On Tuesday, the European court of justice (ECJ) issued a binding opinion of the arbitration Tribunal, which shall decide after the entry into force of the Ceta agreement between the EU and Canada in the event of disagreement between investors and States. It is not independent and is subject to how the court of arbitration in the draft framework agreement to the European court of justice.
The ECJ had been asked by Belgium to the assessment of this arbitration court. Now he noted that a contract that creates a court on the interpretation of the Agreement, in principle, compatible with European Union law. This also then, when this interpretation was binding. This sparked the debate of whether a comprehensive free trade agreement would be more appropriate than the institutional agreement. The contract was signed by the EU and Canada, but not yet by all EU States ratified it.
How the Bilateral, but without the free movement of persons
the agreement between the EU and Canada, the content is far beyond the usual free trade agreements. It is a mutual market access, access to public procurement, and brings with it mutual recognition of conformity assessments, such as the bilateral agreements between the EU and Switzerland, however, without the controversial free movement of persons.
in addition to the now confirmed arbitration for disputes over investment the Ceta agreement is familiar to a court of arbitration for conflicts between the Contracting parties, but without that this is directed at questions of interpretation to the ECJ and the interpretation of bound, as required by the EU, of Switzerland, in the framework provided in the agreement. This arbitration court has not been questioned.
Ceta is a dynamic agreement that the EU for the relations with Switzerland have in mind, but a commitment of Canada to the re-enactment of EU law in the draft of the framework agreement between the EU and Switzerland. For this, Ceta includes rules for the protection of Workers, a concern that Switzerland would also be important. Switzerland could join the agreement either, would have to give, however, with the existing Text satisfied. Or you could negotiate on the Basis of Ceta a private agreement.
SVP-group chief Thomas Aeschi upset
The Canada agreement was, therefore, in addition to a new edition of the EEA as an Alternative to the framework agreement, brought into play. The Federal Council is left to initiatives from the Parliament to say that he would look at this as a "step backwards compared to the current bilateral agreements".
SVP-group chief Thomas Aeschi resents this attitude. He finds that the Federal Council should propose to the EU for such an agreement, to fight back instead of from the outset. Also CVP-President Gerhard Pfister says: "I have trouble so that when the EDA claims that this agreement was the only alternative." The framework agreement will not, even after the elections, a majority, since neither the SP nor his party would change their attitude. "The Federal Council must sooner or later consider other models, such as the Canada agreement seriously." The national Council Hans-Peter Portmann (FDP, ZH), the unnecessary: "The court of arbitration in the framework agreement gives us the guarantee of a fair trial."
This Text is from the current issue. Now all of the articles in the E-Paper of the Sunday newspaper, read: App for iOS App for Android – Web-App
Created: 04.05.2019, at 23:25