{"id":3251,"date":"2020-05-13T14:56:50","date_gmt":"2020-05-13T12:56:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/?p=3251"},"modified":"2024-03-18T11:44:24","modified_gmt":"2024-03-18T09:44:24","slug":"termination-of-intra-eu-bits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/","title":{"rendered":"Termination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post was first published on Kluwer Arbitration Blog on 13 May 2020.\u00a0 See here<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The long-awaited Agreement to terminate intra-EU BITs (bilateral investment treaties)<\/a> was signed on 5 May 2020 (the \u201cTermination Agreement\u201d).\u00a0 According to the European Commission<\/a>, the Termination Agreement \u201cimplements the March 2018 European Court of Justice judgment (Achmea<\/a> case), where the Court found that investor-State arbitration clauses in [intra-EU BITs] are incompatible with EU Treaties.\u201d<\/p>\n

The road the EU has taken to arrive at this point was described in a previous KAB post<\/a>, so the aim of this post is to focus on two controversial provisions and provide some preliminary thoughts on their impact.\u00a0 I will also briefly consider the position and future of the Member States that chose not to sign the Termination Agreement.<\/p>\n

Termination of sunset clauses and pending arbitrations<\/h3>\n

The two provisions of the Termination Agreement that have given and will continue to give rise to attention include (i) Articles 2 and 3, which terminate the sunset clauses in BITs and (ii) Articles 5 and 7, which purport to terminate all arbitrations under them commenced after the Achmea <\/em>judgment<\/a>.\u00a0 The interference with vested rights of third parties in the case of the former, and the arguably retroactive nature of the provision in the latter, renders the validity and application of these provisions suspect, as a matter of international law.<\/p>\n

The Contras<\/em> case (Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States<\/em><\/a>)<\/em>) provides an interesting analogy: Three days before Nicaragua seised the International Court of Justice of its case, the United States purported to qualify its declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36(2) of the Statute by a notification that excluded disputes with Central American states from its scope.\u00a0 The original declaration included a 6-month termination period.\u00a0 The ICJ held that the notification was ineffective, pointing out that the termination notice in the original declaration was \u201cinescapable\u201d (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392, para. 61).\u00a0 The Court emphasised the principle of good faith in arriving at its conclusion (para. 60).<\/p>\n

It may also be worth noting that under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties<\/a>, treaties do not generally produce retroactive effects (Art. 28) and termination of a treaty \u201cdoes not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination\u201d (Art. 70(1)(b)).<\/p>\n

While it is no secret that the EU Commission has disagreed for a long time with the jurisdiction of investment tribunals under intra-EU BITs, it cannot prevent such tribunals from ruling on the validity and effect of these clauses in existing and possible future cases.\u00a0 All it can do is try to influence the outcome (as it has done in numerous cases in the past), most likely by seeking to appear as an amicus curiae<\/em>. \u00a0Ultimately the Commission can bring infringement proceedings before the CJEU against the respondent state, if such arbitrations result in an award that is not to its liking, as it did in the Micula <\/em>case (Cases T\u2011624\/15<\/em>, T\u2011694\/15<\/em> and T\u2011704\/15<\/em>[1]<\/u><\/a>).<\/p>\n

This would not contribute to the coherence of systems of international law (of which EU law is one, even if the Commission and EU lawyers do not always see it that way) or create legal certainty.\u00a0 While the Member States must have taken this risk into account when deciding to sign the Termination Agreement, the same cannot be said for EU investors that may have relied on the additional protection provided by an existing BIT (including its sunset clause) when making their investments. \u00a0Most such investors will not have the appetite or stamina to pursue proceedings under the current uncertain legal regime, leading to the signatories to the Termination Agreement and the Commission having achieved their aims, regardless of the strict legal effect of Articles 2 and 3 of the Termination Agreement.<\/p>\n

