Achmea resources note

Achmea resources

Very much still under construction.

Start here at italaw if you want to read the first few case documents, which are the only ones that tell the health care story - it soon became a massive obfuscation to hide the underlying question, whether a country can decide their own healthcare after they had signed a binding trade agreement.

Achmea search on


[1] Case 284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea EU:C:2018:158. Retrieved from

[2] Opinion 2/13 Accession to the ECHR EU:C:2014:2454, para. 176. Retrieved from; Opinion 1/09 European and Community Patents Court [2011] ECR i-1137, para. 66. Retrieved from

[3] Case 284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea, supra note 1, paras. 32–38.

[4] See list of blog entries: Schepel, H. (2018, March 23). From conflicts-rules to field preemption: Achmea and the relationship between EU law and international investment law and arbitration. European Law Blog. Retrieved from; Niemelä, P. (2018, March 18). Achmea – A perspective from international (investment) law. European Law Blog. Retrieved from;  Thym, V.D. (2018, March 9). The CJEU ruling in Achmea: Death sentence for autonomous investment protection tribunals. EU Law Analysis. Retrieved from; Hindelang, S. (2018, March 9). The limited immediate effects of CJEU’s Achmea Judgement. Verfassungsblog. Retrieved from; Szilágyi, S.G. (2018, March 7). The CJEU Strikes Again in Achmea. Is this the end of investor-State arbitration under intra-EU BITs? International Economic Law and Policy Blog. Retrieved from; Requejo, M. (2018, March 8). A European law reading of Achmea. Conflict of Retrieved from

[5] See Niemelä, supra note 4.

[6] Case C-284/16 Achmea, supra note 1, paras. 84–131.

[7] Schepel (2018), supra note 4.

[8] Case 106/77 Simmenthal II EU:C:1978:49, para. 17. Retrieved from; Case 121/85 Conegate Limited v. HM Customs & Excise, EU:C:1986:114, para 26. Retrieved from

[9] Article 351 TFEU cannot be invoked in an intra-EU context. See Case C–301/08 Bogiatzi v. Deutscher Luftpool and Others [2009] ECR I–10185, paras. 16–20. Retrieved from

[10] It had already started such proceedings, but these were temporarily halted because of the then-pending Achmea ruling. See under 6.

[11] Case 812/79 Attorney General v. Burgoa [1980] ECR 2787. Retrieved from

[12] See for instance Case C-249/06 Commission v. Sweden EU:C:2009:119, retrieved from

[13] CETA Article 8.31 contains several provisions that aim to ensure that investment tribunals under CETA will not interpret EU law. For a detailed assessment of these safeguards, see Ankersmit, L. (2016). The compatibility of investment arbitration in EU trade agreements with the EU judicial system. Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, 13(1), 46–63.

[14] This Opinion was requested by Belgium following the crisis over the signing of CETA in October 2016. For more background, see Ankersmit, L. (2016, December). Belgium requests an opinion on Investment Court System in CETA. elni Review, 2, 54–58. Retrieved from

[15] Opinion 2/15 EU-Singapore FTA U:C:2017:376, para. 292. Retrieved from