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
6 December 2012
E-011161-12
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE) , Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) , Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

 Subject:  Investor-state dispute settlement mechanism as opposed to the legal system and Article 9 TEU
 Answer(s) 

The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) sets up a court-like investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism to resolve disputes between investors and the two parties to the agreement.

The dispute settlement mechanism grants investors the means to sue the state in pursuit of their interests. At the same time, they can also use the ordinary court system to sue.

1. Why is the ordinary court system not good enough for investors, yet good enough for all other citizens?

Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union states that the Union shall observe ‘…the equality of all its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions…’(1).

2. Given the additional ‘attention’ granted to investors by the ISDS mechanism, how can the investment protection chapter of CETA be compatible with the Treaty?

(1) Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, Title II, Article 9.

 OJ C 339 E, 20/11/2013
Last updated: 19 December 2012Legal notice