Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 6kWORD 25k
31 August 2015
E-008188/2015(ASW)
Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission
Question reference: E-008188/2015

CETA has a review clause on an appeal mechanism for ISDS. The Commission will discuss with Canada the modalities and timetable for introducing one in CETA as soon as possible.

CETA reflects the new approach to ISDS and investment protection: full transparency and greater respect for the right to regulate. The Commission does not envisage re-opening the CETA negotiations, concluded in 2014. Nevertheless, it will discuss with Canada ways to fine-tune this approach, in line with recent discussions in the EU.

The ratification process will start when the legal revision and the translations into the EU official languages are ready. As for TTIP, negotiations are ongoing, and it is premature to speculate on its ratification.

CETA does not provide for ‘fork-in-the-road’, but for ‘no-U-turn’ approach. Investors are free to go directly to ISDS or try domestic remedies first. ISDS appears as a safety net in the event problems arise in the domestic courts, or where recourse to them is not viable.

Possible claims under domestic law differ from those under international law. CETA provisions are not enforceable before domestic courts, while only ISDS tribunals can enforce investment protection provisions. A requirement to exhaust domestic remedies would force the investor to go to domestic courts even if his claim could not be addressed, e.g. because there is no prohibition of discrimination of foreign investors in domestic law.

Legal notice