www.landoltandkoch.com eco swiss and its ramifications dr phillip landolt landolt & koch, geneva...
TRANSCRIPT
www.landoltandkoch.com
Eco Swiss and its Ramifications
Dr Phillip LandoltLandolt & Koch, GenevaVienna Arbitration Days 201217 February 2012
www.landoltandkoch.com
There are no EU courts for the general enforcement of EU law rightsRights arising under EU law are enforced by courts of the EU Member StatesEU Member State courts under duty loyally to apply EU law, by virtue of Article 4(3) TEU
EU Law Background
www.landoltandkoch.com
EU Law Background
Where there are no relevant EU rules …EU law respects the procedural autonomy of Member State courts, subject to three exceptions:
• Principle of effectiveness• Principle of equivalence• Availability of preliminary reference for
interpretation of EU law (Article 267 TFEU)
www.landoltandkoch.com
Pre-Eco Swiss
• EU Member State law is not permitted to preclude opportunity for preliminary reference to the ECJ for the authoritative interpretation of EU lawRheinmühlen v. Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle für
Getreide und Futtermittel (1974)
Preliminary references
www.landoltandkoch.com
Pre-Eco Swiss
• Arbitral tribunals cannot make preliminary references to ECJ for interpretation of EU lawNordsee (1982), confirmed in Denuit
(2005)
Arbitral tribunals are not “tribunals” within the meaning of Art. 267 TFEU
www.landoltandkoch.com
Pre-Eco Swiss
• Where EU Member State law limited opportunity for beneficiary to raise new plea
• But court need not go beyond the ambit of the dispute defined by the parties themselves and relying on facts and circumstances other than those on which the party with an interest in application of those provisions bases his claim
Peterbroek and Van Schijndel (both 1995)
Violation of principle of effectiveness for court not to raise EU law of its own motion in certain circumstances
www.landoltandkoch.com
Facts• During the entirety of the arbitration
proceeding, neither party took the EC competition law point, and the tribunal did not raise it of its own motion. There was a partial final award finding Benetton liable for the early termination of the licence agreement. Over two years later there was a final arbitral award ordering Benetton to pay millions of dollars in damages.
Eco Swiss (1999)
www.landoltandkoch.com
Clear ramifications of Eco Swiss The ECJ recognises the importance of
international arbitration, and the importance of finality in international arbitration:
• “[…] it is in the interests of efficient arbitration proceedings that review of arbitration awards should be limited in scope and that annulment of or refusal to recognise an award should be possible only in exceptional circumstances.”
• This recognition is important since the significance of Member State goals in their procedural choices is an element in the equivalency analysis
www.landoltandkoch.com
Clear ramifications of Eco Swiss Wherever an application for annulment on the
basis of a violation of public policy is available in Member State law an application for annulment on the basis of a violation of EC competition law must be available• EC competition law is so important to the EU
legal order – it needs to be compared with the most important policies in Member State “domestic” law, i.e. “public policy”
• Operation of the principle of equivalence binding upon EU Member States
www.landoltandkoch.com
Clear ramifications of Eco Swiss Failure to raise the plea before the arbitral
tribunal can be no bar to raising it before the EU Member State court• Arbitration tribunals cannot make preliminary
references under Art. 267 TFEU • There has to be a possibility for an EU Member
State court to make a preliminary reference• So parties must be able to raise EC competition
law points in challenges to arbitration awardson the basis of their incompatibility with EU law
www.landoltandkoch.com
Clear ramifications of Eco Swiss Three month limit for challenging arbitral
awards is no violation of EU law
• A period of three months within which an arbitral award must be challenged or it becomes res judicata is a valid limitation on the application of EU competition law
• Not versus the principle of effectiveness• Regarding other Member States’ laws, not too
short • This rule serves real purpose – legal certainty
www.landoltandkoch.com
Inferential ramifications of Eco Swiss Member State law restrictions on arbitrators’
raising EU competition law of their own motion are contrary to EU law
• The Hoge Raad was of the opinion that an
arbitrator’s raising EC competition law of its own motion would be a violation of the arbitrator’s terms of reference and a ground to set aside the arbitration award
• But this is contrary to the ECJ’s conclusion that there must be public policy review of awards for their conformity with EC competition law at the annulment stage
www.landoltandkoch.com
Inferential ramifications of Eco Swiss Arbitrability of EU competition law
• Concern to protect efficiency of international arbitration
• Willingness to limit Member States’ courts to public policy review of treatment of EC competition law by arbitral tribunals
www.landoltandkoch.com
Inferential ramifications of Eco Swiss As a general proposition, the EU will accept the
level of a Member State’s public policy review of arbitration awards
• But this is not certain since really loose review
may imperil the effectiveness of EC competition law
• Eco Swiss says nothing directly about the requirements of effectiveness on this point
• AG in subsequent case of Van der Weerd (2007) says that the comment on preliminary references is based on principle of effectiveness. But the court says in Van der Weerd that it is not
www.landoltandkoch.com
Van der Weerd (2007)
EU effectiveness requirements relevant to arbitration
• must be opportunity to raise plea before EU
Member State courts • the importance of a particular EU legal norm is
not relevant to the determination of whether or not the principle of effectiveness requires a Member State court to raise EU law of its own motion
www.landoltandkoch.com
Mostaza Claro (2006) EU Directive on Unfair Contract Terms (the
“Directive”)
• Spanish woman protected by the Directive entered into a contract with a telecoms supplier with an arbitration clause in it
• She participated in the arbitration, and did not raise the unfair contract terms point
• She then sought the annulment of the arbitration award on the basis that the arbitration clause was an unfair contract term and therefore not binding on her
• The ECJ’s judgment simply reports that the annulment court considered the arbitration clause an unfair contract term without providing any indication of the basis for this
www.landoltandkoch.com
Mostaza Claro Where the arbitration clause is an unfair
contract term, an EU Member State court must annul the award even of its own motion
• Limited to the particular circumstances of
consumer protection where the court must supply the consumer’s failure to invoke this right
• the EU had in the Directive actually legislated this requirement of judicial intervention, bringing the case outside of the usual treatment of EU Member State procedural autonomy
www.landoltandkoch.com
Asturcom (2009) A case on the principle of equivalence • The consumer does not even participate in the
arbitration concerning her telecommunications contract, and does not even participate in the court proceedings to enforce the award
• The seat of the arbitration, Bilbao, was not indicated in the contract, and was so far away from the residence of the consumer that it would have cost her more to attend than the value in dispute. Moreover, the body administrating the arbitration is the body that creates the model contract used by the telecommunications company claimant.
www.landoltandkoch.com
Asturcom
Member State courts must raise EU law of their own motion in certain circumstances
• “[W]here [the court] has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for the task” and insofar as “under national rules procedure, it can carry out such an assessment in similar actions of a domestic nature.”
• The two-month period for challenging arbitration awards was not a violation of EU law (not contrary to the principle of effectiveness)
www.landoltandkoch.com
Conclusions
1. EU Member State courts requested to enforce arbitration awards must consider compatibility with requirements of important EU law, even if not raised in the arbitration, and even of their own motion
2. In annulment actions, EU Member State courts must consider plea of incompatibility with EU law even if not raised in arbitration but not necessarily of own motion
www.landoltandkoch.com
Conclusions (continued)
3. Where the unfair contract terms directive applies there is always the danger that the arbitration award is invalid as a matter of EU law binding on the Member States
4. EU law may contain requirements as to the nature of a Member State court’s public policy review of an award’s compatibility with EU law