
'1. (a) Disputes between one of the Contracting Parties and an investor of the other Contracting Party shall be subject to a written notification accompanied by a detailed memorandum sent by that investor to the relevant Contracting Party.
(b) Within the meaning of this Article, the term "disputes" refers to disputes with regard to the expropriation or nationalisation of, or any other measures similarly affecting, the investments, including the transfer of an investment to public ownership, placing it under public supervision, as well as any other deprivation or restriction of rights in rem by sovereign measures that might lead to consequences similar to those of expropriation.
(c) Such disputes shall, as far as possible, be settled amicably between the relevant parties.
2. If the dispute could not be so settled within six months from the date of the written notification specified in paragraph 1, it shall be submitted, at the choice of the investor, to arbitration before one of the bodies indicated below:
(a) the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce [("the SCC")];
5. The arbitration body should make its award on the basis of:
– the national law of the Contracting Party that is a party to the dispute, in the territory of which the investment is located, including the rules relating to the conflict of laws;
– the provisions of this Treaty;
– the terms of any special agreement concerning the investment;
– the generally accepted rules and principles of international law.
6. The arbitration awards shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute. Each Contracting Party undertakes to execute the awards in accordance with its national law.'
'The Contracting Parties hereby confirm that Arbitration Clauses [between an investor and a State in a Bilateral Investment Treaty] are contrary to the EU Treaties and thus inapplicable. As a result of this incompatibility between Arbitration Clauses and the EU Treaties, as of the date on which the last of the parties to a Bilateral Investment Treaty became a Member State of the European Union, the Arbitration Clause in such a Bilateral Investment Treaty cannot serve as legal basis for Arbitration Proceedings.'
Article 7 of that agreement provides:
'Where the Contracting Parties are parties to Bilateral Investment Treaties on the basis of which Pending Arbitration Proceedings or New Arbitration Proceedings were initiated, they shall:
(a) inform, in cooperation with each other and on the basis of the statement in Annex C, arbitral tribunals about the legal consequences of the [judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158)] as described in Article 4; and
(b) where they are party to judicial proceedings concerning an arbitral award issued on the basis of a Bilateral Investment Treaty, ask the competent national court, including in any third country, as the case may be, to set the arbitral award aside, annul it or to refrain from recognising and enforcing it.'
'Disputes relating to matters which can be the subject of an amicable settlement between the parties may, by agreement between those parties, be referred to one or more arbitrators for settlement. Such an agreement may relate to future disputes relating to a legal relationship referred to in the agreement. The dispute can relate to the existence of a particular fact.
'Arbitrators may examine whether they have jurisdiction to settle the dispute.
If the arbitrators have concluded by decision that they have jurisdiction to settle the dispute, a party dissatisfied with that decision may request that the question be examined by a court of appeal. That action must be brought no later than 30 days after the date on which the arbitrators' decision accepting jurisdiction was notified to that party. The arbitrators may continue the arbitration proceedings pending the decision from the court of appeal.
In the case of an action against an arbitration award involving a decision on jurisdiction, Paragraphs 34 and 36 shall apply.'
'An arbitration award shall be null and void:
1. where it involves the examination of a question which, under Swedish law, may not be decided by arbitrators;
2. where the arbitration award or the manner in which it was arrived at is manifestly incompatible with the Swedish legal order; or
'A party shall not be entitled to rely on a fact which he or she, by participating in the proceedings without objection, or by any other conduct, may be regarded as having refrained from raising. The mere fact that a party has appointed an arbitrator does not necessarily mean that he or she has accepted the arbitrators' jurisdiction to rule upon the question referred. …'
Under Article 2 of the 2010 Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the SCC, a request for arbitration must include, inter alia, 'a copy or description of the arbitration agreement or clause under which the dispute is to be settled'.
In its request of 28 November 2014, PL Holdings relied on Article 9 of the BIT in order to show that that tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the dispute at issue in the main proceedings. It asked that tribunal to declare that the Republic of Poland had infringed the BIT and to order that Member State to pay damages.
