21 Amendments of Kostas CHRYSOGONOS related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas international trade and investment agreements concluded by EU institutions are subject to the rights guaranteed by the EU, and the principles underlying the protection of those rights in the EU, as is the precautionary principle which applies to environmental, health and consumer protection;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas art. 344 TFEU provides that: "Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein";
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Article 1 TEU provides that: "decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen"; article 10 para. 3 TEU provides that: "decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen"; the European Parliament has, according to article 218 (10) TFEU, the right to "be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure" of negotiation and conclusion of agreements between the Union and third countries"; and the European Ombudsman has emphasised in the decision closing her own-initiative inquiry OI/10/2014/RA the need for transparency in TTIP negotiations and public access to TTIP documents;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a – point i (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a – point i (new)
ai. Urges, given the scale of the impact which the TTIP would have on the lives of ordinary Europeans, that a referendum be held in all the EU Member States and that its outcome should be final and should determine whether the negotiations continue or are halted; taking adequate account of the concerns felt by the community at large regarding lowering of standards to the detriment of consumers, protection of public services, the proposed cooperation system and ISDS;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
aa. Demands to suspend the TTIP negotiations and calls on the Commission to conduct a public consultation on the content and goals of the negotiations;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
ba. Calls on the Commission to make publicly accessible the consolidated text versions combining EU and US positions on draft chapters and thereby ensure the equal access to information for all interested stakeholders during all stages of the negotiations;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 58 #
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, toin order to increase the transparency of negotiations and 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;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. Calls on the Commission to ensure that in the futurereject the ISDS 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, since it would de facto lead to justice being privatised and would undermine the right of the competent authorities to regulate by exposing them to the threat amendments by future legislation – provided that they are not made retroactive – cannot be contested under such a dispute settlement mechanismof legal proceedings by private investors and it would threaten legal certainty of public contracts in the EU;
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. Calls on the Commission to ensure that, in the futuref a dispute settlement mechanism in TTIP it is guaranteed thats adopted, its 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;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point g
Paragraph 1 – point g
g. Calls onUrges the Commission to ensure that clearly defined rules on regulatory coherencethe revision clause is included in the agreement to enable the impact of the arrangements agre comprehensively incorporated in TTIPed to be checked and where necessary changed and to be able to terminate the agreement;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point g – point i (new)
Paragraph 1 – point g – point i (new)
gi. Calls on the Commission to make clear to the negotiating partner that the precautionary principle is one of the fundamental principles of European environmental, health and consumer protection policy and is the basis for prompt, proactive negotiations to avoid putting the health of people, animals and plants at risk and damaging the environment; ensure that the negotiations do not result in the diluting of the precautionary principle which operates in the EU, particularly in the areas of environmental, health, food and consumer protection;
Amendment 83 #
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, information exchange and supervision of the implementation of TTIP provisionwith promoting the highest standards of citizens protection, including health, safety, the environment, consumer and workers 'rights, public services of general interest, considers it vital to preserve the sovereignty of the Member States to derogate public and collective services, such as water, health, education, social security, cultural, media matters, product quality and the right of self-government of municipal and local authorities from the scope of TTIP negotiations. Urges the Commission to ensure that any procedures in the context of regulatory cooperation fully respect the legislative competences of the European Parliament and the Council in strict accordance with the EU Treaties and do not delay directly or indirectly the European legislative process;
Amendment 84 #
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, information exchange and supervision of the implementation of TTIP provisions;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
i. Notes that TTIP gives contracting parties the option of increasing protection of intellectual property, including in relation to third States.Calls on the Commission to make sure that the question of IPR, including copyrights, 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;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
ia. Considers that the inclusion of ISDS would be incompatible with the CJEU's exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of EU law;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i b (new)
ib. Stresses the need to release all preparatory documents well before the EP is asked to vote on the final text;