Does Brexit Mean Brexit? The Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Awards in the Post-Brexit Era

  • Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi School of Law, Birmingham University
Keywords: intra-EU arbitration, ISDS, enforcement and recognition, Brexit, BITs, ECT, Micula v. Romania


This article uses an analytical approach in order to dissect the major legal issues concerning the enforcement of intra-EU awards post-Brexit. The outcomes of the enforcement cases will depend on the country where enforcement is sought (EU Member States, the UK, and other third countries), the applicable legal regime pursuant to which enforcement is sought (the New York Convention or the ICSID Convention), various temporal factors (whether certain key moments in the arbitral proceedings occurred before or after the end of the Brexit transition period), and whether the intra-EU cases are based on intra-EU BITs or the ECT, or both. Due to this complexity, there is no easy answer as to how the various issues arising from the post-Brexit enforcement of intra-EU awards should be solved. This is most unfortunate as it creates uncertainty for investors, host States, and national courts of enforcement alike.


Arif, S. (2019) ‘The Future of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration: Intra-EU Investment Arbitration under the ECT post Achmea’, European Investment and Arbitration Law Review, 4, pp. 149-177;

Bjorklund, A. K., et. al. (2021) ‘State Immunity as a Defense to Resist the Enforcement of ICSID Awards’, ICSID Review (forthcoming),

Bohmer, L. M. (2016) ‘Finality in ICSID Arbitration Revisited’, ICSID Review, 31(1), pp. 236-245,

Choukroune, L. and Nedumpara, J. J. (2022) International Economic Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Contartese, C. and Andenas, M. (2019) ‘EU Autonomy and Investor-State Dispute Settlement Under Inter Se Agreements Between EU Member States: Achmea’, Common Market Law Review, 56(1), pp. 157-191;

Costea, A. (2019) Cazul Romatsa. Guvernul aloca peste 900 de milioane de lei pentru plata catre fratii Micula, Mediafax [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

de Boeck, M. (2021), An upcoming landmark? AG Kokott in C-109/20 Poland v PL Holdings, European Law Blog [Online]. Available at: an-upcoming-landmark-ag-kokott-in-c-109-20-poland-v-pl-holdings/ (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

European Commission (2021a), The EU-UK trade and Cooperation Agreement, [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

European Commission (2021b), October Infringement Package: Key Decisions, [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 22 Nov 2021).

Florou, A. (2019) ‘Whither Mutual Trust? Brexit, Achmea and the Future of InvestorState Arbitration in the EU-UK Investment Relations’, European Investment and Arbitration Law Review, 4, pp. 66-88;

Fouchard, C. and Thieffry, V. (2021), CJEU Ruling in Moldova v. Komstroy: the End of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Under the Energy Charter Treaty (and a Restrictive Interpretation of the Notion of Protected Investment), Kluwer Arbitration Blog [Online]. Available at: cjeu-ruling-in-moldova-v-komstroy-the-end-of-intra-eu-investment-arbitrationunder-the-energy-charter-treaty-and-a-restrictive-interpretation-of-the-notion-ofprotected-investment/ (Accessed: 22 Nov 2021).

Garner, O. (2021), Case C-709/20, CG v Department for Communities in Northern Ireland: A Post-Brexit Swansong for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, European Law Blog [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

Gáspár-Szilágyi, Sz. (2018a) Brexit. Maybe not such bad news for intra-EU investment awards after Achmea?, International Economic Law and Policy Blog [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

Gáspár-Szilágyi, Sz. (2018b) ‘It is not Just About Investor-State Arbitration: A Look at Case C-284/16, Achmea BV’, European Papers, 3(1), pp. 357-373.

