Activities of Carl SCHLYTER related to 2010/2203(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the future European international investment policy PDF (231 KB) DOC (143 KB)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomesNotes that the Commission's Communication ‘Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy’ but stresses that, whilefocuses extensively focusing on investor protection, while it should betterequally address the need to protect the public capacity to regulate;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Reminds that increased volumes and new types of inward investments pose new challenges to the EU which are not reflected in most of the existing BITs of the EU Member States; welcomes the new approach exercised in the bilateral investment treaty policy of the USA and Canada regarding a stronger focus on the right to regulate in matters of public policy interests; calls on the Commission to enter into a transatlantic dialogue in order to draw lessons from these experiences and to report policy recommendations resulting from such consultations to Parliament before any new EU international investment treaty is negotiated with any partner country;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Takes note of South Africa's wish to incorporate the possibility of discrimination resulting from its Black Empowerment Program into its existing BITs; recommends a positive approach in negotiations with South Africa regarding a change of existing BITs of EU Member States with this country;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the same high level of protection should not be granted to all kinds of investments and that, for example, portfolio investment and intellectual property rights should be excluded from the scope of future international investment agreements signed by the EU; is therefore concerned that the Commission's recommendation for a negotiating directive on investment with India includes intellectual property rights; cautions that this could have a negative impact on the production of generic medicines and on public health;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes with concern that negotiating a broad variety of investments would lead to mixing exclusive and shared competences; is concerned that if the Member States give the Commission a mandate to negotiate on all matterstypes of investment this could lead to substantial European concessions in the field of investment, given that the EU's already open economy means that it has few other levers in international negotiations;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Doubts whetherRejects the request expressed by the Council in its conclusions on the Communication – that the new European legal framework should not negatively affect"at least" guarantee investor protection and guarantees t the level enjoyed under the existing agreements – constitutes an achievable objective; considers that with such a broad and undefined criterion any new agreement could be opposedmost investor friendly of any of the existing agreements of EU Member States, because it would undermine the necessary attempt to better balance investor protection - in an era of increased inward investment into the EU – with the widening of policy space to regulate in the field of public interest; warns that with such a criterion any new international EU investment agreement could be opposed; retains that such a criterion might even create legal uncertainty regarding which of two competing BITs should be considered as more investor-friendly;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses that future investment agreements concluded by the EU must be based on the general principles set out in the TEU, in particular its Articles 3(5) and 6(1), and in the TFEU, in particular its Title II of Part I, and protect the capacity for public intervention;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Expresses its deep concern regarding the decision by somelevel of discretion of international arbitrators to make a broad interpretation of investor protection clauses, thereby leading to the ruling out of legitimate public regulations; calls on the Commission to produce clear definitions of investor protection standards in order to avoid such problems;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Underlines that the Commission shall establish a list of sectors not covered by future agreements, for example sensitive sectors such as culture, education and those sectors which are strategically important for national defence, and calls on the Commission to foresee safeguards to protect public health; notes that the EU should also be aware of the concerns of its developing partners and should not call for more liberalisation if the latter deem it necessary for their development to protect certain sectors, particularly public services;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Is aware that the Commission as an institution will in present circumstances not have the faculty to become a new member of ICSID and UNCITRAL; calls on the Commission to include a chapter on Dispute Settlement in each new international EU investment treaty which, duly reflecting present rules under ICSID and UNCITRAL, enables transparency, provides for the set up of a college of arbitrators, and guarantees an appeal mechanism and the involvement of third parties at least on the level of amicus curiae briefs;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. Remains entirely unconvinced about investor-to-state arbitration in new EU international investment treaties if it is not embedded in a clear framework of investors social and environmental obligations, transparency requirements in litigation procedures, the possibility of third party involvement, and the set-up of an appeal mechanism; recommends to the Commission to engage during this legislature only in investment treaty negotiations with countries which have a functioning and impartial judicial system, guaranteeing investor protection and remedies under a state-to-state arbitration procedure;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Endorses the principle that priority partners for future EU investment agreements shall be countries that have a functioning judicial system and great market potential but where foreign investments need better protection;