Activities of Saskia BRICMONT related to 2018/0358M(NLE)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT containing a motion for a non-legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, of the other part
Amendments (24)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to the Opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30 April 2019, pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU, requested on 7 September 2017 by the Kingdom of Belgium,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18
Citation 18
— having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Title V thereof on the Union’s external action and specifically Article 21,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
Citation 20 a (new)
- having regard to the Council Conclusions on Child Labour of 20 June 2016 encouraging the Commission to continue exploring ways to use more effectively the trade instruments of the European Union, including Free Trade Agreements to combat child labour;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 b (new)
Citation 20 b (new)
- having regard to the Council Conclusions “Towards an ever more sustainable Union by 2030” of 9 April 2019 in which the Council underlines the urgent need for accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda both globally and internally, as an overarching priority of the EU, for the benefit of its citizens and for upholding its credibility within Europe and globally;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 c (new)
Citation 20 c (new)
- having regard to the Council Conclusions on Business and Human Rights of 20 June 2016 that stipulates that “the EU recognises that corporate respect for human rights and its embedding in corporate operations and value and supply chains is indispensable to sustainable development. and achieving the SDGs. All partnerships in implementing the SDGs should be built on respect for human rights and responsible business conduct” and that “the Council encourages EU companies to establish operational-level grievance mechanisms, or create joint grievance initiatives between companies” ;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas, in the mission letter sent to all Commissioners-designate, President-elect von der Leyen insisted that “each Commissioner will ensure the delivery of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals within their policy area”;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. whereas in 2016 the Formosa steel plant owned by a Taiwanese company caused a massive environmental disaster by spilling chemical waste into the sea; whereas the environmental and economic impacts were huge undermining the livelihood of many small and artisanal fishermen; whereas the Vietnamese authorities responded to the civil protests that followed by a heavy crack down and arrests to the point of raising serious concerns in the international community; whereas the Vietnamese judicial system does not allow for adequate redress mechanisms for the victims of human rights violations, including in connection to economic activities; whereas the European Commission decided to not conduct a human rights impact assessment on the IPA;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the agreement builds on the investment protection provisions included in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which was ratified by Parliament on 15 February 2017 and which still awaits ratification by several Member States;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas on 30 April 2019 the CJEU ruled that the mechanism for the resolution of disputes between investors and States provided for by CETA is compatible with EU law14 ; whereas the CJEU drew such conclusion on the basis of the fact that, since the EU legislation is anchored in the Treaties’ principles of proportionality and necessity to achieve public policy objectives , there is a presumption of compatibility with investment protection obligations and that ICS has no jurisdiction to declare the level of protection of a public interest established by EU measures incompatible with CETA; _________________ 14 Opinion of the Court of Justice of 30 April 2019, 1/17.
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Parties have stated their commitment to pursuing a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) – an initiative strongly supported by Parliament;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes the EU’s new approach to investment protection and its enforcement mechanism (ICS), which has replacformed the investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS); underlines the fact that ICS represents a modern, innovative and reformed investment resolution mechanism; notes that it marks significant change in the level of substantive protection afforded to investors and the manner in which investor-state disputes are resolved as regards its procedural shortcomings; notes however that it perpetrates the asymmetry and imbalance between investors’ rights and obligations since only rights are protected like under the older ISDS;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the agreement will ensure a high level of investment protection and legal certainty while safeguarding the right of the Parties to regulate and pursue legitimate public policy objectives, such as public health and environ; regrets that a similar level of ambition has not been reached for the enforcement of sustainable development provisions; further notes that, contrary to CETA, EVIPA is deprived of a joint interpretative instrumental protection; emphasisviding additional guarantees to that the agreement will ensure transparency and accountabilitye right to regulate of the Parties, which was taken into account by the CJEU to draw its conclusions on CETA;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the agreement guarantees that EU investors in Vietnam will get fair and equitable treatment and will suffer no discrimination in relation to Vietnamese investorswhich is a higher standard of protection than national treatment; notes that the agreement properly protects EU investors from illegitimate expropriation;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the ICS plans to establish a Permanent Investment Tribunal of First Instance and an Appeal Tribunal, whose members will have to possess comparable qualifications to those held by judges of the International Court of Justice, and will have to demonstrate expertise in public international law and not just commercial law, in addition to satisfying strict rules of independence, impartiality, integrity and ethical behaviour through a binding code of conduct designed to prevent direct or indirect conflicts of interests; is concerned about the inability of Vietnamese judges to comply with all those requirements given the situation of the judiciary system and of the rule of law in the country; recalls that the independence of the judges is one of the criteria taken up by the CJEU to draw its conclusions on the compatibility of CETA;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the transparency rules applying to proceedings before the tribunals, which include provisions guaranteeing that case documents will be publicly available, hearings will be held in public, and interested parties will be allowed to make submissions; believes that increased transparency will help to instil public trust in the system, as well as ensuring; regrets that all human rights and other sustainable development aspects are effectively heard by the investment tribunalnot covered by ICS as substantive investors’ obligations;
Amendment 48 #
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 but without proper legal standing in front of the tribunal; underlines that the investment court still constitutes a separate system for foreign investors only; demands that investor rights should be balanced by an equivalent legal mechanism accessible by trade unions and other stakeholders to enforce the investors obligations;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. 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; calls for 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 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. 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 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. 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 Appeal Tribunal at the time of its conclusion; stresses however that, contrary to CETA, EVIPA is deprived of a Joint Interpretative Instrument providing additional protection to the right to regulate;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that since the EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (EVIPA) does not contain a separate trade and sustainable development (TSD) chapter, as the latter applies to investment by virtue ofmarket access under the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EUVFTA) that liberalises it; stresses that the EVIPA also contains a provision establishing a legal link to the PCA, as well as specific references in its preamble to the TSD values and principles as enshrined in the EUVFTA and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; is of the view that TSD chapters’ rules, principles and references to the international commitments of the Parties could have contributed to strengthening their right to regulate;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Is concerned that human rights violations stemming from foreign investors’ activities cannot be addressed under the IPA and that no concrete action can be taken in the framework of that agreement; requests therefore the addition of a monitoring mechanism as well as a grievance mechanism under the IPA through an additional Protocol to the IPA, whereby potential and actual violations can at least be prevented or remedied through mediation;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Highlights that the agreement will replace the existing 21 bilateral investment treaties between EU Member States and Vietnam; considers that this constitutes an important step in increasing the legitimacy and acceptance of the international investment regime;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that the approval of this agreement will robustly protect investors and their investments; on both sides while safeguarding the governments’ rights to regulatethe other hand, is of the view that, following the CJEU ruling on CETA important questions remain answered such as (i) the effects of ICS judges not being bound by the ECJ ruling and that fact that they may therefore draw conclusions contradicting the CJEU interpretation; (ii) the consequences in case ICS judges call into question the level of protection set by the EU and on that basis award damages; (iii) how to ensure the ICS judges will comply with the CJEU interpretation; Therefore believes that a protocol clarifying such questions in the form of an interpretative instrument should be included in the agreement before ratification;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14 a. Withholds its consent until the Investment Protection Agreement is completed by the addition of an independent monitoring mechanism as well as a grievance mechanism;