Judicial protection of investors in the European Union: the remedies offered by investment arbitration, the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law

Xavier Taton and Guillaume Croisant review the judicial protection offered by investment arbitration, EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights in the first thorough contribution comparing the three remedies.

The full 85-page article, drawn up on the basis of their recent cases and published in the latest issue of the Indian Journal of Arbitration Law, is available by following this link.
 
Abstract 
In addition to investment arbitration, investors, who object to State measures jeopardising their investments in the European Union [EU], can benefit from the protection offered by the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law. If, in practice, investors have favoured investment arbitration, these two additional remedies have assumed greater importance in the wake of the landmark Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which jeopardises intra-EU investment arbitration.
 
This article aims to present the main differences, similarities and interplay of the three regimes, each of which offers a contrast in terms of substantive rules and standards of protection, scope of application, procedures, remedies and enforcement mechanisms.