Law on the termination of intra-eu bilateral investment treaties

1. The adoption of the Law on the termination of intra-EU BITs

On  27  February  2017,  the  Romanian  Parliament  adopted  Law  18/2017  on  the  termination  of Bilateral   Investment   Treaties   (“BITs”)   concluded   between   Romania   and   European   Union Member States (“Law ”). The Law has been published in the Official Gazette no. 198 of 21 March 2017 and will enter into force on 24 March 2017.

Law  18/2007  approves  the  mutual  and  unilateral  termination  of  all  the  22  intra-EU  BITs concluded by Romania and which are currently in force, as listed in the Annex to the Law.

According to the rules set out under Law 590/2003 governing the conclusion and termination of international treaties, upon the entry into force of the Law,  the Romanian Government  will be entitled to commence the  diplomatic  proceedings  for  ending the  intra-EU  BITS. Following the completion of the proceedings for terminating each BIT, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will issue an Order regarding the termination of the respective treaty, which will be published in Official Gazette within 10 days as of the date of termination.

2. Origins of the problem

The decision to terminate intra-EU BITs was taken by the Romanian State due to issues of incompatibility between certain provisions of the BITs and the provisions of EU law governing the single market.

The  issue  of  intra-EU  BITs  originated  in  the  gradual  expansion  of  European  Union  and  the accession of countries  which had  previously concluded BITs with one or more  Member States. This issue became apparent especially after the 2004-2007 waves of EU enlargement, when 12 new Member States from Central and Eastern Europe, including Romania, joined the European block.

This ‘internalization’ of previous extra-EU BITs generated an overlapping and/or potential contradiction between various protection mechanisms contained by the BITs and those of the European single market (e.g. provisions on capital transfer, state aid granted to foreign investors, clashes between the ‘most-favored nation treatment’ granted by certain BITs with the EU provisions on public policy exceptions etc).

From a legal point of view, this in turn creates a conflict between the general international treaty law governing the BITs and the EU law. The difficulty of this issue consists in that there is no ‘higher norm’ to decide which of any such regulations should prevail in case of conflict.

3. The clash between the EU and international legal order

According to general international law, validly concluded BITs are mandatory between parties and cannot be superseded by the Accession Treaties or by EU’s Constitutive Treaties, all these instruments having equally binding legal power in the eyes of the international law.

On the other hand, according to EU law, EU’s constitutive treaties have created an internal European legal order, which is primal for all Member States. Therefore, in the vision of the European governing bodies and the European Court of Justice, instruments of EU law supersede all other applicable legal instruments, including BITs, in respect of the matters within EU competencies such as establishing the rules governing the free movement of goods, capital, services and workers or the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the single market. In this vision, the provisions of EU law on such matters should prevail in case of conflict against any other legal provision.

The  European  Commission  also  noticed  the  tension  between  the  legal  regime  of  the  intra-EU BITs  and  that  of  the  single  market.  In  its  annual  report  to  the  Commission  in  2006,  the Economic and Financial Committee (“EFC”) emphasised that “part of [the BITs’] content [had] been  superseded  by  Community  law  upon  accession”1.  The  EFC  recommended  that  Member States review the need for these BITs by the end of 2007. However, until quite recently, no action has been taken.

4. The Commission’s approach to the matter of intra-EU BITs

On   18   June   2015   the   European   Commission   initiated   infringement   proceedings   over   the termination  of  intra-EU  BITs  against  five  Member  States,  including  Romania  (for  the  BIT concluded with Sweden).

The Commission’s main concern is that intra-EU BITs violate the principle of non- discrimination on grounds of nationality, due to the fact that investors from Member States that are not party to the respective BIT are excluded from the protection of the more favorable provisions of the BIT. Member States are generally at liberty to implement more favorable rules than those provided for under the EU law, as long as the benefits they create are available to EU investors on a nondiscriminatory basis. BITs, on the other hand, reserve substantive and procedural benefits to investors from the States parties to the BIT while excluding investors from other Member States.

