Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Ain’t No Sunshine”: Photovoltaic Energy Policy in Europe at the Crossroads Between EU Law and Energy Charter Treaty Obligations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Economic Law

  • 1466 Accesses

Abstract

After the EU-driven liberalisation of the electricity market in Europe, EU Member States put in place a variety of measures to develop photovoltaic (PV) energy sources. These policies, however, soon proved to be unsustainably expensive, particularly in a moment in which the condition of EU Member States’ public finances is generally problematic. In order to fulfil the tight EU fiscal requirements, many EU Member States withdrew or substantially curtailed support for renewable energies. In response to these policy changes, a group of solar power investors initiated several arbitral proceedings against Spain, Italy, and Czech Republic under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). This wave of claims has once again brought to the fore the vexed question of compatibility between ECT and EU obligations in intra-EU cases. Given the variety of possible interpretative approaches and the lack of binding precedent doctrine in international investment arbitration, this paper maintains that solving this conflict through hermeneutic means is not entirely satisfactory. Therefore, it suggests a two-step strategy to accommodate it and neutralise its detrimental effects.

I wish to thank Prof. Yves Nouvel, Prof. Laura Ammannati and Dr. Mara Valenti for their insightful comments. All errors are mine alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, OJ 1997 L027/20; Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas, OJ 1997 L204/1.

  2. 2.

    Hancher and Larouche (2011), p. 753.

  3. 3.

    Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, OJ 2003 L176/37; Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, OJ 2003 L176/57.

  4. 4.

    Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, OJ L211/55; Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, OJ L211/94.

  5. 5.

    Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, OJ 2009 L140/16.

  6. 6.

    Article 3.3(a), Directive (EC) 2009/28. European Commission, Guidance for the design of renewables support schemes, SWD (2013) 439 final, 5 November 2013, p. 3. See also European Commission, Renewable energy progress report, COM (2013) 175, 27 March 2013, p. 7; European Commission, Renewable Energy: Progressing towards the 2020 target, COM (2011) 31, 31 January 2011. Subsidies to fossil fuels certainly represent a major regulatory failure. See generally IMF (2013), pp. 19–20.

  7. 7.

    See Couture and Gagnon (2010), pp. 955–961; Sarasa-Maestro et al. (2013), pp. 317–318.

  8. 8.

    European Commission, Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014–2020, 2014/C 200/01. See also European Commission, Communication on EU State Aid Modernisation, COM (2012) 209 final, 8 May 2012. The previous version of the guidelines was issued in 2008. See European Commission, Community Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection, 2008/C 82/01.

  9. 9.

    Szyszczak (2014), p. 618. See also Almunia (2014).

  10. 10.

    European Commission, Guidelines supra, n. 8, pp. 124–135.

  11. 11.

    Johannesson et al. (2014), p. 19.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., pp. 48–49. See also Creutzig et al. (2014), p. 1022. See also Robinson (2013), p. 3.

  13. 13.

    European Commission, Renewable Energy supra, n. 6, p. 8.

  14. 14.

    See Johannesson et al. (2014), pp. 23–24 and 39.

  15. 15.

    European Commission, Country Report Spain 2015, SWD (2015) 28 final, 26 February 2015, p. 8.

  16. 16.

    European Commission, Country Report Italy 2015, SWD (2015) 31 final, 26 February 2015, p. 10.

  17. 17.

    European Commission, Country Report Czech Republic 2015, SWD (2015) 23 final, 26 February 2015, p. 8.

  18. 18.

    See Articles 121, 125 and 126 TFEU; Article 1 of the Protocol No. 12 of the TFEU sets the criteria for assessing Member States debt and deficit.

  19. 19.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies, OJ 1997 L209/1; Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, OJ L209/6. See Morris et al. (2006).

  20. 20.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 1056/2005 of 27 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, OJ L174/5.

  21. 21.

    These measures are referred to as the “Six Pack” and the “Two Pack”. The former comprises Regulation (EU) 1175/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies, OJ L306/12; Council Regulation (EU) 1177/2011 of 8 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, OJ L306/33; Regulation (EU) 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area, OJ L306/1; Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the member States, OJ L306/41; Regulation (EU) 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, OJ L306/25; Regulation (EU) 1174/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area, OJ L306/8. The “Two Pack” includes Regulation (EU) 472/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, OJ L140/1; Regulation (EU) 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the member States in the euro area, OJ L140/11. On 2 March 2012, 25 EU member States concluded the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

  22. 22.

