Dear all, sorry for cross-posting,

provisional implementation is a problem. In  Article 30.8 on "Termination, suspension or incorporation of other existing agreements"
(4), it says that investor claims will be possible even if CETA is rejected by one or more member states after provisional implementation for three
more years.

Article 30.8 quote "Termination, suspension or incorporation of other existing agreements" (4)* (PDF-page 228 here:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/february/tradoc_154329.pdf )
"Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2,_if the provisional application of this Agreement is terminated and this Agreement does not enter into
force, a claim may be submitted under Section F of Chapter Eight (Investment) within a period no longer than three years following the date of termination of the provisional application, regarding any matter arising during the provisional application of this Agreement, in accordance with the rules and procedures established in this Agreement."

This is a scandal, since EU Commission and Council do plan to "provisionally" implement CETA before national parliaments have a say. Bernd Lange said in the Interview you find below (in german, here: http://www.taz.de/!5288286/ ) that of course the CETA would be provisionally implemented INCLUDING investor protection!

This can be very costly, as this case shows http://www.madhyam.org.in/the-era-of-mega-arbitration-tribunal-awards-50-billion-against-russia-in-yukos-case/ The award was issued on the basis of the provisionally implemented energy charter after it was finally rejected by the Duma.

I think this is something we should beat the drum on.

Best
Maritta