13 Amendments of Helmut SCHOLZ related to 2018/0358M(NLE)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 13
Citation 13
— having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2017 on freedom of expression in Vietnam, notably the case of Nguyen Van Hoa8 , condemning the sentencing Nguyen Van Hoa8 to seven years in prison because of his "legitimate use of freedom of expression; expressing Europe’s concern about the rise in the number of detentions" (which have risen even more rapidly since 2017); "calling on the Vietnamese authorities to release all citizens detained for peacefully exercising their freedom of expression"; "expressing serious concerns about the extensive application of the national security provisions in Vietnam’s Penal Code and urging the Government of Vietnam to amend it deeply", "denouncing Vietnam’s use of death penalty", "recalling the importance of Human Rights Dialogue between EU and Vietnam as a key instrument to be used to encourage Vietnam in the implementation of the necessary reforms" ; _________________ 8 OJ C 369, 11.10.2018, p. 73.
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 14
Citation 14
— having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2018 on Vietnam, notably the situation of political prisoners9 , deploring that "Vietnamese authorities continue to imprison, detain, harass and intimidate human rights defenders, journalists, bloggers, human rights lawyers and civil society activists in the country"; reiterating its previous year’s "call on the Vietnamese authorities to end all restrictions and acts of harassments against human rights defenders"; and once again "calling on the authorities of Vietnam to repeal, review or amend all repressive laws and releasing all political prisoners" without any tangible results other than silence and continued repression ; _________________ 9 Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0459.
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
I a. whereas the EU's ICS (International Court System) still remains an investment arbitration system;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
I b. whereas the last decades have seen billion-dollars investor lawsuits against the alleged damage to corporate profit of legislation and government measures in the interest of the public;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)
Recital I c (new)
I c. whereas, according to UNCTAD, the new ISDS cases in 2018 were initiated against 41 countries and as in previous years, the majority of new cases were brought against developing and transiting-economy countries, mostly by developed-country investors;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the Parties have stated their commitment to pursuing a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) – an initiative strongly supported by Parliament's previous legislature;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomNotes theat EU’s new approach to investment protection and its enforcement mechanism (ICS), which has replaced the investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS); underlines the fact that ICS represents a modern, innovative and reformed investment resolution mechanism; notes that it marks significant change in the level of substantive protection afforn investment resolution mechanism quite similar to the previous one, given the fact that like ISDS, it provideds to investors and the manner in which investor-state disputes are resolved parallel and privileged justice system and does not provide any sanction mechanism against investors who don't comply with human rights obligations or social and environmental standards;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the agreement guarantees that EU investors in Vietnam will get fair and equitable treatment contrary to Vietnamese citizens, will be protected from denial of justice in criminal or civil proceedings, manifest arbitrariness, targeted discriminations such as gender, race or religious belief, abusive treatment such as coercion or abuse of power contrary to Vietnamese citizens, and will suffer no discrimination in relation to Vietnamese investors; notes that the agreement properly, while protectsing EU investors from illegitimate expropria"indirect expropriation", can weaken the Parties' right to regulate and pursue legitimate public policy goals such as public health, education, labour rights, safety and environmental protection;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that third parties (such as labour and environmental organisations ) theoreticanl contributeions to ICS proceedings through amicus curiae briefs are not sufficient to guarantee equal status to civil society actors compared to that guaranteed to investors;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that the EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (EVIPA) does not contain a separate trade and sustainable development (TSD) chapter, as the latter applies to investment by virtue of the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EUVFTA) that liberalises it; stresses that the EVIPA also contains a provision establishing a legal but very limited link to the PCA, as well as specific references in its preamble, which lacks any binding value, to the TSD values and principles as enshrined in the EUVFTA and to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Believes that an arbitration International Court should fit the following qualifications : - falling under the auspices of an independent multilateral body such as the United Nations, - being transparent in its appointments and proceedings, - applying human rights, labour and environmental treaties.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Encourages the Commission to continue its work on making the ICS moreRecalls that ICS and arbitration systems are hardly accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that the approval of this agreement will robustly protect investors and their investments on both sides while safeguarding thgive a privileged status to investors and may jeopardize governments’ rights to regulate;