Activities of Pascal DURAND related to 2014/2228(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Demands that the main outcome of the negotiations be an ambitious and comprehensive agreement, bringing a significant market opening for EU companies, including SMEs;~~deleted

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Recital A - Point a (new)

Aa. whereas in its Opinion 1/09 the CJEU stated that the creation of dispute- resolution mechanisms outside of the European Union’s institutional and judicial framework which would deprive courts of Member States of their powers in relation to the interpretation and application of European Union law and the Court of its powers to reply, by preliminary ruling, to questions referred by those courts and would alter the essential character of the powers which the Treaties confer on the institutions of the European Union and on the Member States and which are indispensable to the preservation of the very nature of European Union law, and would thus be incompatible with the Treaties;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Recital A - Point b (new)

Ab. whereas in its Opinion 2/13 the CJEU stated that the competence of the EU in the field of international relations and its capacity to conclude international agreements necessarily entail the power to submit to the decisions of a court which is created or designated by such agreements as regards the interpretation and application of their provisions; whereas the Court nevertheless also declared that an international agreement may affect its own powers only if the indispensable conditions for safeguarding the essential character of those powers are satisfied and, consequently, there is no adverse effect on the autonomy of the EU legal order.

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas investment protection provisions and investor state dispute settlement are a~~n essential~~ tool in international economic relations ~~and are very important for investment activity,~~ and whereas a balanced relationship between the necessary and effective protection of investors, the right of States to regulate and an appropriate dispute settlement procedure is fundamental;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Recital A - Point c (new)

Ac. whereas on 10 September 2014 the Commission refused to register the CEI Stop TTIP, considering it to fall outside the framework of the Commission's powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties; whereas a ‘Stop TTIP’ initiative has since been launched outside of the procedure laid down in Regulation 211/2011 and has already gathered more than one million signatures;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas President Juncker has clearly stated in his Political Guidelines that he will not accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the Member States is limited by special regimes for investor disputes; whereas now that the results of the public consultation on investment protection and ISDS in the TTIP are available, a reflection process – taking account of the mostly very critical and constructive contributions – is needed within and between the three European institutions on the best way to achieve investment protection and equal treatment of investors without the use of the ISDS mechanism;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas serious doubts exist regarding the compatibility of the planned ISDS provisions with the principles of autonomy, unity and effectiveness of EU as they have been interpreted by the Court of Justice;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1. - Point (d) - Subpoint (i.)

i.) to specify the role and the legal quality of the Regulatory Cooperation Council’s findings, taking into consideration that any direct application of its recommendations for the relevant EU instances would imply a breach of the law-making procedures laid down in the Treaties; and of the subsidiarity principle in case of any direct application of its recommendations for the national and local authorities of the Member States;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas nine EU Member States have concluded bilateral investment protection agreements with the USA granting US undertakings the right to bring complaints against those Member States, and whereas bilateral agreements between EU Member States contain numerous ISDS clauses;deleted

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1.- Point(d) - Subpoint (ii.)

ii.) while the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is an appropriate tool to protect investors and assure that investments are treated in a fair and non- discriminatory way, to oversee that it does not undermine the capacity of European, national and local authorities to legislate their own policies, in particular social and environmental policies, and therefore respect the constitutional framework of the Member Statesnot to support the inclusion of any kind of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and thus maintain the EU’s institutional and juridical framework; to work towards producing a permanent solution for resolving disputes between investors and states under trade agreements, for example the creation of a permanent multilateral court;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas international agreements are a basis for legal certainty and predictability and whereas there have been many cases in which the EU and other States have brought legal action against the USA under the aegis of the WTO because the USA was believed to have failed to comply with its international obligations;deleted

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a

a. Considers that the Commission’s proposals for reform initiatives relating to investment protection accord with the European Parliament resolution on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)); observes, however, that the reservations felt by the public should be taken into account in these reforms;deleted

