譯者 | 陳也 中國政法大學本科
一審 | LYJ 新加坡國立大學碩士
二審 | 李正茂 香港大學普通法學碩士生
編輯 | 陳珏雯 西南政法大學本科生
LOCA 中國社會科學院大學碩士生
責編 | 林靖珊 中國政法大學碩士生
Achmea B.V. v. Slovak Republic
Achmea B.V.訴斯洛伐克共和國案
Press Release No. 77/2024 of 13 September 2024
2024年9月13日第77/2024號新聞稿
Orders of 23 July 2024 – 2 BvR 557/19, 2 BvR 141/22
2024年7月23日裁定-2 BvR 557/19,2 BvR 141/22
01
裁定內容
In orders published today, the Third Chamber of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court did not admit for decision two constitutional complaints lodged by a Dutch insurance group.
在今天公佈的裁定中，聯邦憲法法院第二參議庭第三分庭未受理一家荷蘭保險集團提出的兩項憲法申訴。
Constitutional complaint 2 BvR 557/19 challenged an order of the Federal Court of Justice that set aside an arbitral award. The arbitral tribunal had decided in favour of the complainant and ordered the Slovak Republic to pay the complainant damages amounting to EUR 22.1 million on the basis of a bilateral investment treaty between the Slovak Republic and the Netherlands. According to the arbitral tribunal, these damages were caused by a ban on distributing profits from health insurance activities that was in place from 2007 to 2011 in the Slovak Republic, which affected the complainant.
案號為2 BvR 557/19的憲法訴願針對聯邦最高法院的一項仲裁裁定進行申訴，該裁定撤銷了原有仲裁裁決。仲裁庭此前作出了有利於申訴人的裁決，並根據斯洛伐克共和國（以下簡稱“斯洛伐克”）與荷蘭之間的雙邊投資條約裁定斯洛伐克向申訴人支付2,210萬歐元的損害賠償金。仲裁庭裁定，案涉損害是由斯洛伐克2007年至2011年間實施的禁止健康保險業務利潤分配的禁令造成的，該禁令影響了申訴人。
By constitutional complaint 2 BvR 141/22, the complainant challenged the German Bundestag’s act of approval to an agreement between multiple Member States of the European Union (EU) to terminate bilateral investment treaties concluded among the same, including the treaty concluded between the Slovak Republic and the Netherlands.
透過案號為2 BvR 141/22的憲法訴願，申訴人針對德國聯邦議會批准歐盟多個成員國之間的一項協議之行為提出了申訴，該協議旨在終止成員國之間簽訂的雙邊投資條約，包括斯洛伐克與荷蘭之間簽訂的條約。
The complainant was unsuccessful in its request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the act of approval from entering into force (cf. Press Release No. 13/2021 of 3 February 2021 [https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-013.html]in German). The constitutional complaints are inadmissible. In proceedings 2 BvR 557/19, the complainant failed to sufficiently substantiate a recognised legal interest.
申訴人未能成功申請用以阻止該批准法案生效的初步禁令，（參見2021年2月3日第13/2021號新聞稿[https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-013.html]德文）。憲法訴願不可受理。在2 BvR 557/19號案件中，申訴人未能充分證明其具備法律利益。
The complainant also failed to sufficiently show a violation of constitutional law. In proceedings 2 BvR 141/22, the complainant did not plausibly demonstrate that its rights are violated by the challenged act of approval.
申訴人也未能充分證明前述行為違憲。在2 BvR 141/22案件中，申訴人未能合理證明其權利因案涉法案而受到侵犯。
（圖片來源於網路）
02
案件事實
In 1991, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic concluded the Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments (hereinafter: the Treaty). Art. 8 of the Treaty submits any dispute arising under the Treaty to an arbitral tribunal (arbitration clause). In 1993, the Slovak Republic succeeded to the Treaty in place of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic. The Slovak Republic has been a member of the European Union since 2004.
1991年，荷蘭與捷克斯洛伐克聯邦共和國簽訂了《關於鼓勵和相互保護投資的協定》（以下簡稱“《條約》”）。該條約第8條規定，將根據該條約產生的任何爭議提交仲裁庭解決（仲裁條款）。1993年，斯洛伐克替代捷克斯洛伐克聯邦共和國繼承了該條約。斯洛伐克自2004年起成為歐盟成員國。
（圖片來源於網路）
The complainant, a Dutch insurance group, had a subsidiary in the Slovak Republic offering private health insurance. In 2007, the Slovak Republic prohibited the distribution of profits generated by health insurance activities. In 2011, the Slovak Constitutional Court declared this ban unconstitutional and the distribution of profits was again permitted.
