欧洲法院总法律顾问伯特认为：欧盟与加拿大自由贸易协定（CETA）规定的投资者-东道国争端解决机制符合欧盟法
2019年1月29日，欧洲法院总法律顾问伯特认为：该协定不会对欧盟法的自主性原则产生不利影响，也不会影响到欧洲法院对欧盟法的解释享有专属管辖权的原则。 以下为全文内容：
2016年10月30日，加拿大与欧盟及其成员国签署了一项自由贸易协定：《全面经济和贸易协定》（简称“CETA”）。
该协定中的一条规定，其目的在于建立关于协定解释与适用的投资者-东道国争端解决机制（即投资者-东道国争端解决机制，简称“ISDS”）。在这方面，所设想的是设立一个法庭和一个上诉法庭，并在较长时期内设立一个多边投资法庭。因此，其目的是建立一个“投资法院机制”（简称“ICS”）。
2017年9月7日，比利时请求欧洲法院就ISDS是否符合欧盟法提出意见。事实上，关于欧洲法院对欧盟法的解释享有专属管辖权、平等待遇的一般原则、欧盟法有效要求，以及诉诸独立与公正的法庭的权利，其对该机制对上述原则的影响表示怀疑。
总法律顾问伊夫·伯特对此表示，该争端解决机制符合《欧洲联盟条约》、《欧洲联盟运行条约》以及《欧洲联盟基本人权宪章》的规定。
首先，总法律顾问认为，该协定不会对欧盟法的自主性原则产生不利影响，也不会影响到欧洲法院对欧盟法的解释享有专属管辖权的原则。
对此，总法律顾问指出，建立争端解决机制的理由，是为了在保护各缔约方投资者上寻求互惠互利，这符合不具有直接效力的协定。他还指出，法院在其判例法中采取的方法不能转用于对这一机制的审查上。
总法律顾问认为，围绕建立争端解决机制的保障机制具有充分性。法庭的管辖权受到严格限制，即在一方违反该协定有关规定的情况下，对遭受损失的投资者给予赔偿。法庭无权命令撤销其认为违反协定的措施，也无权要求使之与该协定相一致。此外，在审议欧盟法时，法庭受欧洲法院所作解释的约束，不能在欧盟法律秩序范围内对该法律作出有约束力的解释。此外，联合委员会可对协定作出有约束力的解释，并规定上诉程序。
总法律顾问还认为，争端解决机制规定的机构无权就欧盟及其成员国之间的权力划分作出裁决。
此外，总法律顾问指出，该争端解决机制不影响国内法院和法庭确保欧盟法有效适用的作用。尽管该协定不具有直接效力，但适用该协定并不是成员国法院和法庭的职责，这些法院和法庭在欧盟法律秩序中的“一般法”法院的地位也并未被剥夺，包括其在引用初步裁定方面的作用。此外，欧洲法院并未被剥夺对这些法院和法庭所提问题作出初步裁定的权力。根据总法律顾问的观点，“条约”赋予欧盟机构和成员国的权力的基本性质并没有改变。
因此，总法律顾问认为，通过将关于保护投资的规则和具体的争端解决机制相结合，明确各缔约方有权通过必要的立法，以实现公共利益方面的合法目标，例如公共卫生、安全、环境和社会保护领域，该争端解决机制完全符合欧盟在国际舞台上的行动目标。
其次，在诉诸争端解决机制方面，该协定不违反平等待遇的一般原则。加拿大投资者在欧盟投资的情形与欧盟投资者在其自身经济领域内进行投资的情形不具有可比性。只有在另一缔约方领土内投资的情形下，各缔约方的投资者方处于相似的情形。
再次，程序性保障措施确保对诉诸独立和公正法庭权利的充分保护，该权利由《欧洲联盟基本人权宪章》第47条规定。其规定的机制仅提供与自由贸易协定适用有关的可替代性争端解决方式，该协定还补充规定了各缔约方提供的救济措施。
此外，协定的条款还规定了法庭成员薪酬办法的主要特点，其中包括固定费用和取决于提交诉讼的数量和复杂程度的费用。这一办法符合所建立的争端解决机制的混合性质，也符合至少在初期其法庭成员不会全职工作的事实。
最后，与这些法庭成员的任命和可能的撤职有关的条件，以及实行的保障措施是充分的。另外，该协定载有适用于法庭成员的具体道德规范，旨在保障成员的独立性和公正性。
注意：该名总法律顾问的意见对欧洲法院不具有法律约束力。总法律顾问的作用在于以完全独立的身份向法院提出其负责案件的法律意见。欧洲法院的法官们目前已开始对本案进行审议，其意见将在稍后公布。
[英文原文]
According to Advocate General Bot, the mechanism for the settlement of disputes between investors and States provided for by the free trade agreement between the EU and Canada is compatible with EU law
The agreement does not adversely affect the autonomy of EU law and does not affect the principle that the Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of EU law
On 30 October 2016 Canada, on the one hand, and the EU and its Member States, on the other hand, signed a free tradeagreement: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
That agreement includes a section that has the aim of establishing a mechanism for the settlement of disputes between investors and States concerning the interpretation and application of the agreement (Investor State Dispute Settlement System, ISDS). In that context, what is envisaged is the creation of a Tribunal and an Appellate Tribunal and, in the longer term, a multilateral investment tribunal. The aim is thus to establish an ‘Investment Court System’ (ICS).
On 7 September 2017 Belgium requested the Court of Justice’s opinion1 concerning the compatibility of the mechanism for the settlement of disputes (ISDS) with EU law. In essence, it expresses doubts as to the effects of that mechanism on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courtover the definitive interpretation of EU law, the general principle of equal treatment, the requirement that EU law is effective, and the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.
In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Yves Bot holds that the mechanism for the settlement of disputes is compatible with the EU Treaty, the FEU Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
First, the Advocate General takes the view that the agreement does not adversely affect the autonomy of EU law and does not affect the principle that the Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of EU law.
In that regard, the Advocate General states that the reason for the establishment of a dispute settlement mechanism is the requirement of reciprocity in the protection afforded to the investors of each Party and that that is consistent with the agreement not having direct effect. He also states that the approach adopted by the Court in its case-law2 cannot be transposed to the examination of that mechanism.
The Advocate General considers that the safeguards surrounding the establishment of the dispute settlement mechanism are sufficient. The Tribunal has a narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction, namely, in the event of a breach of the relevant provisions of that agreement by one of the Parties, granting compensation to the investors suffering loss. The Tribunal does not have the power to order the annulment of a measure which it deems contrary to the agreement or to require that it be brought into line with that agreement. Furthermore, when considering EU law, the Tribunal is bound by the interpretation given by the Court and cannot impose a binding interpretation of that law within the EU legal order. In addition, the Joint Committee can adopt binding interpretations of the agreement and an appeal procedure is established.
The Advocate General also finds that the bodies provided for by the dispute settlement mechanism are not authorised to rule on the division of powers between the EU and its Member States.
Moreover, the Advocate General states that the dispute settlement mechanism does not affect the role of national courts and tribunals of ensuring the effective application of EU law. Even though, given that the agreement does not have direct effect, it is not the role of the courts and tribunals of the Member States to apply that agreement, those courts and tribunals are not, however, deprived of their status as ‘general law’ courts within the EU legal order, including of their role in any making of references for a preliminary ruling. Furthermore, the Court is not deprived of its power to reply, by preliminary ruling, to questions referred by those courts and tribunals. According to the Advocate General, there is no alteration of the essential character of the powers which the Treaties confer on the institutions of the EU and on the Member States.
The Advocate General is therefore of the opinion that the system for the settlement of disputes is entirely consistent with the objectives of the Union’s action on the international stage by combining rules on the protection of investments and a specific dispute settlement mechanism with the express confirmation of the Parties’ right to adopt legislation necessary to achieve legitimate objectives in the public interest, for example in the areas of public health, safety, the environment and social protection.
Second, the agreement does not infringe the general principle of equal treatment in respect of access to the dispute settlement mechanism. The situation of Canadian investors who invest in the EU is not comparable with the situation of European investors who invest within their own economic area. Only the investors of each Party who invest in the territory of the other Party are in comparable situations.
Third, procedural safeguards ensure a sufficient level of protection of the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal, a right enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter. The mechanism provided for is merely an alternative method of dispute resolution relating to the application of the free trade agreement which complements the remedies offered by the Parties.
Furthermore, the provisions of the agreement set out the main features of the remuneration scheme for Members of the Tribunal, which includes a fixed component and a component dependent on the volume and the complexity of litigation brought before them. That scheme is consistent with the hybrid nature of the dispute settlement mechanism established and with the fact that, at least initially, those Members will notbe working on a full-time basis.
Last, the conditions relating to the appointment and possible removal of those Members and the safeguards put in place are sufficient. In addition, the agreement contains specific rules of ethics applicable to Members and intended to guarantee their independence and their impartiality.
NOTE:The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. The Opinion of the Court will be given at a later date.
来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA