Activities of Heidi HAUTALA related to 2014/2228(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (29)
Amendment 5 #
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 for investment activity, 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 fundamental;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas President Juncker has clearly stated in his Political Guidelines that he will not accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the Member States is limited by special regimes for investor disputes; whereas now that the results of the public consultation on investment protection and ISDS in the TTIP are available, a reflection process – taking account of the mostly very critical and constructive contributions – is needed within and between the three European institutions on the best way to achieve investment protection and equal treatment of investors without the use of the ISDS mechanism;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas serious doubts exist regarding the compatibility of the planned ISDS provisions with the principles of autonomy, unity and effectiveness of EU as they have been interpreted by the Court of Justice;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B
Paragraph B
B. Notes that, although the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiation mandate is now public, its wordingAsks the Commission to bear in mind that TTIP implications will go far beyond the bilateral relationships and will undoubtedly impact on developing countries, given the size and scope of the transatlantic economy, requests the Commission to prepare a thorough social and environmental impact assessment, once the provisions of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are clearer, of its likely impact on low income countries and the future sustainable development goals, as the wording of the negotiating mandate is so general that itTTIP´s content and possible spillover effects on developing countries are still not known; calls for a thorough analysis, when TTIP provisions are clearer, of its likely impact on low income countries and the future sustainable development goalsrequests equally the Commission to make all negotiating documents public in order to ensure full transparency;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C
Paragraph C
C. Is of the opinionAsks the Commission to consider that the effect of the TTIP on developing countries will vary depending on their economic structure and current trade relations; sees, howevas well as to consider, the potential serious risk of diminished market access and resulting trade and investment diversion for some countries;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. Asks the Commission to bear in mind that the highly concentrated nature of exports from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) implies that the erosion of preferences in a small set of specific product categories (textiles, clothing and specific agricultural products such as fish, bananas and sugar) can have important negative consequences for these countries; in particular, asks the Commission to consider the risks of locking-in developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa into supplier of raw materials, while marginalising them further from global value chains;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
ba. Observes that to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non- discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances can be achieved without the inclusion in TTIP of investment protection standards and an ISDS mechanism; is of the firm opinion that a possible TTIP agreement should not contain any investment protection standards and ISDS mechanism as the given level of investment protection in the EU and the US is fully sufficient to guarantee legal security;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
Paragraph 1 – point c
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph D a (new)
Paragraph D a (new)
Da. Asks the Commission to bear in mind that TTIP represents a potential threat to developing countries' interests, in a context where TTIP consists of a pioneering effort to strengthen and expand multilateral rules (WTO-Plus) or to generate standards and norms in new areas beyond the current system (WTO- extra);
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph D b (new)
Paragraph D b (new)
Db. Considering that EU and US trade policies already discriminate against labour-intensive manufacturing products and agricultural exports of developing countries, requests the Commission to consider the risks of potential codification of trade preference scheme within TTIP in terms of country and product coverage and rules of origin as it may further erode current preferential trade arrangements with developing countries; for instance, it would be particular disastrous for Sub- Saharan African countries, for which tight restrictions on access to the US market already exist (as in the case of sugar, tobacco, peanuts...); accordingly, requests the Commission to ensure that any attempt to harmonise current trade schemes for low-income African countries will improve their prospects;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
ca. Calls on to Commission to oppose the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism in TTIP given the EU's and the United States' developed legal systems and that a state- to-state dispute settlement system, and the use of national legal and judicial systems are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputes;
Amendment 55 #
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 TTIPnot to support the inclusion of any kind of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and thus maintain the EU's institutional and judicial framework; to work towards producing a permanent solution for resolving disputes between investors and states under trade agreements, for example through the creation of a permanent multilateral court of judges;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E a (new)
Paragraph E a (new)
Ea. Urges the EU to refrain from attempting to define new WTO+ disciplines on export restrictions in the area of energy and access to raw materials in TTIP, given that EU's previous attempt to outlaw the use of export taxes on raw materials at the WTO was fiercely opposed by developing countries, as such a trade tool is seen as a potential leverage to their economic development (i.a. it enables to raise public revenues, diversify production, control price fluctuations, as well as to protect environment);
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E b (new)
Paragraph E b (new)
Eb. Asks the Commission to take into account that WTO-TRIPS Council adopted in 2013 a decision granting LDCs an eight-year extension of the transition period, (deferring the time within which LDCs to implement the TRIPS Agreement); accordingly, urges the EU not to circumvent the WTO current regime, as it would hamper developing countries to benefit from "Special and Differentiated Treatment", be it in terms of access to medicine or technology transfer, which are of primary importance for developing countries;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E c (new)
Paragraph E c (new)
Ec. In particular, requests the Commission to take into account that TTIP could amongst others offer new opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry lobby to demand further intellectual property protections and lengthen the period of market exclusivity for its products; and to bear in mind that such move is particularly worrisome for developing countries since it would entail longer monopolies, less generic competition and limits on pricing policies, and therefore damage the public health system of developing countries;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e
Paragraph 1 – point e
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E d (new)
Paragraph E d (new)
Ed. Asks the Commission to ensure that the provisions of the TTIP, including the investment protection, do not limit the right of the EU or the Member States to adopt and enforce, in accordance with their respective competences, measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives, including development policies;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E f (new)
Paragraph E f (new)
Ef. As the TTIP negotiation mandate does not mention development policy as one of the legitimate public policy objective; asks the Commission to ensure that development policy is explicitly mentioned in the context of the Investment Protection section of the TTIP;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E g (new)
Paragraph E g (new)
E g. Asks the Commission to bear in mind that the investment protection chapter of the Agreement covers also intellectual property rights, and consequently, taking into consideration the crucial importance of access to medicine and technology transfer to developing countries, asks the Commission to ensure that the Agreement does not require the EU or the Member States to introduce TRIPS-plus provisions, such as patent term extensions or data exclusivity, to any bilateral or multilateral agreement;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
ea. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to the CJEU for its opinion on the compatibility of the TTIP Agreement and more specifically on the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) with Union law, before submitting it for approval pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. Calls on the Commission to ensure that in the future 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 that amendments by future legislation – provided that they are not made retroactive – cannot be contested under such a dispute settlement mechanismany TTIP provisions;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph F a (new)
Paragraph F a (new)
Fa. Opposes to the introduction of the Investor-to-State Settlement (ISDS) Mechanism, especially in a context where it is increasingly controversial world-wide, primarily owing to the spread and growing number of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases, whereby investors happened to challenge core public policies that had allegedly negatively affected their business prospects;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph F a (new)
Paragraph F a (new)
Fa. In a context where TTIP constitutes another opportunity to set new global standards on liberalisation of public procurement, asks the Commission to bear in mind that developing countries have constantly refused to sign the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA); therefore, urges the EU to refrain from imposing the introduction of the reciprocity principle, as it will amongst others hamper the development of infant industries and processing in developing countries;
Amendment 80 #
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 and that the regulatory cooperation chapter applies only to clearly specified sectoral areas and that Parliament´s role within the EU`s decision-making process and its democratic scrutiny over EU regulatory processes is fully respected;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
Paragraph 1 – point i
i. Notes that TTIP gives contracting parties the option of increasing protection of ito ensure that the Intellectual pProperty, including in relation to third States. Rights (IPR) chapter of TTIP includes provisions only for precisely and clearly defined areas of IPR where a common minimal denominator can be identified, while continuing to confirm the existing flexibilities in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), notably in the area of public health;