    Notably, they are subject to regulations 1466/97 and 1467/97 and their amendments. Some non-Euro countries, such as Sweden, Denmark and Poland, are parties to the TSCG.

  23. 23.

    See EPIA (2013); OECD (2014a), p. 19; OECD (2015), p. 26; OECD (2014b), p. 15. See also Johnson (2014) and Wynn (2014).

  24. 24.

    Royal Decree 1578/2008 [2008] BOE 234; Royal Decree 1565/2010 [2010] BOE 283.

  25. 25.

    Royal Decree 14/2010 [2010] BOE 312.

  26. 26.

    Royal Law-Decree 1/2012, [2012] BOE 24; Ley 15/2012, [2012] BOE 312. Royal Law-Decree 9/2013 [2013] BOE 167.

  27. 27.

    EPIA (2013), p. 10.

  28. 28.

    Ministerial Decree of 5 July 2012 [2012] GU No. 159; Decree-law No. 69 of 21 June 2013 [2013] GU No. 144; Law No. 98 of 9 August 2013 [2013] GU No. 194.

  29. 29.

    AES Solar v. Spain, UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration; Antin Infrastructure v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31; RREEF Infrastructure v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30; Charanne v. Spain, SCC Rules of Arbitration, SCC Case; CSP Equity Investment v. Spain, SCC Rules of Arbitration, PCA Case; Eiser Infrastructure Limited v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36; Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands v. Spain, SCC Rules of Arbitration, SCC Case RENERGY v. Spain, ICSID, Case No. ARB/14/18; RWE Innogy v. Spain, ICSID, Case No. ARB/14/34; NextEra Energy v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/11; InfraRed v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/12; Masdar Solar & Wind v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1; Stadtwerke München v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1; STEAG v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/4; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45; Watkins Holdings v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/44; Hydro Energy v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/42; SolEs Badajoz v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/38; OperaFund Eco-Invest v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/36; Cavalum v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34; JGC Corporation v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/27; KS Invest v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25; Mathias Kruck v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23; Cube Infrastructure Fund v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/20; BayWa r.e. v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/16; 9REN Holding v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/15; Alten Renewable Energy Developments BV v. Spain, SCC; E.ON SE, E.ON Finanzanlagen GmbH and E.ON Iberia Holding GmbH v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/35; Eurus Energy Holdings Corporation and Eurus Energy Europe B.V. v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/4; Sun-Flower Olmeda GmbH & Co KG and others v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/17; Infracapital F1 S.à r.l. and Infracapital Solar B.V. v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/18; Sevilla Beheer B.V. and others v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/27.

  30. 30.

    Voltaic Network v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration; I.C.W. Europe Investments v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Ad Hoc; Photovoltaik Knopf Betriebs v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration; Antaris Solar v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration, PCA Case; Natland Investment Group v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration; Jürgen Wirtgen v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration; WA Investments-Europa Nova Limited v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL; ICW Europe Investments Limited v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL.

  31. 31.

    Blusun v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3; Silver Ridge Power v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/37; Greentech Energy v. Italy, SCC Rules of Arbitration, SCC Case; Belenergia v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/40; Silver Ridge Power v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/37; ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH, ESPF Nr. 2 Austria Beteiligungs GmbH, and InfraClass Energie 5 GmbH & Co. KG v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50. It is worth noting that Italy notified its withdrawal from the ECT on 31 December 2014. However, it will be subject to the ECT for the next 20 years by virtue of Article 47.3 of the ECT. See De Luca (2015), pp. 9–11.

  32. 32.

    Leben (2015), pp. 322–342; Schreuer (2005a), pp. 373–384.

  33. 33.

    Valenti (2014), pp. 39–45; Snodgrass (2006), p. 36.

  34. 34.

    Total v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Decision on Liability, 27 December 2010, para 119; Gami Investments v. Mexico, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 15 November 2004, para 93; Feldman v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Award on Merits, 16 December 2002, para 128.

  35. 35.

    SGS v. Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/29, Award, 10 February 2012, para 134. See also Noble Ventures v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award, 12 October 2005, para 182.

  36. 36.

    Bayindir v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29, Award, 27 August 2009, para 240; Occidental v. Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3467, Award, 1 July 2004, para 191; Saluka v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para 307.

  37. 37.

    CMS v. Argentina, Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, para 277; TECMED v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003, para 154.

  38. 38.

    Total, supra, n. 34, paras 122–123.

  39. 39.

    Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 November 2012, paras 7.77–7.78.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para 7.140.

  41. 41.