申訴人是一家荷蘭保險集團，在斯洛伐克擁有一家提供私人健康保險服務的子公司。2007年，斯洛伐克禁止了健康保險業務所產生利潤的分配。2011年，斯洛伐克憲法法院宣告該禁令違憲，利潤分配再次被允許。
In 2008, the complainant initiated arbitration proceedings against the Slovak Republic under Art. 8 of the Treaty, seeking damages for the ban on profit distributions. The arbitral tribunal chose Frankfurt am Main as the seat of arbitration and, by arbitral award, ordered the Slovak Republic to pay damages amounting to EUR 22.1 million. By order of 18 December 2014, the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court rejected the application to set aside the arbitral award. The Federal Court of Justice suspended the proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the question of whether arbitration clauses, such as the one under Art. 8 of the Treaty, were compatible with EU law.
2008年，申訴人依據《條約》第8條對斯洛伐克提起仲裁，要求就利潤分配禁令請求損害賠償。仲裁庭選擇法蘭克福為仲裁地，並最終裁定斯洛伐克支付總額為2,210萬歐元的損害賠償。2014年12月18日，法蘭克福州高階法院駁回了撤銷仲裁裁決的申請。隨後，聯邦最高法院中止了前述訴訟程式，並請求歐盟法院就條約第8條中的仲裁條款是否與歐盟法律相符的問題作出初步裁定。
By judgment of 6 March 2018 (Achmea Judgment), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that arbitration clauses in international agreements between EU Member States like the one in Art. 8(2) of the Treaty are incompatible with Arts. 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). By order of 31 October 2018, the Federal Court of Justice reversed both the decision of the Higher Regional Court and the arbitral award. In its reasoning, the Federal Court of Justice stated that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties and, consequently, the arbitral award must be reversed under § 1059(2) no. 1 letter a of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO). The Federal Court of Justice held that the arbitration clause under Art. 8(2) of the Treaty was not applicable because of its incompatibility with Arts. 267 and 344 TFEU.
2018年3月6日，歐盟法院在Achmea案的判決中裁定歐盟成員國之間的條約中的仲裁條款（如條約第8（2）條中的仲裁條款）與《歐盟運作條約》第267條和第344條相違背。2018年10月31日，聯邦最高法院推翻了法蘭克福州高階法院的裁定以及前述仲裁裁決。在判決理由部分，聯邦最高法院指出，當事人之間不存在仲裁協議。因此，根據《民事訴訟法》第1059（2）條第1款a項，仲裁裁決必須被撤銷。聯邦最高法院認為，由於條約第8（2）條中的仲裁條款與《歐盟運作條約》第267條和第344條相違背，因此該條仲裁條款不適用。
（圖片來源於網路）
On 5 May 2020, 23 EU Member States – including the Federal Republic of Germany, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands – signed the Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union (hereinafter: the Termination Agreement). Pursuant to Art. 4(2) in conjunction with Art. 16(2) of the Termination Agreement, bilateral investment treaties to which the Termination Agreement applies are terminated if ‘the relevant Contracting Parties’ have ratified, approved or accepted the Termination Agreement. The Treaty is included in the list of terminated treaties in an annex to the Termination Agreement. Slovakia and the Netherlands ratified the Termination Agreement.
2020年5月5日，包括德意志聯邦共和國、斯洛伐克和荷蘭在內的23個歐盟成員國簽署了《歐盟成員國間雙邊投資條約終止協議》（以下簡稱“《終止協議》”）。根據《終止協議》第4（2）條與第16（2）條的規定，若‘相關締約方’批准、認可或接受了《終止協議》，則符合《終止協議》規定的雙邊投資條約將被終止。《條約》被列入《終止協議》附錄中的終止條約清單中。斯洛伐克和荷蘭已經批准了《終止協議》。
On 19 November 2020, the German Bundestag adopted the act of approval to the Termination Agreement. The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed an application for preliminary injunction that the complainant lodged to prevent the act of approval from entering into force (cf. Press Release No. 13/2021 of 3 February 2021 Press Release No. 13/2021 of 3 February 2021, in German). The act of approval entered into force on 22 January 2021.
