22 avr. 2018

EU against ICSID, UNCITRAL, arbitration, investors' rights, ISDR, TTIP, CETA, ECT: Micula v Romania


The most exciting business law case that I have seen in the recent years is without doubt Micula v Romania. This is the case where the ICSID arbitration tribunal has, in fact, decided that the European Union law had breached the investors’ right to a fair and equitable treatment. This case makes me laugh, because it sets aside a huge segment of the European Commission arrogance. The case is quite unknown. For instance, none of the LSE professors of law has ever heard about this.

After observing the success of the tax paradise in the City of London, the Government of Romania decided to create a tax paradise like the British one in one of the poorest regions of the country. No tax attracts investment and creates prosperity – this was the logic of Romania, and this is actually a result of the City of London.

Some ethnic Romanians from Sweden started their investment in the Ştei Nucet region. The European Union reacted with the Union Common Position requiring to repeal the tax policy, since a measure providing tax benefits for particular parts of Romania only should be considered as a State aid distorting competition. The common position does not explain why this is prohibited in Romania, but this is not prohibited in the City of London. 

Romania agreed, and the Micula brothers sued Romania before the ICSID arbitration tribunal under the BIT between Romania and Sweden. In 2013, the Arbitration Tribunal awarded the Micula brothers a compensation of € 178 million. 

The Arbitration Tribunal argued that the actions of Romania created legitimate expectations for the investors that the tax policy would not be repealed. If you change your mind after the investment has already started, the fair and equitable treatment principle requires paying damages. 

The Arbitration Tribunal states that there is no contradiction between the fair and equitable treatment principles under the BIT and the Europe Treaty on preparation of Romania to become an EU member state, since both Romania and Sweden signed those treaties in full understanding of their content. This attitude is required by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

An amazing thing happens when the award come to the Bucharest Tribunal for execution. There are three things that I’d never expect from a Romanian court: 1) the Bucharest Tribunal refuses to stay the execution, because – this is very important – the ICSID ad hoc committee has refused to do so. 2) The Bucharest Tribunal rejects the proposal of the European Commission to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU. The EC wants to transfer the case to the CJEU  because this court is tool to implement the official policy of the EU. The investors have zero chances to win over there. What does the Bucharest Tribunal do? It rejects the proposal of the EC. 3) The Bucharest Tribunal rejects the main action by Romania. This is amazing.

Then the case goes to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which stays the execution. Nevertheless, – and this is also amazing – the Romanian Government opens a bank account in the name of the investors, and transfers them the money. The account is blocked until the end of the litigation, but the Romanian Government at least is able to declare that the award is executed. This is a kind of a temporary compromise, and this is also a strike of the Romanian Government against the EC.

After this, the EC issued a decision prohibiting Romania to execute the award. This decision is interesting in two respects: the position of Romania, and that of the EC. 1) Romania argues that the Romanian Constitution prohibits influencing judges, and the national constitution has higher power than the Union law. This is a very brave argument, because it challenges the case law of the ECJ. The next Romanian argument is even braver: the award shall be executed until it has not been determined at the ICSID level whether the ICSID Concention of the Union law should take precedence. At this point, it already clear that the ICSID ad hoc committee will argue that international arbitration is higher than the Union law, and it is clear that the ECJ will enter a contrary judgment. 

The approach of the European Commission is radical. It states that the intra-EU BITs are not valid, since they are contrary to the Union law, and the Union law provides that it is higher than any other international obligations of Member States. The EC might take a more moderate approach in saying that the intra-BITs are invalid only to the extent of their contradiction with the Union law, but this is not the case. So the EC chooses to provoke a direct conflict with the international arbitration system instead of finding a verbal formula allowing parties to keep honor. 

The EC explains that the award provides a selective advantage to Micula brothers, and not to other investors operating in the region. It is the same as in a situation where you have black and white segregation. Blacks do not have the right to use the same bus as white people. One of those blacks goes to the tribunal, and the tribunal enters a judgment saying that this is against fair and equitable treatment and this particular black person should be paid a compensation, and then the European Commission replies that this judgment shall not be executed because it privileges one black over thousands of other black people. This is the same.

The investors lodged an appeal with the CJEU  On one hand, this is a logical remedy. On the other hand, transferring the case to the CJEU  because usually it supports the initiatives of the EC in a very enthusiastic manner. 

As it might be foreseen the ICSID ad hoc committee dismissed the application for annulment by Romania, and upheld the award of the arbitration tribunal. The ad hoc committee pointed that the arbitration tribunal had in fact applied the Europe Treaty to the full extent that had been necessary. 

The attempts to execute the award continue before the UK courts, however the High Court of Justice stays the execution until the end of the proceedings before the ECJ. The High Court of Justice makes reference to the “principle of sincere cooperation” of the MS courts with the European Commission. This is not the best sign. It will be interesting to see how the High Court of Justice will continue after the departure of the UK from the EU.

The litigation over execution also continues in the USA.

