62019CO0333_INF
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2022 –Romatsa and Others
(Case C‑333/19) (
1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – State aid – Articles 107 and 108 TFEU – Bilateral Investment Treaty – Arbitration clause – Romania – Arbitral award granting payment of damages – European Commission decision declaring that payment to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery – Enforcement of an arbitral award before a court of a Member State other than the Member State to which the decision is addressed – Infringement of EU law – Article 19 TEU – Articles 267 and 344 TFEU – Autonomy of EU law)
1.
International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Member States – Agreements concluded before the accession of a Member State to the European Union – Bilateral Investment Treaty between the Kingdom of Sweden and Romania – Effect of that treaty after accession to the European Union – Provision allowing an investor of a Member State to seise an arbitral tribunal in the event of a dispute with another Member State – Arbitration clause contrary to EU law – Not permissible – Consequence – Consent given by the Member State to an arbitration system having become devoid of purpose
(Art. 19(1), second subpara., TEU; Arts 267 and 344 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 33-40)
2.
International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Member States – Agreements concluded before the accession of a Member State to the European Union – Bilateral Investment Treaty between the Kingdom of Sweden and Romania – Effect of that treaty after accession to the European Union – Provision allowing an investor of a Member State to seise an arbitral tribunal in the event of a dispute with another Member State – Arbitration clause contrary to EU law – Not permissible – Consequence – Prohibition on national courts from enforcing an arbitral award made under that arbitration clause
(Art. 19(1), second subpara., TEU; Arts 267 and 344 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 41-44, operative part)
Operative part
EU law, in particular Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State ruling on the enforcement of the arbitral award which was the subject of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State Aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania – Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013, is required to set aside that award and, therefore, may not in any case proceed with its enforcement in order to enable its beneficiaries to obtain the payment of damages which it awarded them.
(
1
)	OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.