2020年11月19日，德國聯邦議會通過了批准《終止協議》的法案。德國聯邦憲法法院駁回了申訴人提出的初步禁令申請，該申請旨在阻止前述法案生效（參見2021年2月3日第13/2021號新聞稿[https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-013.html]）。案涉法案於2021年1月22日生效。
（圖片來源於網路）
03
第三分庭的主要判決理由
1
案號2 BvR 557/19
I. Constitutional complaint 2 BvR 557/19 is primarily directed against the order of the Federal Court of Justice that set aside the arbitral award which benefitted the complainant. The constitutional complaint is inadmissible.
I.案號為2 BvR 557/19的憲法訴願主要針對聯邦最高法院撤銷對申訴人有利的仲裁裁決的裁定。法院認為，該憲法訴願不具備可受理性。
01
1.The complainant fails to sufficiently substantiate a recognised legal interest. The entry into force of the Termination Agreement has changed the factual and legal situation in a way that is relevant to the decision. In light of this, the complainant fails to consider the question of whether the legal protection sought is still obtainable.
1.申訴人未能充分證明申訴人享有其主張的法律利益。《終止協議》的生效改變了與本裁定相關的事實和法律狀況。有鑑於此，申訴人錯誤地認為其所作為請求權基礎的法律可適用於本案。
a) From the outset, several factors argue in favour of the invalidity of the arbitration agreement between the complainant and the Slovak Republic, given that the Termination Agreement provides that the Treaty is retroactively terminated. If the case were remanded to the Federal Court of Justice, it would have to engage with this pertinent question. If the Federal Court of Justice concluded that the Treaty was retroactively terminated and the arbitration agreement retroactively invalid, the Federal Court of Justice would in all likelihood have to set aside the arbitral award once again (§ 1059(2) no. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The complainant does not engage with this question in a substantiated manner.
a）首先，鑑於《終止協議》規定了《條約》終止的溯及效力，有若干因素表明申訴人與斯洛伐克之間的仲裁協議無效。如果案件被髮回聯邦最高法院，法院將不得不處理這一相關問題。如果聯邦最高法院得出結論認為《條約》具有終止的溯及效力，且仲裁協議具有無效的溯及效力，那麼聯邦最高法院極有可能再次撤銷仲裁裁決（《民事訴訟法》第1059（2）條第1號）。然而，申訴人沒有充分論證這一問題。
b) Section 3 of the Termination Agreement contains ‘provisions regarding claims made under bilateral investment treaties’; these provisions suggest that arbitral awards are to be set aside regardless of whether the arbitration proceedings are ‘concluded’ or ‘pending’. The complainant does not engage with this in its submissions.
b）《終止協議》第3條包含‘關於根據雙邊投資條約提出的索賠的規定’；前述規定表明，無論仲裁程式‘已結束’還是‘正在進行’，仲裁裁決都應被撤銷。然而，申訴人在其提交的檔案中未對此進行分析。
c) Constitutional complaint 2 BvR 141/22, which objects to the German act of approval to the Termination Agreement, is inadmissible and therefore of no relevance to constitutional complaint 2 BvR 557/19.
c）案號為2 BvR 141/22的憲法訴願反對德國批准《終止協議》的行為。然而，該訴願不具可受理性。因此，該訴願與案號為2 BvR 557/19的憲法訴願無關。
（圖片來源於網路）
02
2. The constitutional complaint also fails to meet the requirements for substantiating a possible violation of rights pursuant to § 90(1) of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz – BVerfGG). The complainant asserts that the challenged order of the Federal Court of Justice violates its constitutionally guaranteed, substantive fundamental rights because the Federal Court of Justice should not have considered itself bound by the Achmea Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the interpretation of Arts. 267 and 344 TFEU resulting from this judgment.
