CONCERNS OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS ABOUT THE PLANNED FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CANADA

According to Marcel Szabó, Ombudsman for future generations, the European Court of Justice should address the concerns raised in connection with the free trade agreement with Canada (CETA).

Within a couple of weeks, the European Council is going to decide on approving the free trade agreement of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) to be concluded between the European Union and Canada. The position to be represented by the Government of Hungary is based, in addition to the Fundamental Law of our country, on the decision adopted–with a convincing majority–by the Parliament: the Government "shall not support the conclusion of a free trade agreement that would jeopardize the current levels of environmental and health protection, food safety, human rights or labor law guarantees, and provide for anti-democratic dispute settlement procedures".

According to experts, the draft of the CETA is not in line with these criteria on several points. The sustainable use of natural resources and their preservation for future generations, protected by Article P of the Fundamental Law, may be jeopardized by the dumping-like inflow to the European market of Canadian agricultural products, produced with quasi-industrial production methods, under conditions completely different from those of the European agricultural regulatory and support systems that also serve the preservation of environmental and landscape values. It may prompt European farmers as well to use less sustainable agricultural production methods. The CETA's objective "to minimize the adverse effects of any  biotech-related   measures   that   may   affect   trade" is in clear violation of the principle of a GMO-free Hungary declared in the Fundamental Law. "Science-based" regulation may weaken the implementation of the precautionary principle, one of the cornerstones of European regulations. The CETA would hinder the achievement of the climate protection objectives of the European Union, the limitation of the use of fossil fuels, and the expansion of renewable energy.

In order to settle policy and regulation disputes, the CETA would use the system of investment tribunals, a dispute settlement and investment protection mechanism criticized by many expert because of its anti-democratic nature. Thus disputes would be settled not by permanent judges, free of any outside interference, serving the public and remunerated from public funds, although these are the cornerstones of an independent judiciary. In the practice of investment tribunals democratic fundamental rights play a role subordinate to the right to private property.

The dispute-settling mechanism of the agreement would create a law application system parallel with the judicial system of the European Union, although the European Court of Justice has stated on several occasions that any limitation of its jurisdiction violates European law. The German Association of Judges and the European Economic and Social Committee, an official consultative body of the European Union, have similar views on this issue; the latter deems it indispensable that the European Court of Justice should conduct a preliminary inquiry into the compliance of the investment protection mechanisms to be incorporated in the Union's free trade agreements with European law.