I don’t believe there is much chance to win this case before the ECJ. The European Court of Justice is consistently resisting the attempts to create a higher court than itself: the Strasbourg judges have prohibited to submit the European Union to the authority of the European Court of Human Rights and to that of the European and Community Patent Court (CJEU opinion 1/09).

10 avr. 2018

Genius John Nash, girls and sex


Very stupid LSE professors about investors' rights (TTIP, ICSID, UNCITRAL, BIT, arbitration)


Teisė į neteisėtai pastatytą namą – EŽTT – advokatas prof. Stanislovas Tomas


Kalinių (suimtųjų) teisė į 7 kv. m. kameroje – EŽTT – advokatas Stanislovas Tomas


Pareigūnų parodymai negali būti vienintelis įrodymas – EŽTT – advokatas Stanislovas Tomas


Įrodymų našta, kai žmogų sumušė pareigūnai – advokatas Stanislovas Tomas


Территориальная дискриминация в офшорном налогооблажении


Droit à la nationalité monégasque selon les Nations unies


Налоги на Сарке - бизнес и офшор


Как выиграть дело в ЕСПЧ? Европейский суд по правам человека - адвокат


Ой ти Галю, Галю молодая (Їхали козаки) - КОМЕНТАР АДВОКАТА


Teisė į liudytojų apklausą – Europos žmogaus teisių teismas


Šauktinių kariuomenė yra uždrausta – Europos žmogaus teisių teismas


Advokatų klaidos – Europos žmogaus teisių teismas


Teisė atsisakyti savo parodymų - Europos žmogaus teisių teismas - advokatas Stanislovas Tomas


Lietuvoje įteisintos homoseksualų santuokos, advokatas, Europos žmogaus teisių teismas


Lawyer speaks 15 languages. Адвокат говорит на 15 языках. Advokatas šneka 15 kalbų. Polyglot


欧洲政治庇护。对联合国的投诉。


Европейският съд по правата на човека е затворен


Tри роки оскаржити в ООН


Ўцякаць. Палітычны прытулак у ЕС.


Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesa ir slēgta


Het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens is gesloten


O Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos do Homem está encerrado


El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos está cerrado


Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte ist geschlossen


Al Fatiha by Prof. Dr. Stanislovas Tomas


La Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme est fermée


Apie janutienės isterijos priepuolį


ЕСПЧ или ООН? Європейський суд з прав людини або Організація Об'єднаних Націй?


Обжаловать в ООН или/и убежать в ЕС


Apel·lació a les Nacions Unides


Unicycling in the European Parliament


Genius and insanity DNA, 23andme, rs6994992TT, rs1800955CT


Avoiding mistakes of the impeached President of Lithuania in litigation


Co robić jeśli twoja skarga odrzucona w Strasburgu (ETPC)? Złożyć skargę do ONZ.


За 6 часов выиграть вопрос против своего Правительства в ООН.


Per 6 valandas laimėjau 1–jį bylos etapą prieš Lietuvą Jungtinėse Tautose


Sark & Guernsey: offshore incorporation differences


Sark offshore company: liberate your business creativity


Sark offshore business centre (Guernsey)



Prof. Stanislovas TOMAS laimėjo bylą prieš 15min šmeižtą



28 févr. 2018

European Court of Human Rights defends "honour" of a Nazi Minister

Yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the complaint about the prohibition of the book “Ship of Idiots” by Lithuania. The book is prohibited, since the author Vytautas Petkevicius writes that the Nazi Government minister Vytautas Žemkalnis-Landsbergis was a “friend of Hitler”, and co-operated with the KGB by the end of World War II (case Petkeviciute v Lithuania). The Nazi Minister is the father of Mr Vytautas Landsbergis who is a former President of Lithuania.

Lithuania is the last country in the EU, which denies holocaust.

The statement that Vytautas Žemkalnis-Landsbergis was a “friend of Hitler” is based on the fact that he indeed was a Minister of Communal Economy at the marionette Lithuanian Nazi Government formed by Nazi Germany in the occupied Lithuania in 1941. The statement that the Nazi Minister started to co-operate with the Soviet KGB by the end of the war is based on the fact that he was allowed to live in the Soviet Union after the end of the war, and he even built a successful career under the Soviet rule.

In its judgment, the European Court of Human Rights denies that the respective Government was indeed a Nazi one. This is a factual mistake. Therefore, the family of the writer will lodge an appeal. Professor Stanislovas Tomas, Russian foreign lawyer practicing in the Channel Islands, will represent the interests of the writer.

On 25/06/1941, the Lithuanian Nazi Government issued “The Word to the Nation” stating: “We assess the Eastern march of the unstoppable German army with a particular gratefulness. […] This project of Führer Adolf Hitler of the German Nation, this march of the brave army inspired by National Socialism has huge importance in destruction of the barbarian, anti-cultural and anti-human wave, which dropped 200 million people down into poverty. […] This worldwide mission of Hitler and its meaning may be very well understood, positively assessed and sincerely supported.

The Lithuanian Nazi Government issued the Declaration on Economic and Social Affairs. Its § 3 provides that ethnic Jews may not have any private property in Lithuania. On 26/06/1941, the Lithuanian Nazi Government addressed the German general von Pohl with a request to intensify “clearing” Lithuania from the “Jewish gangs”. On 30/06/1941, the Lithuanian Nazi Government issued the decision to create the Jewish Concentration Camp. The administration of the concentration camp and the ghettos was under the Ministry of Communal Economy headed by Minister Vytautas Žemkalnis-Landsbergis.

On 01/08/1941, the Lithuanian Nazi Government issued the Provisions on the Jewish Situation stating the following: “The Cabinet of Ministers, having regard to the fact that for centuries the Jews were exploiting the Lithuanian nation economically, stomping us morally, and recently the Jews have largely extended their fight against Lithuanian independence and the Lithuanian nation under the Bolshevik mantle, seeking to stop the harmful Jewish activity and to defend the Lithuanian nation from their harmful influence, legislates the current Rules”.

101 996 Jews were executed during the first six months of the Nazi occupation in Lithuania.

The Lithuanian Nazi Government also closed all theatres in the Polish language and started to treat ethnic Poles as enemies.


The current Lithuanian Government under President Dalia Grybauskaite supported by the European Court of Human Rights (the Lithuanian judge Egidijus Kuris in particular) denies that the Lithuanian Nazi Government of 1941 was Nazi, and they also deny holocaust.

Европейский суд по правам человека защитил "честь" нацистского министра

Вчера Европейский суд по правам человека (ЕСПЧ) отклонил жалобу о запрете книги « Корабль дураков » в Литве. Книга запрещена, потому что автор Витаутас Пяткявичюс написал, что нацистский министр Витаутас Жямкальнис-Ландсбергис был « другом Гитлера », а в конце Второй мировой войны начал сотрудничать с КГБ (дело Пяткявичюте против Литвы). Нацистский министр является отцом Президента Литвы Витаутаса Ландсбергиса.

Литва – это последнее государство Европейского Союза, которое отрицает нацистские преступления.

Утверждение писателя о том, что Витаутас Жямкальнис-Ландсбергис был « другом Гитлера » основывается на том, что он на самом деле был министром коммунального хозяйства в марионетном Нацистском Правительстве Литвы, сформированном немецкими войсками в 1941 г. Утверждение о том, что Витаутас Жямкальнис-Ландсбергис сотрудничал с КГБ в самом конце войны основано на факте, что после победы Советского Союза в войне ему было разрешено жить в СССР и, более того, сделать очень успешную карьеру – он стал главным архитектором города Каунас.

В своем решении ЕСПЧ отрицает, что соответствующее литовское правительство было нацистским. Это ошибка. Семья писателя приняла решении подать апелляцию. Интересы автора будет представлять адвокат профессор Станисловас Томас.

25 июня 1941 г. Нацистское Правительство Литвы публикует «Слово к Нации», в котором говорится: «Мы оцениваем Восточный марш неостановимой немецкой армии с особенной благодарностью. Этот проект фюрера немецкой нации Адольфа Гитлера, этот марш смелой армии, воодушевленной национал-социализмом, имеет огромное значение для уничтожения варварской, противокультурной, противочеловеческой волны, которая повергла 200 миллионов человек в бедность. Эту гитлеровскую миссию мирового масштаба и ее значение очень легко понять – она должна быть позитивно оценена и искренне поддержана».

Нацистское Правительство Литвы принимает Декларацию о хозяйственных и социальных делах. В ее 3-ем пункте говорится, что евреи и русские не имеют права обладать частной собственностью в Литве. Скоро к ним присоединят и поляков, будут закрыты все польскоязычные театры.

26 июня Нацистское Правительство Литвы обращается к генералу фон Поль с прошением усилить «отчистку» Литвы от «еврейских банд». 30 июня Нацистское Правительство Литвы принимает решение выделить деньги на создание Еврейского концлагеря. Администрирование Еврейского концлагеря и гетто передается Министерству коммунального хозяйства, которым руководит Витаутас Жямкяльнис-Ландсбергис.

1 августа 1941 г Нацистское Правительство Литвы принимает «Положение о евреях», в котором говорится: «Кабинет министров, принимая во внимание, что целыми столетиями евреи экономически эксплуатировали литовскую нацию, топтали ее морально, а в последнее время под покровом большевизма широчайшим образом развили борьбу против литовской независимости и против литовской нации, имея целью остановить вредную еврейскую деятельность и защитить литовскую нацию от их пагубного влияния – принимает настоящие правила

Только в первые шесть месяцев нацистской оккупации было расстреляно 101 996 евреев.


Сегодняшнее Правительство Литвы при Президенте Дале Грибаускайте сейчас уже, к сожалению, с поддержкой ЕСПЧ (его литовский судья Эгидиюс Курис в частности) отрицает, что марионетное Правительство Литвы 1941 года было нацистским, а также отрицает и холокост. Отрицание холокоста в Австрии, родине Адольфа Гитлера, наказывается тюремным заключением до 20 лет (ст. 3г Закона о запрете национал-социализма).