Industrial pipes for story saying Europe top court decides member states must have say in EU trade deal clearing way for court case on CETA

Europe’s top court decides member states must have say in EU trade deals, clearing way for court case on CETA

Comprehensive trade deals between the EU and other countries must be approved by all member states in the EU, judges at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have ruled.

In a binding Opinion about who has the power to conclude the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the Court said that portfolio investment and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the investment chapter are shared competence between the EU and the Member States. Therefore, the agreement must be concluded jointly by the EU and the Member States.

ClientEarth trade lawyer Laurens Ankersmit said: “The Court’s Opinion reaffirms the critical role of Member States in the ratification process of vast trade agreements such as the EU-Canada trade deal, CETA.

“The Opinion clears the path for Slovenia and Belgium to get CETA legally checked by the ECJ. This is not just important for the rule of law in Europe, but might also put ratification of CETA in peril.”

Today’s EU trade agreements are more extensive and wide-ranging than ever before, going way beyond simply lowering tariffs.

The Opinion did not address the important issue of the legality of the controversial investment courts set up in these agreements, under EU law. The Court made clear that the opinion relates only to the issue of whether the European Union has exclusive competence and not to whether the content of the agreement is compatible with EU law.

Investment rules in trade deals like CETA create special courts that are only available to foreign investors. These courts – known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the Investment Court System (ICS) – give those investors a powerful legal tool to attack public interest decision-making.

In a compromise deal last year between the Belgian region of Wallonia and the Belgian federal government over signing CETA, Belgium has committed to request an Opinion from the ECJ on this issue. Slovenia has also committed to making a similar request.

Now that the Court has made it clear that member states must be involved in the ratification of expansive trade deals, Wallonia’s demand to send CETA to the ECJ can no longer be ignored.

Including controversial investment rules in EU trade agreements may be illegal, as it sidelines domestic courts and doesn’t offer the same rights to people. This is a breach of the founding treaties of the EU. ClientEarth analysis shows this is not compatible with EU law.

In 2016, we launched legal proceedings against the Commission for keeping secret official analysis of whether these controversial investor rules are legal.

By clarifying the areas in which member states have powers, the Court’s Opinion gives legal certainty about their involvement in other future trade deals, such as the EU-Canada deal CETA and a possible UK-EU agreement.

Share this...
Share on Facebook! Tweet this! Share on LinkedIn! Email!

John Towner

Related articles

More from

  • palm tree silhouette lights

    Top insurers pull billions from coal – lawyers say there are “serious questions” for those still invested in it

    This week, insurance giant Zurich announced that it would both divest from and stop insuring coal-dependent businesses. ClientEarth lawyer Alice Garton questions why others are lagging behind.

  • scarlet cloud sunset over dark landscape

    Lawyer to faith investors: “never has your voice been needed more”

    Given the climate-intensified destruction present in so many continents today, faith leaders must question their investments in fossil fuels.

  • fragment-pattern-red-railing-staircase

    Investors haul mining giant BHP over coals on “climate hypocrisy” at AGM

    Membership fees to policy-obstructive lobby groups betray investor confidence, say lawyers.

  • mountain climbers

    Financial regulator failures increase investor risk

    The Financial Reporting Council’s failure to enforce climate risk corporate reporting laws has serious implications for investors.

  • Follow us

    You can help

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