FFII (https://ffii.org/author/antewessels/page/3/)
ECORYS published a final draft human rights assessment of the trade agreement with the US (TTIP). The official name is a Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (TSIA). I provided feedback on an earlier draft, see here. In my opinion, the final draft is disappointing. I will give two examples.
Members of the European Parliament want the EU’s Court of Justice to check whether a parallel legal system in the trade agreement with Canada (CETA) is compatible with the EU treaties. The parallel legal system, known as ISDS / ICS, is only accessible to foreign investors. Eighty-nine members tabled a resolution. The Parliament will vote next week, Wednesday 23 November 2016. According to associations of judges (one, two), academics (letter from over 100 law professors) and NGOs (ClientEarth, two pager), the ISDS / ICS parallel legal system is not compatible with the EU treaties.
Member of the European Parliament Marietje Schaake used harsh words on Wallonia for (temporarily) blocking the signing of the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA): unbelievable, shameful political opportunism, really incomprehensible. In the press release she also defended the inclusion in CETA of investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a parallel legal system for multinational investors. In this blog I will argue that Schaake supports an approach that puts at risk democracy and the rule of law. Schaake is the liberal groups’s (ALDE) spokesperson on trade. Wallonia has seriously looked at CETA for years.
Update: new version of Declaration, see below
The European Commission and Canadian government work on a “Joint Interpretative Declaration” that should convince governments that have doubts about signing the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA). The Declaration does not change CETA’s text. It does not give a clarification of provisions. Take the first paragraph of the section on Investment Protection:
“CETA includes modern rules on investment that preserve the right of governments to regulate in the public interest including when such regulations affect a foreign investment, while ensuring a high level of protection for investments and providing for fair and transparent dispute resolution. CETA will not result in foreign investors being treated more favourably than domestic investors.”
The study “Trade and Privacy: Complicated Bedfellows? How to achieve data protection-proof free trade agreements” is remarkable. On the one hand it shows, beyond doubt, that the EU fails to sufficiently protect personal data in its trade agreements. On the other hand, one of the safeguards it recommends could leave our personal data more vulnerable. Monique Goyens, Director General of The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), commented:
It’s unacceptable that the EU’s privacy and data protection rules could be challenged through trade policy.
Investment lawyer Pratyush Nath Upreti argues that investors will be able to use investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) to challenge decisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). [1] Investors could for instance use a Dutch bilateral investment treaty to challenge UPC decisions. Upreti identifies Dutch investment treaties as suitable for treaty shopping and warns for more frivolous IP litigation in investor-to-state dispute settlement. This raises a question. Who would bear the litigation costs and damages awards?
ECORYS has published a draft human rights assessment (sustainability impact assessment) on the trade agreement being negotiated between the EU and the United States (TTIP). Today the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) has sent an email to ECORYS noting issues regarding intellectual property rights, investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS / ICS), data protection, and openness. Footnotes per section, text continues after footnotes. Intellectual property rights
The word “ACTA” does not appear once in the draft report. ACTA analysis has shown that intellectual property rights enforcement may seriously threaten fundamental rights at various levels.
This is the fourth in a series of blogs on the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) and data protection. In earlier blogs we saw that under the CETA text Canada can give our personal data related to financial services, transfered to Canada, a lower protection than under the standard set by the Court of Justice of the EU in the Safe Harbour ruling. This is relevant as Canada is a member of the “Five Eyes”, a group of countries committed to (suspicionless) mass surveillance. We also saw that CETA does not allow data protection measures based on a higher data protection standard than agreed in CETA. Textual shortcomings especially become clear in conflict situations.
In February 2016 the European Commission and Canadian government published the final draft text of the EU – Canada trade agreement (CETA). This final draft includes an investment chapter with investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS). ISDS is one of the most controversial elements of proposed EU trade agreements as it gives foreign investors the right to challenge government decisions outside local courts. The ISDS section in CETA is based on the 12 November 2015 ISDS proposal for TTIP. According to Germany’s largest association of judges and public prosecutors (original in German) and the European association of judges the adjudicators would not be independent.
This is the third in a series of blogs on the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) and data protection. (Prior blogs: CETA and mass surveillance, CETA places itself above EU Charter of Fundamental Rights)
In this blog I will show CETA provides less data projection than the EU Charter of fundamental rights. Under CETA article 13.15 the EU has to allow cross border data transfers to Canada; the related data protection standard is not compatible with the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) Safe Harbour ruling. Chapter 13 Financial Services, article 13.15 Transfer and processing of information, page 103, reads:
“1. Each Party shall permit a financial institution or a cross-border financial service supplier of the other Party to transfer information in electronic or other form, into and out of its territory, for data processing if processing is required in the ordinary course of business of the financial institution or the cross-border financial service supplier.