2.根據《聯邦憲法法院法》第90（1）條之規定，主張其權利受到侵害的當事人，應當針對法律規定的實質性要求進行舉證。然而，該憲法訴願未能滿足前述要求。申訴人聲稱，歐盟法院所審理的Achmea案以及該案判決對《歐盟運作條約》第267條和第344條的解釋對聯邦最高法院不具備法律約束力。因此，案涉聯邦最高法院的裁定侵犯了申訴人受到憲法保障的實質性基本權利。
a) Generally, the binding interpretation of EU law, and thus the determination of whether the offer to submit disputes to an arbitral tribunal as in Art. 8(2) of the Treaty is compatible with EU law, is the task of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Given the precedence of application of EU law, the Federal Court of Justice is bound by the interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Only under very limited and special circumstances is there no such precedence of application.
a）通常而言，歐盟法院應當針對歐盟法對本案具有法律約束力這一點進行解釋，並審查《條約》第8（2）條所載的仲裁條款是否符合歐盟法的相關規定。有鑑於歐盟法在法律適用層面的優先性，聯邦最高法院必須遵循歐盟法院的解釋。只有在特殊的幾種情況下，歐盟法的優先適用性才不成立。
b) To the extent that the complainant submits that the Achmea Judgment constituted an ultra vires act and the Federal Court of Justice should thus not have considered itself bound by it, the complaint fails to provide a substantive analysis showing that the way in which the Court of Justice of the European Union applied the law is manifestly unjustifiable and leads to a structural reordering of competences away from the Member States and to the EU.
b）申訴人認為，Achmea案的判決系越權行為，因此聯邦最高法院不應認為該案對其具有法律約束力。然而，申訴人未能進行實質性分析以證明歐盟法院適用法律的方式明顯不合理，且該種不合理導致權力從成員國轉移至歐盟的結構性調整。
c) To the extent that the complainant alleges a violation of constitutional identity, the only reasoning provided is the assertion that if the Federal Republic of Germany is unable to conclude bilateral investment treaties and arbitration agreements with other EU Member States, it will be permanently deprived of an essential enforcement mechanism in the international realm and thus lack key abilities to autonomously shape social and political life.
c）針對申訴人聲稱案涉裁定違憲之主張，其唯一的論據是，如果德意志聯邦共和國無法與其他歐盟成員國簽訂雙邊投資條約和仲裁協議，將永久失去在國際領域中的重要執行機制，從而缺乏自主塑造社會和政治生活的關鍵能力。
However, the complainant does not address whether the competences of the Federal Republic of Germany are at all adversely affected in the case at hand. The challenged order of the Federal Court of Justice, which implements the Achmea Judgment, only has the effect of setting aside an arbitral award that benefitted the complainant based on the Treaty concluded by the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic. The Federal Republic of Germany’s scope of action is thus not affected.
然而，申訴人並未討論德意志聯邦共和國的權能在本案中是否受到任何負面影響。聯邦最高法院依據Achmea案作出的案涉裁定，僅撤銷了基於荷蘭與斯洛伐克之間的條約而對申訴人有利的仲裁裁決。因此，德意志聯邦共和國的能力範圍並未受到影響。
d) Finally, the complainant also fails to substantiate that the implementation of fully harmonised EU law by the Federal Court of Justice in the case at hand would trigger the Solange, or ‘as long as’, reservation with respect to the constitutionally enshrined fundamental rights that the complainant asserts. Nor does the complainant substantiate that the Federal Court of Justice’s decision would be incompatible with the applicable fundamental guarantees in any other way.
d）最後，申訴人未能證明聯邦最高法院在本案中適用完全協調的歐盟法會違反申訴人所主張的對憲法規定的基本權利，觸發“Solange”（德語）保留，即“只要”保留。此外，申訴人也未能證明聯邦最高法院的裁定在任何其他方面與適用的基本保障不相容。
（圖片來源於網路）
aa) The order of the Federal Court of Justice of 31 October 2018 is based on the implementation of binding obligations under EU law. In such a case, there is generally no review of the decision’s compatibility with the fundamental rights under the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG). The Federal Court of Justice applied § 1059(2) no. 1 letter a of the Code of Civil Procedure and, in examining whether the complainant and the Slovak Republic had concluded a valid arbitration agreement, took into account the primary law obligations under Arts. 267 and 344 TFEU as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Achmea Judgment.
