Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I really I wanted to go to is not the mechanisms per sebut the fact that an enforceable order can be enforced in a local court in other places. We have seen cases of this. As Dr. de Boeck said, it is interesting that it is only in the case of New York state that public policy has been used as a defence and again, this is the defence by states or by public bodies that are being sued by corporations. Under the CETA text, for example, it says that they may consider public law. I suppose the concern, and perhaps Dr. de Boeck can confirm this, is that the ECJ does not have pre-eminence from the perspective of the ECT. It is just something that it may consider and bear in mind but the ECJ ruling does not have a binding case. As I understand, in the case of the Achmea ruling, which was a kind of parallel, again, it was determined that intra-EU cases were not compatible with EU law. I believe two or three of the different arbitration panels have chosen to ignore that ruling and have chosen to meet. That is really one piece. Could either of the witnesses confirm that?

Could either witness comment on the intersection between Europe's relationship with the ECT and the impact on other smaller countries which, in some cases, may have individually signed up to it? Leaving aside what we do intra-EU and considering a more intraglobal role, if the EU were to withdraw from the ECT, would that give more scope to governments in developing countries to perhaps exit from or resist rulings?