Regulation of the european parliament and of the council


Download 136 Kb.
Size136 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

Taking into account the particular nature of the subject, the Commission evaluated a number of options to achieve the objective described above, although without carrying out a formal impact assessment. A meeting with experts from the Member States was held in Brussels on 25 January 2010 to discuss the status of bilateral agreements concluded between Member States and third countries relating to investment.

The extent to which investment agreements of Member States are incompatible with EU law can be the subject of discussions. The Commission is of the view that any legal uncertainty on the status and validity of these agreements, which could be detrimental for the activities of EU investments and investors abroad or foreign investments and investors in Member States, is to be avoided. Indeed, such uncertainty goes against the core rationale of investment protection, i.e. to provide legal certainty on the behaviour of host countries. In view of the situation that has arisen since the entry into force of the TFEU, swift and decisive action is therefore to be preferred over inaction or a delayed re-action.

Soft-law instruments, such as a declaration or statement by the Commission services or by the College on the status and validity of bilateral investment agreements, would not establish the legal certainty that is required to guarantee the agreements concerned. This is why a legal instrument is the preferred option.

This proposal maintains the status quo and offers a transitory solution by authorising the continued existence of bilateral agreements relating to investment concluded between Member States and third countries. The main impact of this proposal is to avoid a very negative result, i.e. the potential erosion of rights and benefits available to investors and investments under international investment agreements. In this respect, the impact of inaction is considered to be much higher than the impact of this action, which is neutral given that it preserves the status quo.

The authorisation provided in this proposal neither prejudges the contours of a future EU investment policy, nor allows the agreements covered to undermine the exercise of Union competence. In this respect, the authorisation granted pursuant to this proposal may be withdrawn, in accordance with the procedures specified therein. This procedure also takes account of the obligation of Member States to eliminate any incompatibilities with the TFEU that may exist in their existing agreements, as identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page