aa） 聯邦最高法院於2018年10月31日所做出的裁定以履行歐盟法規定的具有法律約束力的義務為基礎。在這種情況下，法院一般不對案涉裁定是否侵害《基本法》所載的基本權利進行審查。聯邦最高法院適用了《民事訴訟法》第1059（2）條第1款a項之規定，並依據歐盟法院在Achmea案的判決中的解釋，在審查申訴人與斯洛伐克是否達成了有效的仲裁協議時，將《歐盟運作條約》第267條和第344條下的主要法律義務納入考量。
The Achmea judgment does not afford any discretion to the Member States. It unambiguously states that arbitration clauses in bilateral investment treaties between EU Member States are incompatible with Arts. 267 and 344 TFEU. Primary law provisions thus dictate the legal consequence that follows in this case, i.e. setting aside the arbitral award. The legal relations between the complainant and the Slovak Republic are thus determined by EU law in a manner that leaves no discretion to the Federal Court of Justice.
Achmea案的判決並未賦予成員國任何自由裁量權。該判決明確指出，歐盟成員國之間雙邊投資條約中的仲裁條款違反了《歐盟運作條約》第267條和第344條。因此，前述條款決定了本案中的法律後果，即仲裁裁決被撤銷。申訴人與斯洛伐克之間的法律關係因此由歐盟法確定，聯邦最高法院沒有任何自由裁量權。
To the extent that the complainant asserts a violation of its fundamental rights under the Basic Law, the complainant fails to engage, in substantive terms, with whether the challenged order by the Federal Court of Justice in fact does not meet the minimum standards of fundamental rights protection that Art. 23(1) first sentence of the Basic Law requires under the Solange reservation.
針對申訴人聲稱其根據《基本法》享有的基本權利受到侵犯之主張，申訴人未能成功論證聯邦最高法院所做出的案涉裁定是否確實未達到《基本法》第23條第1款第1句“只要保留”規定下的基本權利保護的最低標準。
（圖片來源於網路）
bb) The complainant fails to substantiate its claim that the challenged decision violates the guarantee of property. As EU law determines this guarantee, the applicable standard of review follows from Art. 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In asserting a violation of the guarantee of property, the constitutional complaint only refers to Art. 14 of the Basic Law, i.e. national fundamental rights law, which is not applicable here. The complainant fails to show to what extent it can rely on Art. 17(1) of the Charter to claim that fundamental rights law obliges the Federal Republic of Germany to recognise and uphold the arbitral award.
bb） 申訴人未能充分論證其主張案涉裁定違反了財產權保障。該保障由歐盟法確立。因此，其審查應依據《歐盟基本權利憲章》第17條之規定進行。在主張財產權保障被侵犯時，憲法申訴僅引用了《基本法》第14條，即國家基本權利法，但該法在本案中並不適用。申訴人未能證明其可以援引《憲章》第17（1）條，主張基本權利法要求德意志聯邦共和國承認並支援仲裁裁決。
Based on the complainant’s submissions, the protection of legitimate expectations does not give rise to any factors that must be taken into account here.
根據申訴人的陳述，對合法期望的保護並不在本案考慮範圍之內。
cc) To the extent that the complainant alleges a violation of its freedom to practice an occupation, the complainant fails to substantiate a violation of Art. 16 of the Charter, which is the only applicable guarantee in this respect. Pursuant to § 1059 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Federal Court of Justice had to examine whether an arbitral award settling a dispute between the complainant and the Slovak Republic could be considered valid under German law. Neither this statutory provision nor the proceedings are directly linked to the practice of any occupation. Rather, the only decisive question in the proceedings is whether the participants were parties to legally effective arbitration proceedings.
cc） 針對申訴人聲稱其職業自由受到侵犯之主張，申訴人未能充分證明其唯一援引的《歐盟基本權利憲章》第16條所載的權利遭到侵犯。根據《民事訴訟法》第1059條，聯邦最高法院必須審查申訴人與斯洛伐克之間爭議的仲裁裁決是否可被德國法律視為有效。然而，前述法律條款與任何職業的實際從事並無直接關聯。相反，訴訟中唯一決定性的問題是，參與者是否是具有法律效力的仲裁程式的當事人。
（圖片來源於網路）
dd) The complainant also fails to substantiate a violation of the right to effective legal protection. The general right of access to justice is applicable in civil proceedings (Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 20(3) of the Basic Law). By agreeing on a dispute settlement mechanism outside of the state justice system, the parties waived their right of access to justice. No other conclusion is warranted by the standard of review that is required by the fundamental right to an effective remedy under Art. 47(1) of the Charter.
