Brussels, 01/03/2016 (Agence Europe) - Although the major political groups of the European Parliament - EPP, S&D, ECR and ALDE - welcomed the announcement by the Commission and the Canadian government, on Monday 29 February, of the end of the “legal scrubbing” of the text EU/Canada free-trade agreement (CETA) and an agreement on a new approach to the protection of investments, dissenting voices from the S&D, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups reiterated their opposition to a system for the protection of investors.
The rapporteur for CETA, Latvia's Artis Pabriks (EPP), welcomed the “most ambitious and modern agreement” on investment protection. “The EU and Canada have agreed to further strengthen the government's right to regulate, the cases will be addressed in a permanent and transparent dispute settlement tribunal, and equally an agreement has been reached on the appeal mechanism. I trust that the concerns expressed earlier on investment protection have now been addressed and I truly hope we will be able to ratify CETA agreement in the EP this year”, he added.
British S&D member David Martin hailed this “success” for his group, which lobbied against the old ISDS investor/state dispute settlement mechanism. “This is the first step to renew and modernise investment protection clauses in trade agreements between democratic states with a well-functioning legal system”, he added.
Belgium's Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE) warmly congratulated the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and the Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, on their “liberal success”, adding that CETA paves the way for a “more fair and transparent” investor/state dispute settlement system.
On behalf of the Greens/EFA group, Germany's Ska Keller criticises the fact that the final text maintains “undemocratic” investor-state arbitration tribunals, despite strong criticism from civil society. Despite procedural changes in the selection of judges, “unilateral private actions against democratic decisions will still be possible (…). At the same time, unprecedented rights of foreign investors will be set in stone. The codification of the principle of investors' 'legitimate expectations' gives investors the right to take action against any change in legislation”, she lamented, slamming the decision as tantamount to setting up a parallel legal system in which domestic companies would have to go to ordinary courts while foreign investors go via a separate court.
Even though the Commission “was forced to rewrite the chapter on investor protection” to build in greater transparency and limit the abuse of the ISDS, “the basic principle remains: corporations may sue governments if they see their profit expectations threatened by a new law and, to this end, they are provided with a separate legal path using a tribunal which is not bound by the legal and constitutional systems of the 29 states participating in CETA. By agreeing to this system, the Canadian government and the EU Commission are declaring that they have no confidence in the rule of law of its partners”, said Germany's Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL).
Dissenting voices of the S&D group also called the new approach into question. “The Commission is tricking the citizens with its smoke and mirrors once again. The ICS permanent court system to replace the ISDS has been rejected by the largest association of German magistrates (DRB), which sees neither a legal basis or a need for it, as it is up to the member states to secure access to justice for all and to guarantee possible access for investors by providing the courts with the relevant resources. The DRB also casts serious doubt on the independence of the judges, as neither the procedure proposed for the selection of the judges of the ICS nor their statute meets the international criteria to guarantee the independence of the courts”, stresses Belgium's Marie Arena (our translation). Emmanuel Maurel also spoke out against this “sleight of hand”. “The changes proposed, at best cosmetic, are basically not enough to change the profoundly anti-democratic nature of CETA. The national jurisdictions, in Canada and the EU alike, are perfectly capable of ruling on disputes of this kind”, he concluded. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)