This week, the Committee on International Trade of the European Parliament yet again discussed the Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA) as well as EU Investment policy.

The agenda of this week's Trade Committee included among other the travel report of the ad-hoc delegation to Canada. The delegation held talks with representatives of civil society, economy and trade unions as well as with the Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland and the Standing Committee on International Trade of the Canadian Parliament. The chairman of the Committee for International Trade in the European Parliament, Bernd Lange, pointed out that the addition of the revised ICS chapter on investment protection had positively solved many critical issues in Canada. Overall, the reaction of all political forces concerning the Agreement with the EU had been very positive.

Director Rupert Schlegelmilch, DG Trade, who, in his capacity as a representative of the Commission had been invited to deal with agenda item “EU Investment Policy”, answered questions of the Committee members. Among other, the discussion touched on questions on Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) within the EU and the investment protection regime of the Energy Charta. According to Schlegelmilch, the Commission has adopted a clear line regarding BITs: no co-existence with existing EU treaties. For this reason, five infringement proceedings had already been initiated; overall, there would currently be about 200 BITs. Referring to the Energy Charta, he pointed out that the status quo would lead to many problems. Investment protection rules would now also be applied within the EU; hence, lawsuits had no longer anything to do with the original intention. He referred to the mandate given for revision, which would require a lot of time.

The discussion mainly focussed on the Investment Court System (ICS), which would replace the Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), whereby all known arguments for pro and against were presented. A controversial point between MEPs is still the question in how far investment protection does lead to more investments altogether or whether investment protection is at all necessary for agreements between countries with developed legal systems. Another issue, which is still hotly discussed concerns the question whether ICS represents an improvement over ISDS or whether one is only dealing with old wine in new tubes. There is still no doubt for the Commission: investors need foreseeable framework conditions and these are only provided by an Investment Protection System. Replying to the question, why one would only ever speak of the rights but never of the duties of investors, Schlegelmilch said that the responsibility would lie with individual states.

Further information:

AK Position Paper „Investmentcourt System“ ICS - Draft of the European Commission on Chapter II - Investment for TTIP

AK Position Paper EU Trade and Investment Agreements TTIP and CETA

CEO: Zombie ISDS Synopsis

CETA: EU and Canada agree on “new” approach on investment