Activities of Pablo ZALBA BIDEGAIN related to 2014/2228(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (debate) ES
Amendments (6)
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i
i. propose the introduction of a national court systems-first principle, to be supplemented with mediation and intergovernmental dispute mechanisms in legal disputes in order to ensure easier access and lower litigation costs than those offered by currentstress that the ISDS- mechanisms, benefitting especially SMEs (having fewer resources available than large corporations), thus creating more equal competition conditions; stress that any and all dispute mechanisms set in place within the TTIP-framework must uphold full transparency and be subject to democratic principles and scrutiny;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the wellbeing of ordinary citizens, workers and consumers and improving the business climate has to be the benchmark for a trade agreement; whereas TTIP should be a model for a good trade agreement responding to these requirements;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the secret character of negotiations as they have been conducted in the past has lemay lead to deficiencies in terms of democratic control of the negotiation process;
Amendment 367 #
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 ‘posinegative list approach’ whereby services that are to be opened up toexclude foreign companies are explicitly mentioned and new services are excluded while ensuring that possible standstill and ratchet clauses only apply to non- discrimination provisions and allow for enough flexibility to bring services back into public control;
Amendment 753 #
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 without the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism; such a mechanism is not necessary in TTIP givenincluding through effective dispute settlement mechanisms. To this effect, TTIP should include appropriate and coherent state-to-state and investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms that are consistent with the right of 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 inveits Member States to preserve and pursue legitimate public policy objectives. In this context, the negotiation on an investment arbitration mechanism should ensure satisfactory results with regard to the preservation of the right of the EU and its Member States to regulate to achieve public policy objectives; enhanced transparency of arbitral proceedings; the independence of arbitrators; ensuring the consistency of arbitral awards, by means such as providing for the possibility of appeal; and a relationship between ISDS and domestic judicial systems that is consistment disputeswith the jurisdiction of courts in the EU;
Amendment 812 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xvi
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xvi
(xvi) to ensure that the IPR chapter does not include provisions on criminal sanctions as a tool for enforcement, as having been previously rejected by Parliament; to strengthen and promote the cooperation of the European Union and the United States through multinational organisations so as to boost the protection of intellectual property in other countries and work towards global harmonisation of patent law;