Julien Berger is a lawyer specialized in public international law and the law of the European Union. He completed his legal studies at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and holds a Maître en Droit (Paris II – Panthéon-Assas), a Magister Juris (University of Oxford) as well as a PhD from the Universität Potsdam. Julien Berger is currently completing his legal clerkship at the Higher Regional Court of Berlin.

• Introduction1. Setting the stage I. European foreign direct investment II. Development of international investment law – A European story III. International investment law within the EU – Unexpected difficulties 2. Comparison of the investment protection regimes I. Introduction II. Scope of application III. Substantive protection IV Procedural protection V. Conclusion 3. Conflict between intra-EU IIAs and EU law I. Nature of EU law and its relationship to public international law II. Alleged invalidity of intra-EU BITs III. Incompatibility of intra-EU BITs with EU law IV. Energy Charter Treaty and EU law V. Result 4. What future for intra-EU investor protection? I. Introduction II. Termination of intra-EU BITs III. Energy Charter Treaty IV. Effects on EU member state courts and other domestic courts V. Effects on investment arbitration proceedings VI. Why a substitute might be necessary VII. Possible substitutes VIII. Assessment General conclusion

Julien Berger is a lawyer specialized in public international law and the law of the European Union. He completed his legal studies at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and holds a Maître en Droit (Paris II – Panthéon-Assas), a Magister Juris (University of Oxford) as well as a PhD from the Universität Potsdam. Julien Berger is currently completing his legal clerkship at the Higher Regional Court of Berlin.

• Introduction1. Setting the stage I. European foreign direct investment II. Development of international investment law – A European story III. International investment law within the EU – Unexpected difficulties 2. Comparison of the investment protection regimes I. Introduction II. Scope of application III. Substantive protection IV Procedural protection V. Conclusion 3. Conflict between intra-EU IIAs and EU law I. Nature of EU law and its relationship to public international law II. Alleged invalidity of intra-EU BITs III. Incompatibility of intra-EU BITs with EU law IV. Energy Charter Treaty and EU law V. Result 4. What future for intra-EU investor protection? I. Introduction II. Termination of intra-EU BITs III. Energy Charter Treaty IV. Effects on EU member state courts and other domestic courts V. Effects on investment arbitration proceedings VI. Why a substitute might be necessary VII. Possible substitutes VIII. Assessment General conclusion

Julien Berger is a lawyer specialized in public international law and the law of the European Union. He completed his legal studies at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and holds a Maître en Droit (Paris II – Panthéon-Assas), a Magister Juris (University of Oxford) as well as a PhD from the Universität Potsdam. Julien Berger is currently completing his legal clerkship at the Higher Regional Court of Berlin.

• Introduction1. Setting the stage I. European foreign direct investment II. Development of international investment law – A European story III. International investment law within the EU – Unexpected difficulties 2. Comparison of the investment protection regimes I. Introduction II. Scope of application III. Substantive protection IV Procedural protection V. Conclusion 3. Conflict between intra-EU IIAs and EU law I. Nature of EU law and its relationship to public international law II. Alleged invalidity of intra-EU BITs III. Incompatibility of intra-EU BITs with EU law IV. Energy Charter Treaty and EU law V. Result 4. What future for intra-EU investor protection? I. Introduction II. Termination of intra-EU BITs III. Energy Charter Treaty IV. Effects on EU member state courts and other domestic courts V. Effects on investment arbitration proceedings VI. Why a substitute might be necessary VII. Possible substitutes VIII. Assessment General conclusion