    Total, supra, n. 34, para 129. See also Kläger (2011), p. 224. However, it should be noted that, in Charanne, the arbitral tribunal interpreted the legitimate expectations doctrine in a restrictive manner. See De Luca (2016), pp. 273–275.

  42. 42.

    Thunderbird v. Mexico, UNCITRAL, Separate Opinion, 1 December 2005.

  43. 43.

    Salacuse (2015), pp. 322–324.

  44. 44.

    Schreuer (2005b), pp. 28–29; Carreau and Juillard (2013), pp. 549–551; Dolzer (2002), p. 79.

  45. 45.

    See Carreau and Juillard (2013), pp. 570–573; Nouvel (2002), p. 89; De Luca (2014), pp. 62–65; Higgins (1982), pp. 276–277; OECD (2004), pp. 19–20.

  46. 46.

    Parkerings v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award, 11 September 2007, para 334.

  47. 47.

    UN doc. A/CN.4/L.682, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 16 April 2006, paras 21–26.

  48. 48.

    See Poulain (2007), pp. 812–814; Dutheil de la Rochère (2011), pp. 37–38.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Kleinheisterkamp (2012), p. 97; Reinisch (2012), p. 169.

  51. 51.

    It should be admitted that the ECT, as opposed to BITs, pursues, to a certain extent, interests other than investment protection. See Schill (2014), pp. 273–280.

  52. 52.

    This provision is a reflection of the pacta sunt servanda principle enshrined in Article 26 of the VCLT. Chapaux (2006), p. 1927.

  53. 53.

    Dubuisson (2006), p. 2094.

  54. 54.

    It has been observed that this distinction may be somewhat artificial. See Dubuisson (2006), pp. 2118–2119.

  55. 55.

    See Eastern Sugar v. Czech Republic, SCC Case 088/2004, Partial Award, 27 March 2007, paras 160–169; Binder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 June 2007 (not public); Eureko v. Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010, paras 231–267. See also Reinisch (2012), pp. 165–174; Cf. Poulain (2007), pp. 812–816.

  56. 56.

    See AES v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Opinion Expert, 30 October 2008, para 21. Giardina (2011), pp. 150–156.

  57. 57.

    AES v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award, 23 September 2010, para 7.6.12.

  58. 58.

    Happ and Bischoff (2011), p. 162.

  59. 59.

    Weiler and Wälde (2003), p. 35.

  60. 60.

    Behrens and Egenhofer (2008), p. 241.

  61. 61.

    Electrabel, supra, n. 39, para 4.167.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., para 4.169.

  63. 63.

    Laazouzi (2013), p. 492.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Electrabel, supra, n. 39, para 4.189.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Laazouzi (2013), p. 492.

  68. 68.

    Sacerdoti (2010), pp. 240–246; Kauffman-Kohler (2007), pp. 368–369.

  69. 69.

    Needless to say, this strategy can be applied mutatis mutandis also to intra-EU BITs. See Mariani (2014), pp. 280–284.

  70. 70.

    Kleinheisterkamp (2012), pp. 104–105; Dutheil de la Rochère (2011), p. 44.

  71. 71.

    Regulation (EU) No 912/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-State dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, OJ L257/121.

  72. 72.

    European Commission, Explanatory Memorandum—Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to Investor-State dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is a party, COM (2012) 335, 21 June 2012, p. 9.

  73. 73.

    Tietje et al. (2013), pp. 20–21.

  74. 74.

    Recital No. 5 of the Regulation 912/2014, supra, n. 71.

  75. 75.

    See Klamert (2014), p. 63; Gormley (2008), p. 304.

  76. 76.

    Article 24 of the Regulation 912/2014, supra, n. 71.

  77. 77.

    For instance, the claims brought against Germany in reaction to its decision to discontinue the Nuclear Energy Programme amount to USD 1 billion. See generally Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Hoffmann (2012). See also Anatolie Stati v. Kazakhstan, SCC, Award, 19 December 2013 (USD 497.68 million); EDF International v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Award, 11 June 2012 (USD 136.13 million).

  78. 78.

    See Klamert (2014), pp. 41–46.

  79. 79.

    It is worth noting that Member States pleaded for a flexible application of EU budgetary rules in order to absorb the costs associated with the migrant crisis. See Valero, EU drags on Stability and Growth Pact reform, Euractiv (2015), http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/eu-drags-revised-stability-and-growth-pact-318395 (accessed December 2015).

  80. 80.

    Regulation 1467/1997, supra, n. 19.