By the partial arbitral award of 28 June 2017, the arbitral tribunal declared that it had jurisdiction on the basis of Article 9 of the BIT. That tribunal found that, by ordering the forced sale of PL Holdings' shareholdings in the new Polish bank, the Republic of Poland had infringed the BIT and that PL Holdings could, therefore, claim damages.
By the final arbitration award of 28 September 2017, the arbitral tribunal ordered the Republic of Poland to pay PL Holdings damages and to pay the costs incurred by the latter in the arbitration proceedings.
In the view of PL Holdings, Article 9 of the BIT is a valid 'offer of arbitration' made by the Republic of Poland, which PL Holdings accepted by making its request for arbitration. Moreover, the Republic of Poland challenged the validity of the arbitration clause out of time and the question whether that clause is contrary to EU law cannot be raised by the court of its own motion.
The Svea hovrätt (Svea Court of Appeal, Stockholm) decided to dismiss the Republic of Poland's action at first instance. That court held, first of all, that, even though the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158), which, in its view was applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, meant that Article 9 of the BIT was invalid and that, consequently, the permanent offer made by the Republic of Poland to investors from other Member States – according to which a dispute concerning that agreement must be settled by an arbitration body – was also invalid, that invalidity did not prevent a Member State and an investor from another Member State from concluding an ad hoc arbitration agreement at a later stage in order to settle that dispute. Such an ad hoc arbitration agreement is based on the common intention of the parties to that dispute and is concluded according to the same principles as commercial arbitration proceedings.
'Do Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, as interpreted in [the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158)], mean that an arbitration agreement is invalid if it has been concluded between a Member State and an investor – where an investment agreement contains an arbitration clause that is invalid as a result of the fact that the contract was concluded between two Member States – by virtue of the fact that the Member State, after arbitration proceedings were commenced by the investor, refrains, by the free will of the State, from raising objections as to jurisdiction?'
It should be noted that, according to the settled case-law of the Court, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it (judgment of 15 July 2021, Ministrstvo za obrambo, C‑742/19, EU:C:2021:597, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
As a preliminary point, it should be noted that that question is based on the premiss that, in the light of the invalidity of the arbitration clause in Article 9 of the BIT, the Republic of Poland tacitly accepted, on the basis of the applicable Swedish law, PL Holdings' offer of arbitration, by refraining from challenging in good time the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, and therefore concluded with PL Holdings an ad hoc arbitration agreement which was distinct, but had identical content to the arbitration clause based on Article 9 of the BIT.
It should nevertheless be observed that it is apparent from the file submitted to the Court that the Republic of Poland did at the outset contest the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal on the basis of the BIT. First of all, in its letter of 30 November 2014 to the secretariat of the SCC, the Republic of Poland expressed its intention to argue that there was no valid arbitration agreement. Then, in its defence of 13 November 2015 lodged before the arbitral tribunal, it disputed the jurisdiction of that tribunal on the ground that PL Holdings was not an 'investor' within the meaning of the BIT. Lastly, in its pleading of 27 May 2016, a few days after the request for a preliminary ruling was lodged before the Court in the case that gave rise to the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158), it argued that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute at issue in the main proceedings because the arbitration clause in Article 9 of the BIT – which was PL Holdings' sole basis for its request for arbitration – was invalid as it was contrary to EU law.
In that context, it is for the referring court to take account of the objections raised by the Republic of Poland throughout the arbitration proceedings, in order to establish whether, notwithstanding the invalidity of the arbitration clause in Article 9 of the BIT – and, therefore, of the legal basis relied on by PL Holdings in order to initiate the arbitration proceedings – the Republic of Poland intended to conclude an ad hoc arbitration agreement with content identical to that of that clause. In particular, that court should ascertain that PL Holdings' request for arbitration of 28 November 2014, in accordance with Article 2 of the 2010 Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the SCC, together with the subsequent conduct of the Republic of Poland, allows a clear inference to be drawn that there was an ad hoc arbitration agreement between that investor and the Republic of Poland, and that the latter was thus in a position effectively to challenge the validity of that agreement before the arbitral tribunal.
