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 41kWORD 23k
10 December 2012
E-011275-12
Question for written answer E-011275-12
to the Commission
Rule 117
Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE) , Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE) , Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)

 Subject:  Commission disregards its own experts regarding investor-to-state dispute settlement
 Answer in writing 

The Sustainability Impact Assessment of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) concludes that a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism is a more appropriate enforcement mechanism in CETA than an investor-to-state dispute settlement(1). Despite this, the CETA is based on investor-to-state dispute settlement and not state-to-state.

Why has the Commission chosen to disregard the advice of its own experts in the matter of investor-to-state dispute settlements?

(1)Kirkpatrick et al (2011). A Trade SIA Relating to the Negotiation of a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) Between the EU and Canada. Development Solutions.

 OJ C 321 E, 07/11/2013
Legal notice - Privacy policy