Case report in Micula et al. v. Romania, [2017] EWHC 31 (Comm) – Judgment, 20 January 2017

The case report in this very interesting judgment dealing with arbitration and State aid issues can be found here.


The High Court of Justice declined to set aside an order registering two Swedish investors’ (the claimants) ICSID arbitral award against Romania. However, the court did stay proceedings regarding the enforcement of the award until the resolution of claimants’ proceeding before the European Court to annul the European Commission’s Final Decision 2015/1470. Final Decision 2015/1470 declared that the award constituted new state aid under Article 107(1) of the TFEU and prohibited Romania from making any payments to the claimants. The Final Decision also demanded that Romania recover any sums it had already paid under the award to the claimants and declared that the claimants be jointly liable to repay any sums received from Romania. In granting a stay of enforcement of the award, the Court noted that enforcing the award would result in a conflict with a decision of the European Commission prohibiting Romania from paying the award, and a national court would be obligated to stay proceedings under these circumstances. Further, registering the award under the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 did not create a conflict between the duties of the United Kingdom under the ICSID Convention because an ICSID award is equated to a final domestic judgment for enforcement purposes. The Court found the claimants’ request for an order requiring Romania to provide security persuasive because the proceedings related to an ICSID award which predated the decisions of the European Commission; the award was treated as a final judgment of the English court at the time of the award; and the award has remained unpaid for several years. However, the Court did not ultimately order Romania to pay security in this decision.

EU Competition Law and Arbitration Conference in Stockholm, 28 April 2017

The details about this very interesting event co-organised by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the Spanish Arbitration Club (CEA) can be found here.

Welcome speeches

Annette Magnusson, Secretary General of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce

José Antonio Caínzos Fernández, Co-President of the Club Español del Arbitraje

Keynote Speech

George A. Bermann, Director of the Center for International Commercial & Investment Arbitration (CICIA), Columbia Law School, New York

Panel 1 – Investment Arbitration and EU Law

Moderator: Cristina Martinetti, ELEXI, Turin

Crenguta Leaua, Leaua & Asociatii, Bucharest Intra-EU Bits, the EU Principle of Non-Discrimination and the EU State Aids Regime: A Difficult Coexistence

Ernesto Bonafé, Secretariat of the Energy Charter Treaty, Brussels The Energy Charter Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty: Two European Creatures on a Collision Course?

Epaminontas E. Triantafilou, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, London The Role and Powers of Amici Curiae in Investment Arbitration

Annette Magnusson, Secretary General, SCC, Stockholm The Future of Investment Arbitration: Proposals, Perspectives, Concerns.

Panel 2 – Competition Law Based Claims in Commercial Arbitration

Moderator: Michelangelo Cicogna, De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani, Milan

Gordon Blanke, DFW Law, Dubai Is the Arbitrability of Competition Law Claims a Truly Settled Matter?

Pascal Hollander, Hanotiau & van den Berg, Brussels The Impact of the CDC Hydrogen Peroxide Judgment on Present and Future Arbitration Agreements

Damien Geradin, EDGE Legal, Brussels Arbitrators’ Power and Duty to Apply Competition Law Provisions Ex Officio

Luca Radicati Di Brozolo, ArbLit, Milan The Standard of Review of International Arbitral Awards on the Basis of Their Incompatibility with Competition Law Rules

Jesper Tiberg, Lindahl law firm, Stockholm Arbitrators in collision with competition law? The Swedish Supreme Court judgment in the Systembolaget case – a saga in four chapters.

Conclusive Remarks

Filip De Ly, Erasmus University School of Law, Utrecht

Economic expertise in arbitral proceedings

One of the most significant evolution of competition law in past decades has been the growing role of economists. There is hardly an antitrust authority investigation now that does not involve economic experts. These experts will typically opine on issues, such as market definition, dominance, the pro- or anti-competitive effects of an agreement or unilateral conduct, etc.

In my experience, the presence of economists in arbitral proceedings involving competition law issues was relatively rare in the past. Ten or fifteen years ago, these issues were dealt with by legal experts, typically competition law professors. Their analysis was often formalistic in nature and I found it frustrating. Economics did not play a major role. Black letter law prevailed.

Things are different now. In the last four or five cases in which I have been involved as a competition law expert, the parties also retained economists, often at my suggestion. This is a positive development. There is no reason why the type of effects-based analysis that is pursued by competition authorities should be ignored from arbitral proceedings. And arbitral proceedings are an ideal forum to hear economic evidence, generally more so that competition litigation proceedings before national courts.

The role of economists in arbitral proceedings involving competition law issues is not to draft briefs full of equations (unless placed in annexes), but to assist the arbitrators (whose competition law expertise is limited) by clarifying the economic concepts that are at play in the matter in question, as well as the economic theories and tools that can be used to assess the compatibility of the agreement/conduct in question with competition law.

My experience working with economists in arbitral proceedings, but also in national litigation or agency investigations, has always been very positive. Key, however, is to select the right economist expert (someone who can talk to lawyers) and defining the scope of his or her mission clearly.


III Seminar on International Developments in Competition Litigation

Cuatrecasas and RBB Economics, in collaboration with the CNMC and Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, are organising the Third Seminar on International Developments in Private Competition Litigation, which will take place on 27 April 2017 in the Conference Hall of the CNMC.

Speakers include:

– Prof. Richard Whish, Emeritus Professor of Law, King’s College London
– Ignacio Sancho, Magistrate of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo, Civil Division
– Sir Peter Roth, President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, London
– Filip Kubik, Private Enforcement Unit, DG Competition, European Commission
– Tilman Makatsch, Head of Competition Litigation, Deutsche Bahn


Thursday, 27 April 2017
15.30 – 20.00


Salón de Actos
CNMC – Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia
Calle de Alcalá, 42
28014 Madrid Map

The state of research on arbitration and EU law : Quo vadis European arbitration?

Very interesting literature review on arbitration and EU — including arbitration and EU competition law — by Barbara Alicja WARWAS, which can be found here.


The goal of this article is to provide a systematic literature review of studies on arbitration in recent decades. The major focus is on emerging developments in arbitration and EU law. The review will thus map the research on these developments and summarize its major findings to provide a better understanding of new trends in the scholarly literature on arbitration and EU law, and to identify research gaps to be addressed in the future. Just as almost 20 years ago Pieter Sanders addressed the then emerging problems of arbitration practice and posed a question: “Quo Vadis Arbitration?” this paper asks the question “Quo Vadis European Arbitration”? Hence, it aims at depicting the current and future direction of EU law and arbitration by proposing a common platform for discussion on these two distinct yet increasingly overlapping fields.

Marc Deschenaux of Deschenaux, Hornblower & Partners, LLP has kindly asked me to bring to your attention this paper entitled The Role of the Arbitrator in Applying EU Competition Law under the Modernisation Process authored by his colleague Debora Pinto.


International Commercial Arbitration is an increasingly important method of adjudicating cross-border disputes between business actors and ‘is likely to become an increasingly important area for competition policy and enforcement.’ Even though arbitration as an appropriate forum is not under analysis, its characteristics may be helpful in understanding some of the shortcomings experienced in arbitral proceedings when applying European Union (hereinafter “EU”) Competition Law. The confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings, even if often seen as an advantage in the parties’ perspective, may result in an impediment to the collaboration of the European Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) or the National Competition Authorities (hereinafter “NCAs”), and in a broader context to the public enforcement of EU Competition Law. The wide scope of recognition and enforceability of the arbitral awards, in view of the success of the New York Convention , is another important consideration which is, nevertheless, closely related to the arbitrators’ expertise. Arguably, ‘arbitration is only as good as its arbitrators’ which means that the expertise of the arbitrator will be determinant when dealing with EU Competition Law issues, in light of the inherent complex factual and economic considerations required to reach a decision, not to mention a general duty to render an enforceable award. However, his expertise may not be sufficient to render an enforceable award if there is lack of support by the Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU (hereinafter “CJEU”). It is precisely the fact that arbitration is a consent-based jurisdiction that tends to preclude arbitrators from submitting preliminary rulings to the CJEU. Also, the fact that arbitration is expeditious, especially when compared to litigation, makes it a privileged forum for business actors. Nevertheless, the enunciated procedural shortcomings may ultimately lead to its inefficiency, especially if subject to review before national courts.

Major excessive pricing decision just adopted by the UK CMA

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about Commissioner Vestager’s speech regarding exploitative abuses, which triggered questions among practitioners as to whether the Commission would be initiating excessive pricing cases in the future.

I am not aware of any such investigation by the Commission, but the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has just adopted a decision imposing a record £84.2 million fine on the pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer and a £5.2 million fine on the distributor Flynn Pharma after finding that each broke competition law by charging excessive and unfair prices in the UK for phenytoin sodium capsules, an anti-epilepsy drug. The CMA has also ordered the companies to reduce their prices. The decision follows price increases by up to 2,600% after the drug was deliberately de-branded (and thus no longer subject to price regulation) in September 2012. According to the CMA, this significantly impacted the NHS with its expenditures on phenytoin sodium capsules increased from about £2 million a year in 2012 to about £50 million in 2013.

This decision is likely to lead to a massive action in damages against Pfizer and Flynn Pharma as I suspect that the NHS will want to recover the extra sums it had to spend to purchase phenytoin sodium capsules during the infringement period.