Judgment of the General Court First Chamber of 18 May 2022, Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca v Commission, T-245/19

Date18 May 2022
Year2022
36
Next, the Court considers that the scope of the dispute settlement mechanism is dependent on the
definition of the concepts of ‘investment’ and ‘investor’, which are the subject of negotiations.
However, no amendment of the provision laying down those concepts was adopted at that stage. In
addition, the impact that any amendments to those concepts might have on that dispute settlement
mechanism cannot be assessed in the absence of any element making it possible to ascertain, with
some accuracy, the rules governing that mechanism.
In the light of those uncertainties, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient information on
the content and, more particularly, the scope of the provision relating to the dispute settlement
mechanism, as it will appear in the modernised ECT. Therefore, the request for an Opinion appears
premature.
Finally, the Court examines the considerations of expediency, expressed by certain Member States
that intervened in the proceedings, which justify its taking a position on the question of the
compatibility of the dispute settlement mechanism with the Treaties. Those considerations concern,
inter alia, the absence of unanimous interpretation by the Member States as to the application of the
dispute settlement mechanism at issue to disputes between an investor from one Member State and
another Member State and arbitrators’ refusal to find that they have no jurisdiction in such disputes,
in arbitration proceedings based on that mechanism. In that regard, first, the Court finds that such
considerations are unrelated to the purpose of the opinion procedure, since the dispute settlement
mechanism
72
is already in force. Secondly, the Court notes that it has already held
73
that, in
accordance with the principle of the autonomy of EU law,
74
the dispute settlement mechanism
provided for in the ECT is not applicable to disputes between a Member State and an investor of
another Member State concerning an investment made by the latter in the first Member State.
IX. JUDGMENT PREVIOUSLY DELIVERED
COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY: SAFEGUARD MEASURES
Judgment of t he General Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2022, Uzina Metalurgica
Moldoveneasca v Commission, T-245/19
Link to the complete text of the judgment
Safeguard measures Market for ste el products Implementing Regulation ( EU) 2019/159 Action for
annulment Interest in bringing proceedings Standing to bring proceedings Admissibility Equal
treatment Legitimate expectations Principle of sound a dministration Duty of care Threat of serious
injury Manifest error of assessment Initiation of a safeguard investigation Competence of the
Commission Rights of the defence
In the context of the European Union’s commercial defence policy, the European Commission made
imports of certain steel products originating in certain third countries
75
(‘the product concerned’)
72
As provided for in Article 26 of the ECT.
73
Judgment of 2 September 2021, Republic of Moldova (C-741/19, EU:C:202 1:655, paragraphs 40 to 66).
74
Article 344 TFEU.
75
Commission Imple menting Regulation (EU) 2016/670 of 28 A pril 2016 introducing prior Union s urveillance of imports of certain iron and
steel products originating in certain third countries (OJ 2016 L 115, p. 37).

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT