DECLARATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, OF 15 JANUARY 2019 ON THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN AC HM EA AND ON INVESTMENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, HAVE ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING DECLARATION In its judgment of 6 March 2018 in Case C-284/16, Achmea v Slovak Republic ('the Achmea judgment'), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that "Articles 267 and 344 [... of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] must be interpreted as precluding a provision in an international agreement concluded between Member States, [...] under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal whose jurisdiction that Member State has undertaken to accept" ("investor-State arbitration clauses"). Member States are bound to draw all necessary consequences from that judgment pursuant to their obligations under Union law. Union law takes precedence over bilateral investment treaties concluded between Member States1. As a consequence, all investor-State arbitration clauses contained in bilateral investment treaties concluded between Member States are contrary to Union law and thus inapplicable. They do not produce effects including as regards provisions that provide for extended protection of investments made prior to termination for a further period of time (so- called sunset or grandfathering clauses). An arbitral tribunal established on the basis of investor-State arbitration clauses lacks jurisdiction, due to a lack of a valid offer to arbitrate by the Member State party to the underlying bilateral investment Treaty. Furthermore, international agreements concluded by the Union, including the Energy Charter Treaty, are an integral part of the EU legal order and must therefore be compatible with the Treaties.2 Arbitral tribunals have interpreted the Energy Charter Treaty as also containing an investor-State arbitration clause applicable between Member States.3 Interpreted in such a manner, that clause would be incompatible with the Treaties and thus would have to be disapplied.4 When investors from Member States exercise one of the fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of establishment or the free movement of capital, they act within the scope of application of Union law and therefore enjoy the protection granted by those freedoms and, as the case may be, by the relevant secondary legislation, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and by the general principles of Union law, which include in particular non-discrimination, proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.5 Where a Member State enacts a measure that derogates from one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Union law, that measure falls within the scope of Union law and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter also apply.6 Member States are obliged to provide remedies sufficient to ensure the effective legal protection of investors' rights under Union law.7 In particular, every Member State must ensure that its courts or tribunals, within the meaning of Union law, meet the requirements of effective judicial protection.8 Member States underline the importance of providing guidance on how Union law protects intra-EU investments, including on legal remedies. In this context, Member States take note of the Communication "Protection of intra-EU investment" adopted by the Commission on 19 July 2018.9 In light of the ECOFIN Council conclusions of 11 July 2017, Member States and the Commission will intensify discussions without undue delay with the aim of better ensuring complete, strong and effective protection of investments within the European Union. Those discussions include the assessment of existing processes and mechanisms of dispute resolution, as well as of the need and, if the need is ascertained, the means to create new or to improve existing relevant tools and mechanisms under Union law.10 This declaration is without prejudice to the division of competences between the Member States and the Union. Taking into account the foregoing, Member States declare that they will undertake the following actions without undue delay: 1. By the present declaration, Member States inform investment arbitration tribunals about the legal consequences of the Achmea judgment, as set out in this declaration, in all pending intra-EU investment arbitration proceedings brought either under bilateral investment treaties concluded between Member States or under the Energy Charter Treaty. 2. In cooperation with a defending Member State, the Member State, in which an investor that has brought such an action is established, will take the necessary measures to inform the investment arbitration tribunals concerned of those consequences. Similarly, defending Member States will request the courts, including in any third country, which are to decide in proceedings relating to an intra-EU investment arbitration award, to set these awards aside or not to enforce them due to a lack of valid consent. 3. By the present declaration, Member States inform the investor community that no new intra-EU investment arbitration proceeding should be initiated. 4. Member States which control undertakings that have brought investment arbitration cases against another Member State will take steps under their national laws governing such undertakings, in compliance with Union law, so that those undertakings withdraw pending investment arbitration cases. 5. In light of the Achmea judgment, Member States will terminate all bilateral investment treaties concluded between them by means of a plurilateral treaty or, where that is mutually recognised as more expedient, bilaterally. 6. Member States will ensure effective legal protection pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU under the control of the Court of Justice against State measures that are the object of pending intra-EU investment arbitration proceedings. 7. Settlements and arbitral awards in intra-EU investment arbitration cases that can no longer be annulled or set aside and were voluntarily complied with or definitively enforced before the Achmea judgment should not be challenged. Member States will discuss, in the context of the plurilateral Treaty or in the context of bilateral terminations, practical arrangements, in conformity with Union law, for such arbitral awards and settlements. This is without prejudice to the lack of jurisdiction of arbitral tribunais in pending intra-EU cases. 8. Member States will make best efforts to deposit their instruments of ratification, approval or acceptance of that plurilateral treaty or of any bilateral treaty terminating bilateral investment treaties between Member States no later than 6 December 2019. They will inform each other and the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union in due time of any obstacle they encounter, and of measures they envisage in order to overcome that obstacle. 9. Beyond actions concerning the Energy Charter Treaty based on this declaration, Member States together with the Commission will discuss without undue delay whether any additional steps are necessary to draw all the consequences from the Achmea judgment in relation to the intra-EU application of the Energy Charter Treaty. Further signatories may be added at any time. With regard to agreements concluded between Member States, see judgments in Matteucci, 235/87, EU:C:1988:460, paragraph 21; and Bud?jovický Budvar, EU:C:2009:521, C-478/07, paragraphs 98 and 99 and Declaration 17 to the Treaty of lisbon on primacy of Union law. The same result follows also under general public International law, in particular from the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties and customary international law (lex posterior). Judgment in Western Sahara, C-266/16, EU:C:2018:118, paragraphs 42 to 51. For the Energy Charter Treaty, its systemic interpretation in conformity with the Treaties precludes intra-EU investor-State arbitration. Article 26(3) of the Energy Charter Treaty. This interpretation is currently contested before a national court in Case No 4658-18 Svea Court of Appeal, Novenergia II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR vs the Kingdom of Spain, SCC Arbitration (2015/06). See Communication "Protection of intra-EU investment" adopted by the Commission on 19 July 2018 (COM(2018)547 final), pages 3-4. Judgment in Pfleger, C-390/12, EU:C:2014:281, paragraphs 30 to 37. Judgment in Online Games Handels, C-685/15, EU:C:2017:452, paragraphs 55 and 56. Article 19(1) Treaty on European Union (TEU), second sub-paragraph. Judgment in Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117/ paragraphs 31 to 37. COM(2018)547 final. Council conclusions on the Communication of the Commission on the mid-term review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan; http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/07/11/conclusions-mid-term-review-capital-markets-union-action-plan/ Done in Brussels on 15 January 2019. Royaume de Belgique/Koninkrijk Belgiê Ceská republika Bundesrepublik Deutschland Éire/Ireland Reino de España Republika Hrvatska K??????? ?????????? ????????? ???????? Kongeriget Danmark Eesti Vabariik ???????? ?????????? [See text attached] République française Repubblica italiana Latvijas Republika Lietuvos Respublika Republik Ôsterreich República Portuguesa Slovenská republika Koninkrijk der Nederlanden Rzeczpospolita Polska România United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland