CONSIDERING that this agreement does not undermine other measures and measures that may be necessary under EU legislation to ensure a higher level of protection for cross-border investment within the European Union and to create a more predictable, stable and clearer regulatory environment to stimulate investment in the internal market, CONSIDERING that this agreement deals with bilateral investment agreements within the EU; it does not apply to intra-community procedures based on Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty. The European Union and its Member States will later address this issue  The agreement on the promotion and mutual protection of investment between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic of 1 January 1992. However, many believe that existing investor protection measures are not as well established in EU legislation and do not offer the same level of legal certainty as the safeguards defined in the EU`s internal bit. The very development of the termination agreement suggests that the Commission is aware of this, as stated in one of the recitals: “Other measures and measures… may be necessary… Ensure a higher level of protection for cross-border investment within the European Union and create a more predictable, stable and clear regulatory environment to encourage investment in the internal market. In the past, a country like Canada (or a trade bloc such as the EU) could refer to its agreements with other developed economies and claim that it had simply applied its principles consistently. It`s becoming more and more impossible. It will be interesting to know with which countries the EU, Canada and the United States will insist in the future on the maintenance of bits. Since the end of August 2020, the agreement ending bilateral investment agreements (ILOs) between 23 EU member states (the whistleblower agreement) has entered into force. In accordance with its ratification by certain contracting parties.1 The notice agreement is the culmination of various legal developments resulting from a 2016 decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the slovak/Achmea B.V. case. (C-284/16) (Achmea) finding that investor-state arbitration clauses in the internal EU bit are incompatible with EU law.
On 15 January 2019, 21 Member States (including the United Kingdom) declared that they would end their internal CTS in the European Union, either multilaterally or bilaterally, depending on the end, by 6 December 2019. Following this declaration, the termination agreement confirms that intra-EU bit arbitration clauses are “contrary to EU treaties and are therefore not applicable”, which has important implications for investor-state dispute settlement (EIRD) within the EU. the treaty between the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany on the promotion and mutual protection of investments, recalling that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in C-478/07 Budjovické Budvar, that the provisions of an international agreement between two Member States cannot apply in relations between these two States if they are found to be contrary to the treaties of the European Union, “arbitration concluded” refers to an arbitration procedure that ended with a settlement agreement or a final arbitral award issued before 6 March 2018, if, if necessary, the structured dialogue covered by Article 9 does not result in any transaction agreement.