Commission V. Hungary (Case C-235/17): Some Reassurance For ...

About this regionSearch Form Enter search termsSelect query limiter Anywhere Article Title Keywords Abstract Author Journal Title Journal Title (Exact) ISSN DOI ORCID iD Load Date Date limit: Enter date from as year or year / numerical monthEnter date to as year or year / numerical monthEnter the date in the correct format. Either year or year / numerical month.Sort by:  Relevance Most Recent Most Popular Limit to:Show only content I can accessPeer ReviewedOpen Access ArticlesLimit By Subject

• Agriculture Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Business, Economy and Management
• Chemistry
• Earth Sciences
• Engineering
• Environmental Sciences
• Health Sciences
• Information Technology
• Law
• Library and Information Sciences
• Life Sciences
• Material Science and Metallurgy
• Mathematical Sciences
• Medical Sciences
• Physics
• Social Sciences
• Telecommunications Technology

Search Advanced options

Applied search limits

No search limits have been applied

Current Subject Limits:

allClick to remove

Article Type Limits:

Journal Title Limits:

Keyword Limits:

About this regionEuropean Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online / 4(1)Commission v. Hungary (Case C-235/17): Some Reassurance for Investors on the Substantive Protections for Expropriation under EU Law

Authors

• Matthieu Grégoire

Source Information

December 2019, Volume4(Issue1)Pages, p.260To - 273 - European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online

Download Options

Read It HerePublisher

Cite

  Save Citation

Save Citation

×Select a citation formatAmerican Chemical Society (ACS)American Institute of Physics (AIP)American Medical Associations (AMA)American Psychological Association (APA) 7th ed.Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed. (note, annotated bibliography)IEEEModern Languages Association 8th ed. (MLA)VancouverCopied Copy to your clipboardExport Citations:RefWorksEndNote WebRIS (EndNote)Close

My Articles

Add to my articles listRemove from my articles list

Additional Article Information

Article stats

Cited 0Downloaded 0

Permalink

URI Click to copy the URI to your clipboard.Copiedhttps://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/24687413/v04i0001/260_cvhcsrpfeuel.xmlCopy to your clipboard DOI Click to copy the URI to your clipboard.Copiedhttps://doi.org/10.1163/24689017_00401012Copy to your clipboard

Preservation Status

Preservation Status

Report a problem

Report a problem

Abstract

The question of the degree of overlap between the substantive provisions generally found in investment treaties and EU law was left unanswered by Case C-284/16 Slowakische Republik v. Achmea B.V. From a practical perspective, investors are left in doubt: assuming that they cannot rely on a dispute resolution clause such as that at issue in Achmea, does EU law offer substantially identical protection? The recent decision of Case C-235/17 Commission v. Hungary may go some way towards reassuring investors EU law may provide materially similar protections to some of the substantive protections ordinarily found in bits. This note (I) provides a summary of the views of the Commission (and respondent Member States) on the issue of the overlap between substantive protections generally found in investment treaties and EU law, (II) considers the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet on the same issue and (III) considers the decision of Commission v. Hungary.

Keywords