26 Amendments of Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 6 #
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 fo, but no study exists which proves any link between investor state disputes and greater investment activity, and whereas a balanced relationship between the necessary and effective protection of investors, and the right of States to regulate and an appropriate dispute settlement procedurein the public interest is fundamental;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 - point (d) - Subpoint (i.(new) - (precedes point i)
Paragraph 1 - point (d) - Subpoint (i.(new) - (precedes point i)
i. to evaluate the implications of TTIP in order to ensure policy coherence, namely the consistency between the different areas of EU´s external action and between these and its other policies;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1. - Point (d) - Subpoint (i.)
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 the regulatory cooperation should respect the EU current constitutional and institutional framework, the capacity of European, national and local authorities to legislate their own policies, in particular social and environmental policies, and 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;
Amendment 13 #
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 numerous bilateral agreements between EU Member States contain numerous ISDS clauses, but Regulation No 912/2014 states that existing bilateral investment agreements to which Member States are parties are to be replaced by the inclusion of an investment chapter in TTIP, even without ISDS;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
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 actioncomplaints against the USA under the aegis of the WTO, which traditionally uses an inter-state dispute settlement mechanism, because the USA was believed to have failed to comply with its international obligations;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
a. ConsiderObserves 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 reformreservations felt by the public should be reflected in negotiations on trade and investment agreements;
Amendment 35 #
iii.) while a certain extent of confidentiality is necessary for effective negotiations on a trade agreement of such high economic and political importance, to continueto continue and strengthen its effort to render TTIP negotiations more transparent and accessible to the public, as European institutions should be at the forefront of promoting transparency;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
b. Observes that the reforms incorporated in CETA for mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors do not represent the right approach and must be developed furtherare therefore superfluous for TTIP;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
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 partnershipsdisplay serious weaknesses in terms of both procedure and substance;
Amendment 53 #
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;eleted
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 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. Calls on the Commission to ensure that in the case of future dispute settlement mechanisms in TTIPCETA and TTIP and their administrative operation 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;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point g
Paragraph 1 – point g
g. Calls on the Commission to ensure that clearly defined rules on regulatory coherence are comprehensively incorporated in TTIP;guarantee that the established regulatory systems on both sides of the Atlantic and the role of the European Parliament in the EU’s decision-making procedure and its powers of scrutiny of the EU's regulatory processes will be fully and completely respected in creating the framework for future cooperation;☺
Amendment 87 #
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 and cannot take any binding decision but serves purely for purposes of cooperation, information exchange and supobservisation of the implementation of CETA and TTIP provisions;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
i. NotStresses that TTIP gives contracting parties the option of increasing protection of intellectual property, including in relation to third States, while neither EU Member States nor the European Union have taken a decision on comprehensive harmonisation of the right to intellectual property, including copyright, trade marks and patents, the Commission ought not to negotiate on these interests in CETA or TTIP.
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i a (new)
ia. Considers that there may fundamentally be a mutual interest in the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade, but that it must be confined to various technical standards and regulations and, where appropriate, the abolition of duplicate authorisation procedures which are genuinely comparable; stresses that mutual recognition of standards and authorisation procedures can be accepted only if it does not result in any lowering of the level of protection; considers that parliamentary sovereignty over the definition of standards and authorisation procedures must be preserved;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i b (new)
ib. Rejects competition which entails dumping, in the course of which States and undertakings secure advantages through social or environmental dumping; considers, therefore, that, in the context of CETA and TTIP, the aim must be to improve rights of codetermination, labour standards, standards of health protection and consumer protection, and social and environmental standards;
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i c (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i c (new)
ic. Observes that, in the field of public procurement, social and ecological procurement criteria and their possible extension must not be called into question;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i d (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i d (new)
id. Observes that CETA and TTIP must prove their value by contributing to progress in the protection of employees’ rights, consumer protection and sustainable economic development on a global scale;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i e (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i e (new)
ie. Calls on the Commission to ensure that both contracting parties undertake, in particular, to respect and implement core ILO labour standards and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises; considers that compliance with labour and social standards must be effectively secured in case of conflict;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i f (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i f (new)
if. Stresses that under no circumstances may the right to codetermination, works constitution and free collective bargaining or other protective rights for workers, the environment and consumers be interpreted as 'non-tariff trade barriers';
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i g (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i g (new)
ig. Stresses that the transatlantic negotiations should also be used to step up regulation of sectors of global financial markets which have hitherto been insufficiently regulated ;
Amendment 114 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i h (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i h (new)
ih. Observes, furthermore, that unclear definitions of legal terms in CETA and TTIP such as ‘fair and equitable treatment’ or ‘indirect expropriation’ must be rejected;
Amendment 115 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i i (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i i (new)
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i j (new)
Paragraph 1 – point i j (new)
ij. Calls on the Commission to ensure that CETA and TTIP include clauses which make it possible to correct undesirable and wrong developments and, where appropriate, permit termination of the agreements;
Amendment 762 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
(xiv) to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, which can be achieved withoutle benefiting from no greater rights than domestic investors; to oppose the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism; such a mechanism is not necessary in TTIP given the EU’s and the US’ developed legal systems; a state-to- state dispute settlement system and the use of national courts are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputin TTIP, as other options to enforce investment protection are available, such as domestic remedies;