Search Result(s)

Achmea search on italaw_com

The Achmea case shows how a small country that, while part of a country, Czechoslovakia, that did/does not exist any more mistakenly signed a trade deal that was highly unfavorable to their ability to determine their own health care through voting. When the Czech and Slovak nations split, both countries inherited these bad deals between powerful and legally savvy Western European countries rushing to take advantage of the naivete of the Eastern Europeans in matters of trade, after communism fell. (this happened all throughout eastern Europe in a problem that was collectively called the IntraEUBITS. ) The case also spotlights the destruction of democracy by ISDS because after voting in a landslide for single payer in 2006 the country was immediately sued by a health insurer for the tort of "indirect exxpropriation" of "their property" (the policy space was treated like a piece of property) in an ISDS case. Notable for many reasons, particularly to me because in the end (Slovakia eventually won on a EU-specific technical issue) the EU high court did NOT touch what I consider to be the core issue, whether countries (in this case EU Member States) have the right to regulate, especially important in life and death issues like health care. The case could have decided that but did not, leaving that all important issue alone. In fact, if one looks at the later documents and the legal articles on it later on the health insurance versus single payer issue is almost never mentioned. Showing how out of touch the international law community in Europe is with the common peoples needs, among other things. Something like it could easily happen here - Look at what happened to South Africa and it's NHI, for example. South Africa voted for NHI a long time ago but it's voters wishes have been frustrated by GATS, and politicians have not been straightforward with the country about why, similar to the US, GATS has become a mother lode of politician dishonesty that will cause endless corruption and lock in as long as the country remains bound by it. In South Africa's case, GATS is also a binding but little known legacy of the apartheid regime that continues to frustrate the hopes of South Africans for change.

"Achmea: The Beginning of the End for ISDS in and with Europe?"

"The Achmea case essentially concerned a preliminary reference by the German Federal Court of Justice over whether EU law precluded the application of an arbitration clause in an IIA between EU member states. Slovakia had challenged before German courts the jurisdiction of an investment tribunal constituted under the Dutch–Slovak bilateral investment treaty (BIT). A Dutch investor (Achmea) had seized that investment tribunal over a partial reversal of the Slovak government’s decision in 2004 to privatize the health insurance market. In 2007 Slovakia had prohibited the distribution of profits generated by private health insurance activities. The investment tribunal considered this a breach of the BIT and awarded Achmea damages of EUR 22.1 million."

The recent Achmea case has received a lot of news coverage in Europe but almost none of it actually explains what the case was about. This PDF..

contains a factual summary (on page 13) which explains that the case was about the electoral victory in Slovakia of a candidate who ran on a platform of restoring single payer health care in the country, as well as limiting the profits of any health insurer, in the intirim period to 20% changes which which were immediately attacked in the first of two Investor vs. State arbitral lawsuits. Slovakia lost the first round. This case is also a good introduction to the sordid history of the IntraEUBITS.