The matter of the BITs’ (in)compatibility with the EU  single market has also been raised in the notorious  Micula  case2.  The  claimants  requested  the  Arbitral  Tribunal  established  under  the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes to order Romania to pay  damages  for  the  unfair  termination  of  the  fiscal  facilities  granted  to  certain  Swedish investors,  and  for  thus  failing  to  ensure  a  fair  and  equitable  treatment  of  the  claimants’ investments,  as  required  by  the  Romania-Sweden  BIT.  By  an  award  of  11  December  2013,  the Arbitral Tribunal granted the claimants damages of ca. EUR 83 million.

The European Commission intervened in the proceedings as amicus curiae on behalf of the Romanian State, arguing that ordering the state to pay damages for the termination of fiscal facilities would equate to granting a ‘state aid’, which is incompatible with EU law, unless approved by the Commission. The European Commission also intervened in the enforcement proceedings of the Award, writing to the Romanian Government that “The foregoing analysis indicates that any execution of the Award of 11 December 2013 would amount to the granting of incompatible “new aid”, subject to the State aid rules contained in the Treaty. The Commission regrets that Romania has already, according to the information provided, partially implemented the Award of 11 December 2013 by cancelling outstanding tax debts of European Food SA”3

5. Does Law 18/2017 solve the issue of Romania’s intra-EU BITs and of the regime governing EU investments in Romania?

Despite  the  fact  the  actions  of  the  European  Commission  targeted  selected  agreements,  the outcome of these actions, and especially that of the infringement proceedings commenced on 18 June  2015,  was  bound  to  have  broader  ramifications  for  all  existing  BITs  currently  in  force between  Romania  and  EU  Member  States,  due  to  the  similarity  of  the  investor  protection mechanisms  provided  therein.  It  is  in  this  context  that  Romania  opted  for  the  solution  of terminating all intra-EU BITs in order to avoid further unfavorable consequences.

However, Parliament approval of the termination of the intra-EU BITs does not put a direct end to the existing treaties, let alone it does not regulate the issue of the applicability of BIT rules to previous investments after their termination (a clause commonly included in BITs).

If a consensus for terminating the BITs and regulating transitory situations is not reached between the States parties to the BITs, it is the rules of the BITs themselves that will determine the possibility of unilateral termination and/or the regime governing transitory situations. In the absence of such provisions, customary international law provides restrictive situations for the unilateral termination of a treaty and certain protection mechanisms for third-party rights acquired under an international instrument. All these matters will have to be addressed on a case by case basis and may give rise to complex litigation where mutual termination is not agreed and the BITs are unilaterally denounced by the Romanian State.

Notably, the Law also covers the BIT concluded between Romania and the United Kingdom. In this particular case, the termination of the BIT (and subject to the terms of the termination) risks rendering UK investors in Romania without any clear international mechanism for the  protection of their investments, following completion of the Brexit. Unless a general investment treaty between the EU and the UK will be agreed during the Brexit negotiations, the investments of UK nationals will be subjected to the general Common Commercial Policy of the EU and to applicable national provisions for investors form third party states.

1  ECFIN/CEFCPE(2006)REP/56882, Economic and Financial Committee, Annual EFC Report to the  Commission  and  the  Council  on  the  Movement  of  Capital  and  the  Freedom  of  Payments (2006), p. 7. 
2  ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20.
3  The European Commission Letter of 01 October 2014, C(2014) 6848 final.

This information is not legal assistance. For further details, please contact us.

Share this

Continuous recruitment


    doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 4mb maximum size

    Think ahead!


      doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size


      doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size


      doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size

      Vrei să știi cum îți vom utiliza datele cu caracter personal? Click aici pentru mai multe detalii.

      Think ahead! Practice at Filip & Company!


        doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size


        doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size


        doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size

        Vrei să știi cum îți vom utiliza datele cu caracter personal? Click aici pentru mai multe detalii.

        Legal Assistant


          doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 4mb maximum size

          Webinars


            doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 4mb maximum size

            Energy Lawyer


              doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 4mb maximum size

              Corporate, M&A and Capital markets


                doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 4mb maximum size

                Competition lawyer


                  doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 4mb maximum size

                  Commercial lawyer


                    doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 4mb maximum size

                    Continuous recruitment


                      doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 4mb maximum size

                      Think ahead! Practice at Filip & Company!


                        doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size


                        doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size


                        doc,docx,pdf,odc file types with 6mb maximum size

                        Vrei să știi cum îți vom utiliza datele cu caracter personal? Click aici pentru mai multe detalii.

                        Webinars