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
4 February 2013
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) , Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE) , Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

 Subject:  Follow-up to Written Question E-011230/2012

In its answer to Written Question E-011230/2012, the Commission justifies the inclusion of an investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) by saying that there have been cases of expropriation in which European or other investors apparently did not receive any compensation and were not able to start legal proceedings in Canada.

1. Which companies were concerned, and how many cases does the Commission know of in which European investors suffered such a loss?

2. Can the Commission give the exact case citations or other documentation on the cases mentioned?

3. Can the Commission give the following details about the cases:
a) What kind of expropriation was involved?
b) What were the obstacles which meant that the companies concerned could not seek remedy within the Canadian legal system?
c) Has the Commission enquired whether Canadian investors have been subjected to similar treatment?
 OJ C 361 E, 11/12/2013
Last updated: 18 February 2013Legal notice