References

  • Almunia J (2014) Speech-Introductory remarks on new guidelines on state aid for environmental protection and energy for the period 2014–2020. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-311_en.htm. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Behrens A, Egenhofer C (2008) Energy policy for Europe: identifying the European added-value. CEPS, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Hoffmann RT (2012) The German nuclear phase-out put to the test in international investment arbitration? Background to the new dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II). Inst Sustain Dev. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/german_nuclear_phase_out.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Carreau D, Juillard P (2013) Droit international economique. Dalloz, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapaux V (2006) Commentaire-Article 54. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) Les Conventions de Vienne sur le Droit des Traités-Commentaire article par article. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 1925–1950

    Google Scholar 

  • Couture T, Gagnon Y (2010) An analysis of feed-in tariff remuneration models: implications for renewable energy investment. Energy Policy 38:955–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creutzig F, Christoph Goldschmidt J, Lehmann P, Schmid E, von Blücher F, Breyer C, Fernandez B, Jakob M, Knopf B, Lohrey S, Susca T, Wiegandt K (2014) Catching two European birds with one renewable stone: mitigating climate change and Eurozone crisis by an energy transition. Renew Sust Energ Rev 38:1015–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca A (2014) Indirect expropriation and regulatory takings: what role for the legitimate expectations of foreign investors. In: Sacerdoti G, Acconci P, Valenti M, De Luca A (eds) General interests of host states in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 58–75

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca A (2015) Renewable energy in the EU, the energy charter treaty and Italy’s withdrawal therefrom. TDM 3:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca A (2016) Lodo favorevole alla Spagna a conclusione del primo degli investment arbitrations sorti da impianti fotovoltaici: un precedente rilevante? Diritto del Commercio Internazionale 30:237–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer R (2002) Indirect expropriations: new developments? NYU Envtl L J 11:64–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubuisson F (2006) Commentaire-Article 59. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) Les Conventions de Vienne sur le Droit des Traités-Commentaire article par article. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 2091–2130

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutheil de la Rochère J (2011) Quel rôle pour la Cour de Justice? In: Kessedjian C (ed) Le droit européen et l’arbitrage d’investissements. Éditions Panthéon-Assas, Paris, pp 37–45

    Google Scholar 

  • European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) (2013) Retrospective Measures at National Level and Their Impact on the Photovoltaic Sector. http://www.epia.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Press_Releases/Restrospective_Measures_at_national_level.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Giardina A (2011) La question du droit applicable: l’application directe du droit européen et son influence sur le droit et l’arbitrage des investissements. In: Kessedjian C (ed) Le droit européen et l’arbitrage d’investissements. Éditions Panthéon-Assas, Paris, pp 49–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley LW (2008) Some further reflections on the development of the general principles of law in general principles of EC law. In: Bernitz U, Nergelius J, Cardner C, Groussot X (eds) General principles of EC law in a process of development. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 303–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L, Larouche P (2011) EU regulation of network industries and services. In: Craig P, De Burca G (eds) The evolution of EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 743–782

    Google Scholar 

  • Happ R, Bischoff JA (2011) Role and responsibility of the European Union under the energy charter treaty. In: Graham C (ed) Energy dispute resolution: investment protection, transit and the energy charter treaty. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 155–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1982) The taking of property by the state: recent developments in international law. Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International

    Google Scholar 

  • IMF (2013) Energy subsidy reform: lessons and implications. IMF, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannesson Å, Kalantzis F, Maincent E, Pieńkowski J (2014) Electricity tariff deficit temporary or permanent problem in the EU? European Commission-Economic Papers. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2014/pdf/ecp534_en.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Johnson M (2014) Spain unveils new austerity measures. Financial Times, 30 March, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/285b2682-7a58-11e1-839f00144feab49a.html#axzz3x2sNIZrl. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Jorge V (2015) EU drags on Stability and Growth Pact reform, Euractiv, 12 October. http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/eu-drags-revised-stability-and-growth-pact-318395. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Kauffman-Kohler G (2007) Arbitral precedent: dream, necessity or excuse? AI 23:357–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Kläger R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment’ in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge-New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klamert M (2014) The principle of loyalty in EU law. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinheisterkamp J (2012) Investment protection and EU law: the intra and extra-EU dimension of the energy charter treaty. JIEL 15:85–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laazouzi M (2013) Sur la compétence et le fond: l’incidence du droit de l’Union européenne sur l’arbitrage CIRDI dans le cadre du Traité sur la Charte de l’énergie; Note sous Centre international de règlement des différends sur l’investissement, décision sur la compétence, le droit applicable et la responsabilité, 30 novembre 2012, Electrabel S.A. contre République de Hongrie. Rev Arb 2:477–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Leben C (2015) Droit International des investissements et de l’arbitrage international. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariani P (2014) The future of BITs between EU member states: are intra-EU BITs compatible with the internal market? In: Sacerdoti G, Acconci P, Valenti M, De Luca A (eds) General interests of host states in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 265–286