Gáspár-Szilágyi, Sz. (2018c) ‘Quo Vadis EU Investment Law and Policy? The Shaky Path Towards the International Promotion of EU Rules’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 23(2), pp. 167-186,

Gáspár-Szilágyi, Sz. and Usynin, M. (2019), ‘The Uneasy Relationship between intraEU Investment Tribunals and the Court of Justice’s Achmea Judgment’, European Investment and Arbitration Law Review, 4, pp. 29-65;

Gáspár-Szilágyi, Sz. and Usynin, M. (2020), ‘Procedural Developments in Investment

Arbitration’, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 19, pp. 269-303,–12341424.

Gáspár-Szilágyi, Sz. (2021) ‘Between Fiction and Reality. The External autonomy of EU Law as a ‘Shapeshifter’ After Opinion 1/17’, European Papers, 6(1), pp. 675-692.

Gordon, B. (2020) ‘A Sceptical Analysis of the Enforcement of ISDS Awards in the EU Following the Decision of the CJEU on CETA’, European Investment Law and Arbitration Review, 5, pp. 92-145,

Hindelang, S. and Moberg, A., (eds.) (2021) A Common European Law on Investment Screening, YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions, Cham Switzerland: Springer,

Kilford, N. (2021), The Supremacy of Retained EU Law: We’re Lost, But We’re Making Good Time!, UK Constitutional Law Association [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

Kim, J. (2014) ‘Streamlining the ICSID Process: New Statistical Insights and Comparative Lessons from Other Institutions’, Transnational Dispute Management, 11(1), pp. 718-730;

Investment Policy Hub, UNCTAD (2021) Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, United Kingdom [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

Lavranos, N. (2013) ‘In Defence of Member States’ BITs Gold Standard: The Regulation 1219/2012 Establishing a Transitional Regime for Existing Extra-EU BITs – A Member State’s Perspective’, Transnational Dispute Management, 10(2), pp 1-14.

Lavranos, N. (2020) ‘The World after the Termination of Intra-EU BITs’, European Investment Law and Arbitration Review, 5, pp. 196-211,

Lavranos, N. (2021) The Impact of EU Law on ISDS, International Comparative Law Guides, Investor-State Arbitration, EFILA [Online]. Available at: wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ISA21_Chapter-2-The-Impact-of-EU-Law-on-ISDS.pdf (Accessed: 28 July 2021), pp. 5-8.

Melikyan, A. (2021), ‘The Legacy of Opinion 1/17: To What Extent is the Autonomous EU Legal Order Open to New Generation ISDS?’, European Papers, 6(1), pp. 645-673.

Öberg, M-L. (2020), ‘Autonomy of the EU Legal Order: A Concept in Need of Revision?’, European Public Law, 26(3), pp. 705-740;

Scheu, J. and Nikolov, P. (2020), ‘The Setting Aside and Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Awards After Achmea’, Arbitration International, 36, pp. 253-274,

Schwedt, K. et al. (2021), Investment Protection in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Kluwer Arbitration Blog [Online]. Available at: http://arbitrationblog. (Accessed 22 Nov 2021).

Sinclair, A. (2009), ‘ICSID arbitration: How Long Does it Take?’, Global Arbitration Review, 4(5), pp. 19-21.

Sornarajah, M. (2021), The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Stanič, A. (2021) How to Maximise Investor Protection Post-Achmea and Post-Brexit? Investor-State Arbitration Laws and Regulations, ICLG [Online]. Available at: https:// (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

UNCITRAL (2021) Working Group III: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

van Harten, G. (2013) ‘A Critique of Investment Treaties and Investor-State Arbitration’, Juridikum, 3, pp. 338-347.

Wehland, H. (2020), ‘Forum Shopping: Investment Arbitration’, Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law.

Wessel, R. A. (2018) ‘Consequences of Brexit for international agreements concluded by the EU and its Member States’, Common Market Law Review, 55, pp. 101-131;

Williams, J. (2020) ‘Retained EU Law: A Guide for the Perplexed’, EU Relations Law, [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 28 July 2021).

How to Cite
Gáspár-SzilágyiS. (2022). Does Brexit Mean Brexit? The Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Awards in the Post-Brexit Era. Central European Journal of Comparative Law, 3(1), 75-95.