Activities of Virginie ROZIÈRE related to 2014/2228(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (A8-0175/2015 - Bernd Lange) FR
Amendments (23)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas investment protection provisions and investor state dispute settlement are an 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 fundamentalor state dispute settlement should not occur outside of a legal framework imposed by a state governed by rule of law;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the European Union and the USA have efficient national legal frameworks and are governed by rule of law;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
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 numeroussome ISDS clauses;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas nothing can justify granting a particular category of people, in this instance investors, inordinate rights under ordinary law;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
a. ConsiderStresses 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 byreservations felt by experts, politicians and the public should be taken into account in these reforms;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
aa. Stresses that the democratic legitimacy of the EUʼs trade policy needs to be strengthened; calls on the Commission to take account of responses to the public consultation it conducted and especially the 97 % of responses opposed to an ISDS;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
b. Observes that treating local and foreign investors equitably is not possible under 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;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
c. ObserveConsiders 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 partnershipdisplay a great many weaknesses;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d
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 TTIP not to establish a dispute settlement mechanism;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Insists, while respecting the freedom of governments to protect public services, that EU service providers must have full market access to liberalised services in the US, under transparent, fair rules at both federal and sub-federal levels;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
e. Calls on the Commission to ensure that foreign investors from the EU are not disadvantaged in the USA, including in relation to investors from other third States (such as Canada, Mexicoare treated in a non- discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, Cwhina, India and TPP States), which already now, or in future on the basis of negotiations currently under way, enjoyle benefiting from no greater rights than domestic investors; to oppose the inclusion of ISDS in TTIP, as other options to enforce investorment protection and have access to mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investorre available, such as domestic remedies;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
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 European Union law or the national law of the contracting parties which is in force or render ithem ineffective, and that amendments by future legislation – provided that they are not made retroactive – cannot be contested under such a dispute settlement mechanism;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point h
Paragraph 1 – point h
h. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the adoption of national legislation continues to be performed exclusively by legitimate legislative bodies of the EU and the USA and that the Regulatory Cooperation Body is not assigned any legislative powers but serves purely for purposes of cooperation, and information exchange and supervision of the implementation of TTIP provisions;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
i. NotesCalls on the Commission to ensure that TTIP gives contracting parties the option of increasing protection of intellectual property, including in relation to third States;.
Amendment 127 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that, while safeguarding the protection achieved by EU standards and regulations for consumers, social rights and the environment, TTIP should go beyond the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, in areas such as conformity assessment, product requirements, or standards, as well as providing for transparency in the preparation and availability of technical regulations;
Amendment 140 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the setting-up of an ambitious and effective cooperation mechanism aimed at creating common standards where possible, and without undermining protection of consumers, social rights or the environment, 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 all international forums;
Amendment 163 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Recalls the aim to continue to guarantee a high level of product safety within the Union; considers that TTIP should not questionuphold this requirement, but shouldmay make it possible to eliminate unnecessary duplication of testing that causes a waste of resources, in particular on low-risk products; demands the recognition by the US of self- declaration of conformity on products, where allowed by EU law;
Amendment 175 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Supports 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; stresses that this should involve early warning mechanisms and exchanges at the time of preparation of regulations; believes that regulatory divergences are the central non-tariff barrier (NTB) to trade, and that regulators should explore ways to promote compatibility, such as mutual recognition, harmonisation or alignment of requirewhile ensuring that equivalence at the very least is guaranteed in regard to protection of consumers, social rights and the environments;
Amendment 187 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
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, provided that protection of consumers, social rights and the environment is guaranteed; stresses that this will require verifying that the EU and US regulations provide for a similar level of protection; believes that this must be a step towards full regulatory convergence for the sector; urges the strengthening of EU-US cooperation in the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), especially regarding new technologies;
Amendment 194 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that SMEs are disproportionately affected by NTBs, which TTIP must seek to reduce or eliminate completely, while ensuring that equivalence at the very least is guaranteed as regards protection of consumers, social rights and the environment; urges that a coherent framework be established to allow SMEs to raise NTB issues with the appropriate authorities;