Arbitral Tribunals and Preliminary References to the EU Court of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two recent preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) recognizing certain arbitral tribunals as ‘court[s] or tribunal[s] of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU open the way for a closer cooperation between arbitration and the Court in matters of interpretation of EU law. This article presents the facts and the holdings of the Court in Merck Canada and Ascendi and discusses the reasons for which in declaring the preliminary references in these cases admissible the Court distanced itself from its traditional case-law on the matter. It is then argued that arbitral tribunals hearing investment disputes, either ad hoc or under the auspices of arbitral institutions, may qualify as ‘court[s] or tribunal[s] of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU and thus be empowered to submit references for preliminary rulings to the Court.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".