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Morris R, Ongena H, Schuknecht L (2006) The reform and the implementation of the stability and growth pact. ECB Occasional Papers. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=807424. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Nouvel Y (2002) Les mesures équivalant à une expropriation dans la pratique récente des tribunaux arbitraux. Rev Gen Dr Int’l Public 1:79–102

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2004) Indirect Expropriation and the “Right to Regulate” in International Investment Law. OECD Working Papers on International Investment. http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/WP-2004_4.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • OECD (2014a) Economic Surveys-Czech Republic. http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/Czech-Republic-Overview-2014.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • OECD (2014b) Economic Surveys-Spain. http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/Spain-Overview-2014.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • OECD (2015) Economic Surveys-Italy. http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/Spain-Overview-2014.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Poulain B (2007) Quelques Interrogations sur le Statut des Traités Bilatéraux de Promotion et de Protection des Investissements au sein de l’Union Européenne. Rev Gen Dr Int’l Public 4:803–827

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2012) Articles 30 and 59 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties in action: the decisions on jurisdiction in the Eastern Sugar and Eureko Investment Arbitrations. LIEI 39:157–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D (2013) Pulling the plug on renewable power in Spain. Oxford Energy Comment. http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Pulling-the-Plug-on-Renewable-Power-in-Spain.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Sacerdoti G (2010) Precedent in the settlement of international economic disputes: the WTO and investment arbitration models in contemporary issues. In: Rovine AW (ed) International arbitration and mediation: The Fordham Papers. Brill-Nijhoff, Boston, pp 225–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Salacuse J (2015) The law of investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarasa-Maestro CJ, Dufo-López R, Bernal-Agustín J (2013) Photovoltaic remuneration policies in the European Union. Energy Policy 55:317–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2014) Foreign investment in the energy sector: lessons for investment law. In: De Bradambere E, Gazzini T (eds) Foreign investment in the energy sector. Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 259–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2005a) Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice. JWIT 6:357–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2005b) The concept of expropriation under the ETC and other investment protection treaties. TDM 3:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass E (2006) Protecting investors’ legitimate expectations: recognizing and delimiting a general principle. ICSID Review - FILJ 21:1–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (2014) Time for renewables to join the market: the new guidelines on state aid for environmental protection and energy. JECLAP 5:616–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C, Sipiorski E, Töpfer G (2013) Responsibility in Investor-State-Arbitration in the EU-Managing Financial Responsibility Linked to Investor-State Dispute Settlement Tribunals Established by EU's International Investment Agreements. European Parliament, Directorate General for External Policy - Policy Dep. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2012/457126/EXPOINTA_ET(2012)457126_EN.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Valenti M (2014) The protection of general interests of host States in the application of the fair and equitable treatment standard. In: Sacerdoti G, Acconci P, Valenti M, De Luca A (eds) General interests of host states in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 26–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler T, Wälde T (2003) Investment arbitration under the energy charter treaty in the light of new NAFTA precedents: towards a global code of conduct for economic regulation. OGEL 2. www.ogel.org/article.asp?key=137. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

  • Wynn G (2014) EU countries to cut renewable support further, 14 August. http://www.reuters.com. Accessed 12 Jan 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

    Francesco Montanaro

  2. Panthéon-Assas University, Paris, France

    Francesco Montanaro

Authors
  1. Francesco Montanaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Montanaro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International, Legal, Historical and Political Studies, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Giovanna Adinolfi

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Freya Baetens

  3. Doctoral College of Law and Economics, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    José Caiado

  4. Department of International, Legal, Historical and Political Studies, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Angela Lupone

  5. Department of International, Legal, Historical and Political Studies, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Anna G. Micara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G. Giappichelli Editore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Montanaro, F. (2017). “Ain’t No Sunshine”: Photovoltaic Energy Policy in Europe at the Crossroads Between EU Law and Energy Charter Treaty Obligations. In: Adinolfi, G., Baetens, F., Caiado, J., Lupone, A., Micara, A. (eds) International Economic Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44645-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44645-5_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44644-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44645-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation