2018年3月6日欧盟法院（ECJ）判决欧盟成员国之间的投资协议（200多）的仲裁条款违反欧盟法律。

欧盟法院判决根据斯洛伐克（承继捷克斯洛伐克）和荷兰的双边投资协定裁决斯洛伐克向荷兰ACHMEA保险公司（Dutch insurer Achmea）赔偿损失的仲裁裁决违反了欧盟法律。

做出裁决的仲裁庭并非成员国的法院，无法到欧盟法院进行上诉，但是该裁决是最终裁决，尽管争议可能涉及到欧盟法律的解释问题。

法院认定“双边投资协定”中的仲裁条款对欧盟法律的自治（autonomy of EU law）有不利影响（adverse effect），因此不符合欧盟法律（incompatible with）。

2.  Each Contracting Party hereby consents to submit a dispute referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article to an arbitral tribunal, if the dispute has not been settled amicably within a period of six months from the date on which either party to the dispute requested amicable settlement.

3. The arbitral tribunal referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article will be constituted for each individual case in the following way: each party to the dispute appoints one member of the tribunal and the two members thus appointed shall select a national of a third State as Chairman of the tribunal. Each party to the dispute shall appoint its member of the tribunal within two months, and the Chairman shall be appointed within three months from the date on which the investor has notified the other Contracting Party of his decision to submit the dispute to the arbitral tribunal.

4.  If the appointments have not been made in the abovementioned periods, either party to the dispute may invite the President of the Arbitration Institute of the Chamber of Commerce of Stockholm to make the necessary appointments. If the President is a national of either Contracting Party or if he is otherwise prevented from discharging the said function, the Vice-President shall be invited to make the necessary appointments. If the Vice-President is a national of either Contracting Party or if he too is prevented from discharging the said function, the most senior member of the Arbitration Institute who is not a national of either Contracting Party shall be invited to make the necessary appointments.

5. The arbitration tribunal shall determine its own procedure applying the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) arbitration rules.

双方选择德国的法兰克福（Frankfurt am Main）为仲裁地，因此仲裁程序适用法为德国法。

2008年10月，申请人提起仲裁，斯洛伐克在仲裁过程中提出就仲裁庭管辖权提出异议，认为由于该国已经加入欧盟，因此双边投资协定中的仲裁条款违反欧盟法律。

2010年10月26日，仲裁庭作出有管辖权的中间裁决，斯洛伐克在德国法院提起撤销仲裁裁决之诉，但是一审二审均败诉。

2012年仲裁庭裁决斯洛伐克违反了双边投资协定赔偿ACHMEA公司2730万美元。

斯洛伐克再法兰克福地区高级法院Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main)提起撤销仲裁裁决之诉，被驳回后上诉至Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany)法院。

斯洛伐克在德国法院提起诉讼，最终该案件上诉到欧盟法院以确定仲裁条款是否违反欧盟法律。

Articles 267 and 344 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision in an international agreement concluded between Member States, such as Article 8 of the Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, under which an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal whose jurisdiction that Member State has undertaken to accept.

欧盟法院曾经判决欧盟委员会无权在未经欧盟成员国同意的情况下与他国签订投资协定中的争议解决条款，与该案件有点类似，最终导致欧盟委员会考虑改变策略，在双边和多变投资协定中以国际投资法院代替国际投资仲裁的方式来解决国际投资争议。