dd） 申訴人也未能充分證明其受到法律保護的權利被侵犯。一般的司法救濟權適用於民事訴訟程式（《基本法》第2（1）條與第20（3）條）。當事人在同意採用國家司法系統之外的爭議解決機制時，即放棄了他們的司法救濟權。即便根據《歐盟基本權利憲章》第47（1）條所要求的有效救濟基本權利的審查標準，也無法得出相反結論。
ee) To the extent that the complainant asserts that the Federal Court of Justice violated the duty of referral under Art. 267(3) TFEU, the complainant fails to substantiate a violation of the right to one’s lawful judge that is equivalent to a fundamental right (Art. 101(1) second sentence of the Basic Law). The complainant fails to analyse, in a sufficiently clear manner, the standards developed by the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the prerequisites for a violation of the duty of referral that amounts to a violation of the right to one’s lawful judge.
ee） 就申訴人聲稱聯邦法院違反了《歐盟運作條約》第267（3）條規定的移交義務之主張，其未能充分證明案涉行為侵犯了與基本權利（《基本法》第101（1）條第二句）等同的獲得合法法官的權利。針對法院違反移交義務之行為能否等同於對獲得合法法官的權利之侵害，申訴人未能以足夠清晰的方式分析聯邦法院所建立的標準。
ff) To the extent that the complainant asserts that the Federal Court of Justice violated Art. 101(1) second sentence of the Basic Law by not referring the case to the Federal Constitutional Court under Art. 100(2) of the Basic Law, the complainant fails to meet the applicable substantiation requirements. Proceedings under Art. 100(2) of the Basic Law are only interim proceedings to determine whether a general rule of international law is part of federal law. They do not concern the application of such a rule to a specific case.
ff） 申訴人主張聯邦最高法院未根據《基本法》第100（2）條將案件提交聯邦憲法法院，從而違反了《基本法》第101（1）條第2句，但申訴人未能滿足前述法律規範適用的前提。根據《基本法》第100（2）條進行的程式，僅是為了確定某項國際法的規範是否被認為是聯邦法律的一部分。但該程式並不涉及將此類規則適用於具體案件。
（圖片來源於網路）
2
案號2 BvR 141/22
II. In proceedings 2 BvR 141/22, the complainant fails to plausibly show that its rights were directly affected by the challenged act of approval. The fact that the act of approval ratifies the provisions of the Termination Agreement terminating the bilateral investment treaties listed in the relevant annex does not directly affect the complainant. It is not sufficiently clear to what extent the German act of approval is supposed to affect the termination of the Treaty, which was concluded between the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Pursuant to Art. 4(2) in conjunction with Art. 16(2) of the Termination Agreement, bilateral investment treaties to which the Termination Agreement applies are effectively terminated if ‘the relevant Contracting Parties’ have ratified, approved or accepted the Termination Agreement.
II.在2 BvR 141/22的案件中，申訴人未能合理證明其權利因案涉批准法案而受到直接影響。批准法案批准了《終止協議》的條款，終止了相關附件中列出的雙邊投資條約，但這並未直接影響申訴人。申訴人未能明確案涉批准法案在多大程度上會影響斯洛伐克與荷蘭之間簽訂的條約的終止。根據《終止協議》第4（2）條與第16（2）條的規定，適用《終止協議》的雙邊投資條約在‘相關締約方’批准、認可或接受終止協議後即被有效終止。
The Treaty is terminated because the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic have ratified the Termination Agreement. The fact that the Federal Republic of Germany ratified the Termination Agreement has no effect on the Treaty. Even if the Federal Republic of Germany had not ratified the Termination Agreement, this would be of no consequence for the termination of the Treaty. The result would also be the same if the German act of approval had been in violation of constitutional law, EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights and if it had thus been reversed by the Federal Constitutional Court.
條約的終止是因為荷蘭和斯洛伐克已批准《終止協議》。德國批准《終止協議》這一事實對條約沒有影響。即使德意志聯邦共和國未批准《終止協議》，這對《條約》的終止也不會產生任何影響。即便德國的批准法案違反了憲法、歐盟法律或《歐洲人權公約》，並因此被聯邦憲法法院撤銷，本案結果不會發生改變。
原文連結：
https://arbitration.org/sites/default/files/awards/arb10219.pdf