By contrast, those that are already involved in arbitrations that have ostensibly been unilaterally terminated (or the jurisdiction of the tribunals hearing them withdrawn) under Articles 5 and 7 may have invested enough in their disputes to wish to see them through, even in light of the serious uncertainties that surround the enforceability of any award that they may obtain.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Signatories \u2013 and not signatories \u2013 to the Termination Agreement<\/h3>\n

It is noteworthy that it has taken the Member States and the Commission over six months from the agreement on the terms of the Termination Agreement<\/a> to its signature.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Presumably the time was needed to try to coax all EU Member States to join the agreement, in which case the attempt appears to have failed.\u00a0 Four Member States have decided not to sign the Termination Agreement: Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden.\u00a0 Ireland has no BITs in force<\/a> (with EU Member States or otherwise), but the other three appear not to have agreed to all the terms of the Termination Agreement and be rather opting for bilateral termination of their individual treaties \u2013 an alternative also provided in the political Declarations of January 2019 (see para. 8 of the Declaration signed by Austria<\/a> and para 8. of the Declaration signed by Finland and Sweden<\/a>).<\/p>\n

It will be interesting to see how those bilateral (termination) treaties differ from the plurilateral Termination Agreement.\u00a0 Sweden, for example, may wish to treat pending arbitrations differently, given its ownership of Vattenfall, even though that case (Vattenfall AB v. Germany<\/em>, ICSID Case No. ARB\/12\/12) would not have been specifically affected, being brought under the Energy Charter Treaty (the \u201cECT\u201d), rather than a BIT.\u00a0 (The Termination Agreement does not apply to the ECT.)\u00a0 While the main difference between the political Declarations is on its face over the ECT, one can also detect broader concerns over \u201cdue process\u201d and interference in ongoing proceedings in the Declaration signed by Finland and Sweden (see p. 3).\u00a0 Overall, the Termination Agreement clearly goes further than the Achmea<\/em> judgment, which may not have been to all Member States\u2019 liking.<\/p>\n

Future terminations may in theory at least also be unilateral, leaving the sunset clauses intact, which could result in further infringement proceedings before the CJEU.<\/p>\n

While the Commission on the whole got its way, it is clear that there is far less agreement among the Member States on the usefulness and legality of intra-EU BITs than the Commission press communications would suggest.<\/p>\n