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1. - Point (d) - Subpoint (ii.) c (new)

ii.)c to refer the matter to the CJEU for its opinion on the compatibility of the TTIP with Union law before submitting it for approval pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Is convinced, however, that TTIP should not only cut down barriers but also aim at promoting European high levels of consumer protection; observes~~ensure that TTIP does not ultimately reduce the high levels of protection enjoyed by consumers in Europe and the United States or call into question the ability of the public authorities on both sides of the Atlantic to adopt or modify the rules which govern the marketing of products or the provision of services, public procurement and the protection and development of public services; given that in most sectors EU and US standards and regulatory environments ensure this high level~~; considers~~, ensure, therefore, that any approximatingon of our regulations ~~represents a unique chance to establish~~does not come at the expense of high-quality standards and laws for consumers which ~~will b~~could become the de facto international standards;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Article 1. - Point (e) - Subpoint (iii.)

iii.) while a certain extent of confidentiality is ~~necessary for effective~~admissible during negotiations on a trade agreement of such high economic and political importance, to continue its effort to render TTIP negotiations more transparent and accessible to the public, as European institutions should be at the forefront of promoting transparency;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b

~~b. Observes that the reforms incorporated in CETA for mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors represent the right approach and must be developed further for TTIP;~~deleted

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Article 1.- Point (e) - Subpoint (iii.) b (new)

iii.)b to inform the European Parliament immediately and fully of all steps in the procedure, in accordance with CJEU judgment in Case C-358/11; to ensure all MEPs have access to all restricted documents and include the consolidated texts in the list of documents consultable by MEPs;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

ba. Observes that to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non- discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances can be achieved without the inclusion in TTIP of investment protection standards and an ISDS mechanism; is of the firm opinion that a possible TTIP agreement should not contain any investment protection standards and ISDS mechanism as the given level of investment protection in the EU and the US is fully sufficient to guarantee legal security;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c

c. Observes that existing dispute settlement mechanisms work well but also display weaknesses and that therefore improvements are needed and they must be modernised in order to improve their legitimacy and the institutionalisation of mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors, so that they can then also be taken as a model for other partnerships;deleted

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

ca. Calls on to Commission to oppose the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism in TTIP given the EU's and the United States' developed legal systems and that a state- to-state dispute settlement system, and the use of national legal and judicial systems are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputes;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1.- Point (e) -subpoint (vi.) -e- (new)

vi)e – to engage in political dialogue on the TTIP with EU citizens, in particular by treating the Stop TTIP initiative as an official CEI, i.e. by receiving the organisers at an appropriate level, publishing its political and legal conclusions on the subject and working with the European Parliament to ensure that a public hearing is arranged;

2015/03/06
Committee: AFCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d

d. Calls on the Commission, in this context, to take account ~~of and to supplement,~~ firstly, the ~~constructive~~ contributions made by the public consultation on TTIP, and, secondly, the dispute settlement mechanisms incorporated in CETA, in order to establish clear structures, impartial procedures, a lawful pool of judges selected by States and a code of conduct for judges, to increase the transparency and legitimacy of such dispute settlement procedures, to limit the scope for legal action in order to prevent forum shopping, to maintain the democratic legitimacy of national and European legislatures for amendments to legislation with defined standards and levels and to assess the feasibility of establishing a permanent court and a multilateral appeal system in TTIPnot to support the inclusion of any kind of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and thus maintain the EU's institutional and judicial framework; to work towards producing a permanent solution for resolving disputes between investors and states under trade agreements, for example through the creation of a permanent multilateral court of judges;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e

e. Calls on the Commission to ensure that investors from the EU are not disadvantaged in the USA, including in relation to investors from other third States (such as Canada, Mexico, China, India and TPP States), which already now, or in future on the basis of negotiations currently under way, enjoy investor protection and have access to mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors;deleted

