45 Amendments of Evelyne GEBHARDT related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas investment protection provis, since judicial systems both in the European Unions and investor state dispute settlement are an essential tool in international economic relations and are very important for investment a the United States of America function effectivitely, 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 fundathere is no need for any private investor state dispute settlement mechanisms in this agreemental;
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 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Demands that the main outcome of the negotiations be an ambitious and comprehensive agreement, bringing a significant which protects the European model of the social market economy as provided for by the EU Treaties, leads to a significant improvement for citizens, consumers and employees, and brings a market opening for EU companies, including SMEs;
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 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the negotiations at issue are intended to result in an ambitious agreement which will protect the European model of the social market economy, as provided for by the Treaties of the European Union which will be accompanied by a significant improvement for the public, employees and consumers and by an opening-up of the market for undertakings based in the European Union, including SMEs;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls for more comprehensive participation and involvement of European consumer protection organisations in the negotiations, with the aim of attaining the best possible standards of consumer protection;
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 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. stressing the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament and calling, therefore, for TTIP not to call into question the primacy of political decision- making;
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 37 #
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 represent the right approach and must be developed further for TTIPestablishment of an international commercial court, to which independent judges would be appointed, is more in accordance with the principle of the administration of justice in the name of the people, the rule of law and transparency of the law than private investor state dispute settlement mechanisms;
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 46 #
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 mdisplay weaknesses, becauste 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 partnershipsoth their legitimacy and acceptance of them are insufficiently developed;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament and calls, therefore, for TTIP not to call into question the primacy of political decision- making; calls, in this context, for that primacy to be respected in the negotiations on ISDS;
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 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Insists, while respecting the freedom of governments to protectStates to provide, organise, protect and finance public services, that EU service providers must have full market access to liberalised services in the US, under transparent rules at both federal and sub- federal levels;
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 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for mutual recognition of professional qualifications between the Parties and for the abolition of 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;
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 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls, with regard to market access in the field of services in the European Union, the special character of the tradition of services of general interest in the European Union, particularly in the field of water supply; observes in this connection that the introduction of a positive list in this field is a better way of affording comprehensive protection to public services of general interest and taking account of future developments at all levels of policy-making;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the Commission to respect the country of destination principle in the area of market access for services; only on this basis are comprehensive consumer protection and security of implementation for providers possible;
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 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Given the legislation on public procurement in the EU which came into force in 2016 and possible reciprocal open market access for public procurement, calls for the achievements of the new directive on public procurement not to be neglected; points out, therefore, that there is no distinction in the US between temporary concessions and one-off jobs when public contracts are awarded; points out that the fundamental principles for public in-house consultations, public- public cooperation and public-private partnership management systems should be clearly defined and exempted from the Public Procurement Directive, in both the general economy and public utilities (water, energy, transport and the post office); and points out that the MEAT criteria applied in the legislation enable social, labour law, quality and environmental perspectives to be used as award criteria and are therefore particularly significant;
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 158 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses the political competence of the European Parliament in product standards, consumer protection and product safety and accordingly calls on the Commission to conduct a more thorough investigation in the area of regulatory cooperation of the impact on the right of the European institutions and the Member States to regulate, with particular regard to the European development model of the competitive social market economy;
Amendment 174 #
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 requirements;
Amendment 179 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Recalls that in the area of TBT, particular attention needs to be paid to the EU’s market surveillance systems, as this is the only way in which the high consumer protection standards in the EU and the precautionary principle can be safeguarded; with reference to these reasons, draws Parliament’s attention to the fact that this can only be achieved on both sides of the Atlantic through a high degree of standardisation horizontally and in specific sectors such as the automobile sector;
Amendment 186 #
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; 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; however, calls attention to the fact that, particularly in the area of car safety features, there are considerable differences between American and European products; urges the strengthening of EU-US cooperation in the framework of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), especially regarding new technologies;
Amendment 199 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. ExpectsBelieves that the agreement toshould make 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;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point i
Paragraph 1 – point a – point i
(i) to ensure that TTIP negotiations lead to a deep, comprehensive, ambitious, balanced and high-standard trade and investment agreement that would promote sustainable growth, support the creation of high-quality jobs for European workers, directly benefit European consumers, inter alia by means of greater involvement of the European consumer protection organisations in the negotiations, increase international competitiveness, and open up new opportunities for EU companies, in particular SMEs; the content of the agreement is more important than the speed of the negotiations;
Amendment 362 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv
(iv) to increase market access for services according to the ‘positive list approach’ whereby services that are to be opened up to foreign companies are explicitly mentioned and new services are excluded while ensuring that possibleno standstill and ratchet clauses only apply to non- discrimination provisionsare included in the agreement and allow for enough flexibility to bring services back into public control;
Amendment 398 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point vi
Paragraph 1 – point b – point vi
(vi) to ensure extensive protection and an adequate carve-out ofor sensitive services such as public services and public utilities (including water, health, social security systems and education) allowing national and local authorities enough room for manoeuvre to legislate in the public interest; a joint declaration reflecting negotiators’ clear commitment to exclude these sectors from the negotiations would be very helpful in this regard;
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;
Amendment 780 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv a (new)
(xiva) to ensure that efforts are made to create an international mechanism for disputes, which is binding under public law, and the decisions of which are taken by persons qualified for judicial office and in accordance with laws passed by democratically elected parliaments