It is common ground that the arbitration clause in Article 9 of the BIT is, like the clause at issue in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158), capable of leading to a situation in which an arbitration body rules in disputes which may concern the application or interpretation of EU law. Accordingly, that arbitration clause is such as to call into question not only the principle of mutual trust between the Member States but also the preservation of the particular nature of EU law, ensured by the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU. That clause is, therefore, incompatible with the principle of sincere cooperation set out in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU and has an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law enshrined, inter alia, in Article 344 TFEU (see, to that effect, ). Furthermore, as is confirmed by Article 4(1) of the Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, from the date of accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union on 1 May 2004, Article 9 of the BIT could no longer serve as the basis for arbitration proceedings between an investor and that Member State.
To allow a Member State, which is a party to a dispute which may concern the application and interpretation of EU law, to submit that dispute to an arbitral body with the same characteristics as the body referred to in an invalid arbitration clause contained in an international agreement such as the one referred to in paragraph 44 above, by concluding an ad hoc arbitration agreement with the same content as that clause, would in fact entail a circumvention of the obligations arising for that Member State under the Treaties and, specifically, under Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, as interpreted in the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158).
First of all, such an ad hoc arbitration agreement would produce, with regard to the dispute in the context of which it was concluded, the same effects as those resulting from such a clause. The fundamental reason for that arbitration agreement is precisely to replace the arbitration clause in a provision such as Article 9 of the BIT in order to maintain its effects despite that provision's being invalid.
Lastly, it follows both from the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158), and from the principles of the primacy of EU law and of sincere cooperation, not only that the Member States cannot undertake to remove from the judicial system of the European Union disputes which may concern the application and interpretation of EU law, but also that, where such a dispute is brought before an arbitration body on the basis of an undertaking which is contrary to EU law, they are required to challenge, before that arbitration body or before the court with jurisdiction, the validity of the arbitration clause or the ad hoc arbitration agreement on the basis of which the dispute was brought before that arbitration body.
That is also confirmed by Article 7(b) of the Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, under which, where contracting parties are parties to bilateral investment treaties on the basis of which pending arbitration proceedings were initiated, they are, inter alia, where they are party to judicial proceedings concerning an arbitral award issued on the basis of a bilateral investment treaty, to ask the competent national court, as the case may be, to set the arbitral award aside, annul it or to refrain from recognising and enforcing it. That rule is applicable mutatis mutandis to a situation in which arbitration proceedings originally initiated on the basis of an arbitration clause, which is invalid because it does not comply with EU law, are continued on the basis of an ad hoc arbitration agreement concluded by the parties in accordance with the applicable national law, the content of which is identical to that of that clause.
In those circumstances, it is for the national court to uphold an application which seeks the setting aside of an arbitration award made on the basis of an arbitration agreement infringing Articles 267 and 344 TFEU and the principles of mutual trust, sincere cooperation and autonomy of EU law.
As regards, secondly, the criterion relating to serious difficulties, PL Holdings submits that the judgment to be delivered is likely to affect a large number of those who have concluded arbitration agreements with Member States in the context of various types of contract. Moreover, in its view, there is nothing in the Court's case-law to indicate that the concept of 'serious difficulties' could not cover a situation in which a company established in the European Union, such as PL Holdings, acting in good faith, was first of all the subject of an unlawful expropriation in breach of EU law, and in particular in breach of its freedom of establishment guaranteed in Articles 49 and 54 TFEU, and subsequently deprived of its right to effective judicial protection, provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In that regard, as the Advocate General observed in point 84 of her Opinion, the Court points out that the factors for interpreting Articles 267 and 344 TFEU that are relevant for the purposes of the present case arise directly from the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158), the temporal effects of which were not limited by the Court.
Indeed, to allow a Member State to replace an arbitration clause, included in an international agreement between Member States, by concluding an ad hoc arbitration agreement in order to make it possible to pursue arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of that clause, would, as has been held in paragraph 47 above, amount to circumventing that Member State's obligations under the Treaties and, specifically, under Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, as interpreted in the judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C‑284/16, EU:C:2018:158).
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
Articles 267 and 344 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows a Member State to conclude an ad hoc arbitration agreement with an investor from another Member State that makes it possible to continue arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of an arbitration clause whose content is identical to that agreement, where that clause is contained in an international agreement concluded between those two Member States and is invalid on the ground that it is contrary to those articles.
Already registered ?