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Insists, while respecting the freedom of governments to protect public services,~~safeguard the freedom of governments to protect and develop public services, to define their scope, to organise and fund them as they see fit, and to choose and change the method of provision and the ownership arrangements, in keeping with the subsidiarity principle; as regards the sectors explicitly included in the scope of the agreement, ensure that EU service providers ~~must~~ have full market access to liberalised services in the US, under transparent rules, set by the authorities in the place of provision, at both federal and sub-federal levels;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)

ea. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to the CJEU for its opinion on the compatibility of the TTIP Agreement and more specifically on the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) with Union law, before submitting it for approval pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. given the importance, for local and regional authorities in particular, of maintaining high-quality public services, seek a global exemption from the scope of the TTIP for all public services and urge the two Parties to give a clear undertaking to that effect in a joint declaration;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. ensure that the exemption for public services is not confined to sovereign tasks, such as public security, but covers all services of general interest which receive any form of public support, in particular social services, health, education, culture and postal services;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f

f. Calls on the Commission to ensure that in ~~the future dispute settlement mechanism in~~ TTIP it is guaranteed that decisions on individual cases will not replace the national law of the contracting parties which is in force or render it ineffective, and that amendments by future legislation – provided that they are not made retroactive – cannot be contested under ~~such a dispute settlement mechanism~~any TTIP provisions;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. urge that all sectors excluded from the scope of the EU Services Directive, in particular health, social and audiovisual services, should also be excluded from the scope of the TTIP negotiations;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. ensure that all water-related services (production, distribution and treatment) are excluded from the scope of the TTIP;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point g

g. Calls on the Commission to ensure that clearly defined rules on regulatory coherence are comprehensively incorporated in TTIP and that the regulatory cooperation chapter applies only to clearly specified sectoral areas and that Parliament´s role within the EU`s decision-making process and its democratic scrutiny over EU regulatory processes is fully respected;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3e. as regards purely commercial services, ensure that the negotiations are based on a positive list of sectors which are included, rather than a negative list, and ensure that it is possible at any time for the public authorities to re-establish public control over liberalised sectors;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3f. ensure that the TTIP does not call into question the principle of ‘economic needs tests’, which are useful regulatory tools for the public authorities in some sectors;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Calls for mutual recognition of professional qualifications between the Parties and for the abolition~~Ensure that any progress made between the Parties as regards mutual recognition of professional qualifications in no way undermines the ability of the public authorities of a work ~~permit requirements for high-skilled workers in sectors covered by TTIP, so as to create maximum mobility of professionals between the EU and the US~~er’s country of residence to lay down rules and procedures in this area, so as to encourage mobility of professionals between the EU and the US without compromising the application of the general interest rules laid down by the competent authorities;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i

i. Notes that TTIP gives contracting parties the option ~~of increasing protection of i~~to ensure that the Intellectual pProperty~~, including in relation to third States.~~ Rights (IPR) chapter of TTIP includes provisions only for precisely and clearly defined areas of IPR where a common minimal denominator can be identified, while continuing to confirm the existing flexibilities in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), notably in the area of public health;

