EU Parliament promises to better register its decisions

In 2011 the FFII discovered that some European Parliament decisions regarding the ratification of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) were not recorded in any known document. A hidden class of documents (“coordinators’ minutes”) seemed to exist, but the Parliament denied the existence. The FFII filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman. The ombudsman found a systemic failure regarding the listing of documents in the Parliament’s registry of documents. In response, the Parliament took measures to better comply with EU law. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

11 October action day against TTIP, CETA and TISA

This Saturday 11 October 2014, in hundreds of European cities, civil society organisations, unions and farmers will organise manifestations against EU trade agreements under negotiation. The manifestations regard the Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada, and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) with many countries. The secret negotiations create serious risks for privacy, reform of copyright and patent law, labor rights and the environment, and may give companies excessive power in conflicts with states. See also the Statement of Concern on investor-to-state arbitration by over 110 scholars. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

ISDS out?

OpenDemocracy reports about the back and forth confusion during Commissioner hearings recently:

At 16:01 they [Tagesspiegel] publish an article on their website: Juncker will drop ISDS from TTIP, this is the policy of the incoming Commission. It becomes more an more likely that the controversial enforcement of TTIP and CETA with ISDS instruments would be resolved. This would enable the public to focus more on the substance of the envisaged agreements. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

US PEC on Cross-Border Data Flows in TTIP and other FTA

The US President Export Council discusses its proposed data flow provisions (June 19, 2014) as a means to counter the rush to privacy protection and denounces privacy measures of foreign governments as a trade barrier and digital protectionism. No further arguments are provided to back up these claims and allegations. CHAIRMAN McNERNEY:
.. Ginni, you warmed up earlier today over breakfast, on cross-border data flows, but why don’t you give us a summary of the second letter on cross – data border flows? MS. ROMETTY [IBM]: Okay. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

A license to spy – cross-border data flows in TTIP

Here is a quote from Harry van Dorenmalen of IBM Europe:
Data flows and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will be high on the agenda at the Summit. TTIP offers a unique opportunity to set the example as a 21st Century trade agreement that supports cross border data flow provisions… The position is not new and mirrors earlier attempts of IBM Europe leadership to mock the idea of a European cloud. The “demands for a safe environment for big data” are channelled via various lobby hats, including EU branded ones. Here for instance the European Services Forum (22 May):
The ESF and CSI call upon negotiators to ensure that TTIP will allow cross border data flows and dataprocessing to occur free from discriminatory terms and trade distorting conditions such as requirements to use local network infrastructure or local servers. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

121 scholars speak out against planned ISDS provisions in TTIP

A 100.000 citizens answered the EU consultation on ISDS, among them 121 academics. Some quotes from their submission:

“The Commission’s consultation document is an extraordinary text. On the one hand, the document contains fierce (and, in our opinion, fully justified) criticism of the international investment treaty arbitration regime as it has developed over the last two decades or so in a rapidly expanding number of awards under some 2800 Bilateral Investment Treaties, NAFTA, and the Energy Charter. Both explicitly and implicitly, the document disapproves of widespread expansive interpretations of nearly every provision found in investment treaties: from Most Favored Nation to umbrella clauses, from National Treatment to Fair and Equitable Treatment, from indirect expropriation to threshold issues of corporate nationality. The document also implicitly condemns the investment arbitration community for its failure to police itself adequately in matters of ethics, independence, competence, impartiality, and conflicts of interest. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

Encryption on the TTIP agenda

The European Commission General directorate for trade confirms that electronic encryption is among the discussed topics:

On ICT, the two sides have so far exchanged analysis on some specific topics, such as e-health, encryption, e-accessibility, enforcement and e-labelling. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

Flawed Dutch government study on ISDS

Today the Dutch government published “The Impact of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the TTIP”. The Parliament had asked for this study. The study is flawed. —————-

Update: See also the Vrijschrift note “Shortcomings in dutch government study on investor – state arbitration”, which is more elaborate and more recent. Vrijschrift letter to Dutch Parlament (Dutch)

—————————
A first reading reveals:

It does not mention that it is near impossible to withdraw from trade agreements. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

FFII submission: ISDS: A rigged system, avoid lock-in

FFII submission to European Commission consultation on investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS):

This submission concludes that investor-to-state dispute settlement lacks conventional institutional safeguards for independence and has characteristics of a rigged system. The appointment of arbitrators is not neutral and gives the US an unfair advantage. The US never lost an ISDS case, we can not expect European companies to win major ISDS cases against the US, all the more as the US is not shy to exert pressure on arbitrators. We can expect that US companies will win ISDS cases against the EU and member states. This leads to four considerations. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

Investor-to-state dispute settlement is a rigged system

Investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), the most controversial element of the proposed trade agreement with the US, has characteristics of a rigged system. ISDS gives the US an unfair advantage, we can not expect EU companies to win ISDS cases against the US. Trade agreements including ISDS would lock-in the EU, as it is practically impossible to withdraw from trade agreements. ISDS is controversial. Investment agreements with ISDS give foreign investors, usually multinationals, the right to circumvent domestic courts and challenge decisions of states for international investment tribunals if decisions may lead to lower profits than expected. Continue Reading →

Filed under:

ISDS threatens privacy and reform of copyright and patent law

On 3 December 2013, the Dutch Parliament requested the government to investigate the potential social and environmental risks and the consequences of investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the consequences of ISDS for the Netherlands and the financial risks for the Dutch government. On 17 April 2014 companies and civil society organisations met at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to discuss the ongoing “ISDS – TTIP study”. The ministry invited participants to send in further comments. The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) submitted the note “ISDS threatens privacy and reform of copyright and patent law”. Download this note:
http://people.ffii.org/~ante/ISDS/FFII_NL_ISDS-threatens-privacy.pdf

Below the summary of this note. Continue Reading →

Filed under: