Anna Masser’s Post

Together with more than 30 other German companies, we are sending a strong message against extremism and racism. Under the name "We Stand for Values," we have formed an alliance, calling on our approximately 1.7 million colleagues to participate in the European elections and upcoming regional elections in the fall. This broad alliance from the German business sector advocates for the core values that define our democracy: diversity, openness, and tolerance. These values are not only of moral relevance but are also critical to the strength and success of our country's economy. Extremists and racists challenge these values while offering seemingly simple solutions to the complex issues of our time. By doing so, they divide our society, harm our country, and jeopardize our prosperity. We will not allow this. It is crucial that we now take a united stand. #WeStandForValues #TeamSiemens More: www.westandforvalues.com Siemens

📢 Some pretty major arbitration news hot of the presses: the Swiss Supreme Court denied set-aside of an Intra-EU ECT award In a detailed judgment, the Court rejected Spain's challenge to the award in full. Some highlights from a quick first read: - The Court held that it had full power to review the questions of law underlying a jurisdictional objection and would, on questions of foreign law, generally adhere to the majority opinion or the jurisprudence of the highest court in the jurisdiction in question. Where the question at issue, however, is whether EU law or an international treaty should be given primacy, the Court held that the CJEU, being an EU court, would be tempted to find in favor of the primacy of EU law, as was the case in the Komstroy decision. The Court therefore held that it would accord the Komstroy decision "no particular value." - The Court specifically referenced the significant criticism against the Komstroy decision and referred to an ongoing "crusade" of EU organs against international arbitration. - The Court, engaging in its own detailed analysis of the ECT and European law, found no basis to exclude arbitration in an intra-EU setting. In particular, the Court denied Spain's argument that the 15 January 2019 Declaration of 22 EU Member States that intra-EU investment arbitration agreements were invalid could have any effect, let alone retroactive effect on the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal seated in Switzerland. - The Court expressly held that - on its own analysis - there was no conflict between Art. 26 of the ECT and EU law and that it was not convinced that EU law would prevail, even if there were a conflict. - The Court also made interesting findings as to the timing of raising an arbitrator challenge, finding that Spain should have challenged the presiding arbitrator directly after he issued an award in another proceeding also dealing with the intra-EU question. Further, the Court also addressed the question of what constitutes sufficient deliberations of an issue presented to the Tribunal. The decision (in French) is below - it makes a fascinating read, not least because the Court uses surprisingly strong language in staking out its position vis-a-vis the EU's approach to ISDS. #ISDS #internationalarbitration #SwissSupremeCourt #IntraEUBITs

Swiss Supreme Court upholds jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal over intra-EU dispute: In a newly published decision, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ("Court") confirmed jurisdiction of a Swiss seated arbitral tribunal over a claim brought by a French investor against Spain under the Energy Charter Treaty ("ECT"). The Court drew a number of noteworthy conclusions, including: ▫ Decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU"), in particular the Komstroy judgment, are not binding on a Swiss court deciding on a set-aside motion against an award rendered by a Swiss seated arbitral tribunal; ▫ In general, the Court accepts the opinion expressed by the supreme court of the state that enacted the foreign law in question. However, the Court is more reluctant to do so when questions arise whether the rules adopted by a community of states, such as the EU, take precedence over rights deriving from a multilateral treaty, such as the ECT. In case of a conflict between these rules, the community of states may be tempted, as in Komstroy, to assert the primacy of its own law over that of the multilateral treaty; ▫ Following a detailed analysis, the Court concluded that the unconditional consent given by Spain in the arbitration clause contained in Article 26 ECT did not exclude intra-EU disputes; ▫ The Court also rejected the notion that there was a conflict between Article 26 ECT and EU law. The Court was not convinced by the reasoning given in Komstroy, noting that it was essentially, if not exclusively, based on the requirement to preserve the autonomy of EU law, without taking any account of international law or the rules of interpretation of treaties; ▫ The Court continued that even if Article 26 ECT were incompatible with EU law, nothing under public international law would suggest that EU law should take precedence over the ECT. The decision will be analysed in more detail by Francesca Borio and myself on Swissblawg.

The future isn’t something we respond to, it’s something we create right now.   Unparalleled outcomes start with A&O Shearman... and A&O Shearman starts today.   The future is here: https://ow.ly/acEC50Rt34K   #AOShearman

One of the most powerful campaigns and comms over the years. ‘The Dream Gap’ If you only have 1 minute, please stop and listen to these young girls. 👏🏼 ‘At age 5, girls begin to stop believing they can be presidents, scientists, big thinkers or CEOs’. #TheDreamGap