The UK has also not signed the Termination Agreement, even though its preliminary intention to do so was indicated at the time of the draft agreement, when it was still a Member State.\u00a0 Accordingly, the UK\u2019s existing BITs with EU Member States will remain in force, at least until the future relationship between the UK and the EU is clarified during the ongoing negotiations.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Technically the cases were brought by the Micula brothers and their companies, challenging the Commission\u2019s decision to declare Romania\u2019s partial payment of the sum awarded in ICSID Case ARB\/05\/20 incompatible state aid.\u00a0 The General Court upheld the application in a decision discussed in a KAB post<\/a> by Guillaume Croisant.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> A further option is open for parties to any arbitration proceedings that were commenced but not concluded before the Achmea<\/em> judgment, namely to enter into \u201cstructured dialogue\u201d with a facilitator in order to try to achieve a settlement, under Article 9 of the Termination Agreement.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> The terms of the draft leaked at that time<\/a> are virtually identical to those in the signed version.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post was first published on Kluwer Arbitration Blog on 13 May 2020.\u00a0 See here. The long-awaited Agreement to terminate intra-EU BITs (bilateral investment treaties) was signed on 5 May 2020 (the \u201cTermination Agreement\u201d).\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":2906,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[166],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3251","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-law"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTermination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law | WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Dr. Philipp K. Wagner ist Rechtsanwalt in Berlin, auf Schiedsverfahren und internationales Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisiert und als Mediator qualifiziert.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"de_DE\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Termination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law | WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Dr. Philipp K. Wagner ist Rechtsanwalt in Berlin, auf Schiedsverfahren und internationales Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisiert und als Mediator qualifiziert.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-05-13T12:56:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-03-18T09:44:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/12\/wagner-arbitration-laura-halonen11.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"460\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"katharina\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Verfasst von\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"katharina\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Gesch\u00e4tzte Lesezeit\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6\u00a0Minuten\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"katharina\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/8704d2c26404d31e32b9f2bfa1578d99\"},\"headline\":\"Termination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-13T12:56:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-03-18T09:44:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/\"},\"wordCount\":1228,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"de\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/\",\"name\":\"Termination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law | WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-13T12:56:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-03-18T09:44:24+00:00\",\"description\":\"Dr. Philipp K. Wagner ist Rechtsanwalt in Berlin, auf Schiedsverfahren und internationales Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisiert und als Mediator qualifiziert.\",\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/\",\"name\":\"WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz\",\"description\":\"Die Rechtsanwaltskanzlei WAGNER Arbitration ist auf Streitbeilegung mit Schwerpunkt Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit sowie Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisiert\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"de\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#organization\",\"name\":\"WAGNER Arbitration Berlin\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Wagner-Arbitration-Preview.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Wagner-Arbitration-Preview.jpg\",\"width\":1524,\"height\":1136,\"caption\":\"WAGNER Arbitration Berlin\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/wagner-arbitration\/?originalSubdomain=de\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/8704d2c26404d31e32b9f2bfa1578d99\",\"name\":\"katharina\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e39ad432b3d49e9feb9fa5624010eba?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e39ad432b3d49e9feb9fa5624010eba?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"katharina\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Termination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law | WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz","description":"Dr. Philipp K. Wagner ist Rechtsanwalt in Berlin, auf Schiedsverfahren und internationales Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisiert und als Mediator qualifiziert.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/","og_locale":"de_DE","og_type":"article","og_title":"Termination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law | WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz","og_description":"Dr. Philipp K. Wagner ist Rechtsanwalt in Berlin, auf Schiedsverfahren und internationales Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisiert und als Mediator qualifiziert.","og_url":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/","og_site_name":"WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz","article_published_time":"2020-05-13T12:56:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-03-18T09:44:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":460,"url":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/12\/wagner-arbitration-laura-halonen11.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"katharina","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Verfasst von":"katharina","Gesch\u00e4tzte Lesezeit":"6\u00a0Minuten"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/"},"author":{"name":"katharina","@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/8704d2c26404d31e32b9f2bfa1578d99"},"headline":"Termination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law","datePublished":"2020-05-13T12:56:50+00:00","dateModified":"2024-03-18T09:44:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/"},"wordCount":1228,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Law"],"inLanguage":"de"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/","url":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/","name":"Termination of intra-EU BITs \u2013 Commission and most Member States testing the principle of good faith under international law | WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-05-13T12:56:50+00:00","dateModified":"2024-03-18T09:44:24+00:00","description":"Dr. Philipp K. Wagner ist Rechtsanwalt in Berlin, auf Schiedsverfahren und internationales Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisiert und als Mediator qualifiziert.","inLanguage":"de","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/2020\/05\/13\/termination-of-intra-eu-bits\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/","name":"WAGNER Arbitration Berlin | Dr. Philipp K. Wagner, Dr. Joseph Schwartz","description":"Die Rechtsanwaltskanzlei WAGNER Arbitration ist auf Streitbeilegung mit Schwerpunkt Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit sowie Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisiert","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"de"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#organization","name":"WAGNER Arbitration Berlin","url":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de","@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Wagner-Arbitration-Preview.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Wagner-Arbitration-Preview.jpg","width":1524,"height":1136,"caption":"WAGNER Arbitration Berlin"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/wagner-arbitration\/?originalSubdomain=de"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/8704d2c26404d31e32b9f2bfa1578d99","name":"katharina","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de","@id":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e39ad432b3d49e9feb9fa5624010eba?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3e39ad432b3d49e9feb9fa5624010eba?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"katharina"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3251","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3251"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3251\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2906"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3251"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3251"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wagner-arbitration.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3251"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}