Bibliographie sélective OHADA

In the case Micula A.O. v. Romania, the arbitration tribunal established under the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) sentenced Romania to pay a compensation for the revocation of investment incentives and for the breach of fair and equitable treatment principle that had been laid down in a bilateral investment treaty between Sweden and Romania. Considering investment incentives as a breach of the EU regulations regarding state aids, the European Commission then rendered a directive, prohibiting the enforcement of the arbitration award by the member states. As articles 53 and 54 of ICSID emphasize that the awards are binding, the EU Commission’s act of rendering the aforementioned directive, and the member states refusal to comply with the award equals to giving the EU law primacy over international law, which should be considered as a breach of their international obligations. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to explain the viewpoints of the parties and the courts which were asked to enforce the award, as well as to determine the nature of their acts.