Photo of commuters to illustrate story saying EU Parliament ICS opinion ignores legal pitfalls

EU Parliament ICS opinion ignores legal pitfalls

Highly controversial investor rules in the EU-Canada free trade agreement (CETA) led the EU Parliament to ask its legal service whether they were compatible with EU law, and the analysis has just been published.

This is a boost for EU transparency, but the opinion reads like a defence of the Investment Court System (ICS). ClientEarth believes that the European Court of Justice needs to be asked its opinion on the legality of the investor dispute rules.

EU Parliament ICS opinion ignores clear legal issues

ClientEarth analysis shows several important deficiencies in the opinion of the European Parliament’s legal service:

  1. The Legal Opinion underestimates many of the similarities between the powers of the investment Tribunals in CETA and the European Court on Human Rights; and the consequences of the negative Opinion of the European Court of Justice in Opinion 2/13 for investment arbitration.
  2. The Legal Opinion is does not sufficiently recognise the powers of the European Court of Justice on claims for damages against the EU.
  3. The Legal Opinion also underestimates the problems ICS poses for the EU internal market, in particular the potential for discrimination among EU businesses.
  4. The Legal Opinion also does not address the risks and consequences of a successful challenge to a Council decision concluding CETA.
Share this...
Share on Facebook! Tweet this! Share on LinkedIn! Email!

Khara Woods

Follow us

You can help

Your support helps us use the law to protect your environment.