Court rules EU states must have say over corporate court trade deals

26 May 2017 - 11:00am
News

In another blow to the European Commission and a major victory for the European trade justice movement, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) again ruled against the Commission’s interests by deciding that it could not seal trade deals including corporate courts without approval from EU member states.

As has often been the case with stories on EU trade policy, there was much misunderstanding of the issue in the media. The Guardian labelled the ruling “in part a victory for EU institutions”.

The Telegraph argued that “the ECJ ruling could substantially reduce the risk of any future EU-UK free trade agreement getting bogged down in the EU national parliaments”

The Commission desperately wanted to have the power to negotiate and conclude deals including investment – that’s to say, deals including ISDS corporate courts. And with both the EU and UK championing ISDS mechanisms in trade deals, it would only ease the passage of a UK-EU trade deal if the deal doesn’t include an ISDS mechanism.

Indeed, as a former EU trade spokesman told the FT: “It simply suggests that the EU and the member states will probably be forced to carve out investment in any future EU-UK trade deal.”

Despite European Commission spin that it welcomed the ruling, anyone who has engaged on the EU trade agenda knows this to be wholly false. Indeed, the recent campaigning on CETA speaks to this truth.

In its desperation to conclude the deal as quickly as possible – and in so doing using CETA to open up ISDS to tens of thousands of US companies - the Commission wanted to pass the deal without any recourse to EU states, a move opposed by many states themselves.

Public pressure

In the end, the Commission lost as the EU’s member states decided that the deal must be voted on by national parliaments before its corporate court mechanism can be put in place. 

More than 13,000 War on Want members and supporters joined the public pressure across Europe that was central to this critical campaign win, which has helped contribute to awareness of this new, landmark ruling which may save many countries from the peril of EU trade deals with ISDS corporate courts.

Due to the extreme public, global opposition to corporate courts, the Financial Times argued in an editorial that the EU should scrap them for good: “It should ditch the whole idea of having rules on investment, or at least rules allowing companies to sue a government directly, in FTAs. Such “investor-state” provisions have attracted intense opposition, not just from the Walloons but also from anti-corporate campaigners.”

Latest news

The government played the public for fools, and lost

28 June 2017 - 1:30pm

War on Want in Red Pepper. The recent High Court ruling against the government proves that Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) tactics are totally legitimate. They are legal ways to hold government and companies to account, and they are being fought so hard because they are so effective.

Read more

Thousands take on the fight for decent housing in South Africa

27 June 2017 - 4:15pm

Close to ten thousand shack dwellers and people living in informal housing took to the streets of Durban to protest against state sanctioned violence against them. The protest, held yesterday, was to draw attention to the fact that shack dwellers, hostel dwellers and those living in squalid government housing are being killed during violent eviction clashes with police and anti-land invasion units. 

Read more

Join the conversation

The government played the public for fools, and lost. https://t.co/VNURnfX8as from @redpeppermag @WaronWant #BDShttps://t.co/qyGdq6JkCS 13 hours 56 min ago
A decade under siege: Gaza health sector nears collapse @AJEnglish https://t.co/4NHyAiJP90 #StopArmingIsrael 14 hours 41 min ago
RT @EC_magazine: 'When it comes to taking on abusive regimes, it is clear that local council divestment works' https://t.co/LmzcPw1G6r http… 1 day 14 hours ago