2015/03/27
Committee: JURI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Urges the Commission to ensure that European companies, including SMEs,~~Ensure that the new European rules adopted when the public procurement directives were revised are safeguarded and promoted in the negotiations, in particular as regards SMU access to public procurement, the use of award criteria based on value for money, not the lowest prices, the setting-aside of contracts for social economy operators, the possibility for contracting authorities to cooperate as inter-municipal associations and the thresholds below which public procurement is not subject to European or international rules; guarantee that European companies are not discriminated against when tendering for public contracts on the US market at all government levels, and ~~to ensure~~enjoy transparent access at a level equal to ~~or higher than~~ that applying to US companies today in Europe under the new EU procurement rules;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. enforce the right of contracting authorities, when awarding public procurement contracts, to give preference to local suppliers, with a view to minimising the impact on the environment;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. ensure that public-private partnerships are excluded from the scope of the negotiations, given their importance for the public authorities as a tool, in particular in the area of local development;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. ensure that concession contracts are excluded from the scope of the negotiations, given their importance for the public authorities as a tool, by virtue of the long periods for which they are generally concluded;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Stresses that, while safeguard~~To maintaing the protection achieved by EU standards and regulations~~, TTIP should go beyond the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, in areas such a~~ and the possibility for the EU legislator, in accordance with the principle of democratic accountability, to continue to adopt and improve these standards and regulations as it sees fit, especially in the areas of the environment, social matters, health, safety, consumer protection and cultural diversity, and in particular as regards conformity assessment, product requirements, or standards, as well as ~~providing for transparency~~ in the preparation and availability of technical regulations;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Calls for the setting-up of an ambitious and effective~~To ensure that cooperation ~~mechanism~~ aimed at creating common standards where possible in existing procedures, and ~~to ensure that there is no unintended divergence in future standards in key sectors; believes that EU-US common standards should be promoted~~in key sectors covered by TTIP does not lead to the setting-up of a mechanism which undermines the right of the competent authorities to regulate; to promote stringent quality, safety and consumer protection standards which, wherever possible, are common to the EU and the US, in all international forums;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. To safeguard the role of the European Parliament in the EU legislative process, including as regards impact assessments and delegated and implementing acts, and its right to verify implementation of such legislation;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. ETo emphasises that internationally agreed standards, where existing and up-to-date, should be adopted by the US and the EU, for example in the electronic devices sector, and that they must be consistent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. To reject the ISDS dispute settlement mechanism in that it would in fact lead to justice being privatised and would undermine the right of the competent authorities to regulate by exposing them to the threat of legal proceedings by private investors; to reject ISDS in particular in the light of the threat it would pose to the legal certainty of public procurement contracts in the EU;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Recalls~~To ensure, in view of the aim to continue to guarantee a high level of product safety within the Union~~; considers~~, that TTIP ~~should~~does not question this requirement~~, but should eliminate unnecessary dupli~~ and that testing and market surveillance measures are based on the precaution ~~of testing that causes~~ary principle, that they are necessary and that they do not lead to a waste of resources, in particular on low-risk products; ~~demands~~to call for the recognition by the US of self- declaration of conformity on products, where allowed by EU law;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Supports~~To see to it that in the establishment of a ~~mandatory~~ structural dialogue and cooperation between regulators, in ~~complete respect of regulatory autonomy, in particular in the engineering sector, comprising electrical and mechanical machinery, appliances and equipment;~~cluding on technical procedures linked to delegated and implementing acts in the sectors TTIP covers, regulatory autonomy is fully upheld, something which may be achieved through exchanges between the competent authorities when the regulations are drawn up; to make sture~~sses~~, however, that this ~~should involve early warning mechanisms and exchanges at the time of preparation of regulations; believes that regulatory divergen~~cooperation does not increase the administrative burden on EU and Member State institutions by adding unnecessary procedures or structures, that it does not slow down the legislative process arend th~~e central non-tariff barrier (NTB) to trade, and~~at it does not create a risk of regulatory standstill; to make sure that regulators s~~hould explore~~tudy ways to promote compatibility, such as ~~mutual recognition,~~ harmonisation or alignment upwards of requirements, as regulatory divergences, when they do not reflect public interest explicitly set by the competent authorities, may be a non-tariff barrier (NTB) to trade;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that the recognition of equivalence of the greatest possible number of vehicle safety regulations would be one of the most important achievements of TTIP; stresses that this will require verifying that the EU and US regulations provide for a similar level of protection; believes that this mustTo verify that EU and US regulations provide for equivalent levels of protection, as harmonisation or convergence upwards of the greatest possible number of vehicle safety regulations would be one of the most important achievements of TTIP, and this would be a step towards full regulatory convergence for the sector; ~~urges~~to advocate the strengthening of EU-US cooperation in the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), especially regarding new technologies;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Stresses~~Given that SMEs are disproportionately affected by NTBs, which TTIP must seek to reduce or eliminate ~~completely;~~, to urges that a coherent framework be established to allow SMEs to raise NTB issues with the appropriate authorities;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Expects~~To ensure that the agreement to makes it easier for SMEs to participate in transatlantic trade and reduce costs by modernising, digitising, simplifying and streamlining procedures, and by raising the de minimis threshold for customs duties and non-randomised controls;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. To make sure that the question of intellectual property rights, including copyright, trademarks and patents, is not included in the negotiations, as neither the Member States nor the EU have adopted comprehensive harmonisation measures for these matters;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. To make sure that data protection is not included in the negotiations, so as to abide by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13c. To make sure that measures on encryption are not included in the negotiations, so that the European Union’s high standards can be updated and constantly improved;

2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO