17 Amendments of Dietmar KÖSTER related to 2018/0095M(NLE)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas Singapore is the eighth largest destination for EU foreign direct investment and the first in the ASEAN region; whereas,according to expert NGOs such as the Tax Justice Network Singapore continues to offer a range of secrecy offerings; full tax exemption for foreign-sourced income received in Singapore by any individual not resident in Singapore; absence of capital gains, gift or estate taxes; quasi-territorial tax system that exempts from individual income tax all foreign-sourced income not remitted to Singapore; wide array of tax treaties with other countries and, partly, as a result of this, has become a major turntable for so-called "round tripping" with India;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas there is no empirical evidence of the need of such systems for the protection of investors and of the positive link with foreign direct investment flows;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas it is arguable whether developed economies with properly functioning judiciary systems should need tot avail themselves of investor- state dispute settlement mechanisms;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas non-discriminatory treatment of foreign investors can be achieved without the inclusion of an ISDS/ICS mechanism; Given the EU’s and the Singapore´s developed legal systems such a mechanism is not necessary;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Parties committed to pursuing a multilateral investment court, an initiative strongly supported by Parliament if ambitious transparency, ethical and fairness requirements are met;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the EU’s new approach to investment protection and its enforcement mechanism (ICS), which has replaced the highly controversial investor- to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in order to address some of its procedural flaws;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the agreement will ensure a high level of investment protection while safeguarding t; regrets that a similar level of ambition has not been reached for the enforcement of sustainable development provisions; Expects that the right oft he Parties’ right to regulate and pursue legitimate public policy objectives, such as public health and environmental protection; will be fully safeguarded; stresses that if a party regulates in a manner that negatively affects an investment or interferes with an investor’s expectations of profits this does not amount to a breach of investment protection standards and hence does not require any compensation
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Recalls that there is no evidence for a parallel judicial system in trade and investment deals between highly developed legal systems; Stresses that existing levels of protection in the EU and Singapore should offer enough legal guarantees for investors
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that third parties such as labour and environmental organisations can contribute to ICS proceedings through amicus curiae briefs; Demands that investor rights should be balanced by an equivalent legal mechanism accessible by trade unions and other stakeholders to enforce the investors obligations; Points out that the amicus curiae does not seek to address this imbalance; Underlines that the investment court still constitutes a separate system for foreign investors only;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the agreement represents an improvement on the investment protection provisions in CETA, as it incorporates provisions on obligations for former judges, a code of conduct to prevent conflicts of interests and a fully functioning Appellate Tribunal at the time of its conclusion; Regrets that the European Parliament was not involved in defining the detailed rules of conduct applicable to candidates for appointment as members of the tribunal or the appellate tribunal and the sanction mechanism in the event of non- compliance with the rules of conduct in order to fully respect independence of their judicial power
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. WelcomesTakes note of Singapore’s commitment to the multilateral investment court, a public international court which shouldall be empowered to hear disputes on investments between investors and states that will have accepted its jurisdiction over their bilateral investment treaties, and whose ultimate goal ismust be to overcome the current, unbalanced and fragmented investment protection regime; considers the agreement a crucial stepping stone towards that end;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Underlines that there is no empirical evidence of the need of such systems for the protection of investors or of the positive link with foreign direct investment flows; therefore no correlation between foreign direct investment and investment protection is found;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Highlights that the agreement will replace the existing bilateral investment treaties between 13 EU Member States and Singapore, which are based on outdated investment protection provisions and include the controversial ISDS; considers that this constitutes an important step in reforming global rules on investment dispute settlement and, it is hoped, will progressively lead to the removal of ISDS from bilateral investment treaties but will also create new rights for investors’ claims in 15 member states, exposing such countries to new financial risk;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Regrets the lack of provisions on investors’ obligations, including binding corporate social responsibility standards; calls on the Commission to propose legislation laying down mandatory and enforceable due diligence standards in sectors other than conflict minerals and timber, such as the garment industry;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets that a global approach to corporations’ compliance with human rights law and the availability of remedy mechanisms are lacking; Warmly welcomes the work initiated in the UN by the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights on the establishment of a binding UN instrument; cCalls on the Commission andfor a binding treaty to include mechanisms for coordination among states on investigating and prosecuting cross- border cases, and proposes companies are accountable for human rights violations in the forum where the harm was caused, or the forum where the parent company or subsidiary is incorporated. Urges the EU and Member States to engage genuinely and constructively in the negotiations;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Recalls that the Belgian government has requested the ECJ an opinion on the compatibility of ICS with the EU legal framework; therefore suspends its consent procedure until the ECJ has issued its opinion on this matter;