The Next Generation of Investment Treaties and their Impact on Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Hogan Lovells and Notre Dame Law School are proud to host a lecture on “The Next Generation of Investment Treaties and their Impact on Investor-State Dispute Settlement.” The lecture will be held from 5 -7p.m. on Thursday, February 12, 2015 at the City Club of Washington, D.C., 555 13th Street NW. A cocktail reception will follow. Our keynote speaker for the evening will be Meg Kinnear, Secretary-General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank. Prior to joining ICSID in 2009, Ms. Kinnear was General Counsel, Senior General Counsel, and Director General of the Trade Law Bureau of Canada, where she advised the Government of Canada on international investment and trade law, participated in investment and trade treaty negotiations, and represented Canada in NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitrations. She is a frequent speaker and author in this field. The event will feature: • Meg Kinnear, ICSID Secretary- General, World Bank, Keynote Speaker • Roger Alford, University of Notre Dame, Commentator • Jonathan Stoel, Hogan Lovells, Commentator • Horacio Grigera Naón, American University, Commentator • Susan Franck, Washington and Lee University, Commentator • Michael Tracton, U.S. Department of State, Commentatorhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1121/thumbnail.jp

CFE ECJ Task Force: Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2022 on the CJEU decision of 27 January 2022 in Case C-788/19, European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Form 720), on the lack of proportionality of the consequences derived from the failure to provide information concerning assets or rights held in other Member States of the European Union or the EEA

This is an Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU institutions in May 2022, of the CFE ECJ Task Force on Commission v. Spain (Case C-788/19) (also cited as the Form 720 case), in which the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered its decision on 27 January 2022. The Court, in its decision, ruled in favour of the action brought by the Commission and did not fully follow the reasoning of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe in his Opinion of 15 July 2021, who proposed only partially accepting the action brought by the Commission. The Court held that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (2007) and article 40 of the EEA Agreement (1992) [4.] by imposing disproportionate measures on the failure to duly comply with the obligation to provide information concerning assets and rights located abroad. The Spanish legislation provided for very serious economic consequences, such as the taxation of the value of not duly declared assets and rights as unjustified capital gains with no limitation period. The legislation also provided for a proportional fine of 150% of the tax calculated on amounts corresponding to the value of those assets or those rights, which could be applied concurrently with flat-rate fines. At the same time, such flat-rate fines were much higher than the penalties imposed in respect of similar infringements in a purely national context, which were not capped. Commission v. Spain is an important case, as it addresses a number of relevant issues regarding the limits that the Member States must respect when implementing measures to counteract international tax avoidance and evasion

CFE ECJ Task Force: Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 2/2022 on the CJEU decision of 27 January 2022 in Case C-788/19, European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Form 720), on the lack of proportionality of the consequences derived from the failure to provide information concerning assets or rights held in other Member States of the European Union or the EEA

This is an Opinion Statement, submitted to the EU institutions in May 2022, of the CFE ECJ Task Force on Commission v. Spain (Case C-788/19) (also cited as the Form 720 case), in which the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered its decision on 27 January 2022. The Court, in its decision, ruled in favour of the action brought by the Commission and did not fully follow the reasoning of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe in his Opinion of 15 July 2021, who proposed only partially accepting the action brought by the Commission. The Court held that the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (2007) and article 40 of the EEA Agreement (1992) [4.] by imposing disproportionate measures on the failure to duly comply with the obligation to provide information concerning assets and rights located abroad. The Spanish legislation provided for very serious economic consequences, such as the taxation of the value of not duly declared assets and rights as unjustified capital gains with no limitation period. The legislation also provided for a proportional fine of 150% of the tax calculated on amounts corresponding to the value of those assets or those rights, which could be applied concurrently with flat-rate fines. At the same time, such flat-rate fines were much higher than the penalties imposed in respect of similar infringements in a purely national context, which were not capped. Commission v. Spain is an important case, as it addresses a number of relevant issues regarding the limits that the Member States must respect when implementing measures to counteract international tax avoidance and evasion