Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

Court ruling over privileged access for business in EU-India free trade talks

  • Dansk
  • Nederlands
  • English
  • Suomi
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Ελληνικά
  • Italiano
  • Bokmål
  • Polski
  • Portuguese
  • Română
  • Slovenščina
  • Español
  • Svenska

Judgement to be delivered in Luxembourg

The EU's General Court has announced a date for the judgement in Corporate Europe Observatory's legal action, suing the European Commission for withholding information related to the EU’s free trade talks with India. The Commission is accused of discriminating in favour of corporate lobby groups and of violating the EU’s transparency rules. The judgement will be delivered in Luxembourg on 7 June 2013.

The lawsuit (T-93/11) concerns 17 documents related to the ongoing EU-India free trade negotiations. The Commission shared all of these documents in full with corporate lobby groups such as BusinessEurope. But Corporate Europe Observatory only received censored versions, with allegedly sensitive information about priorities, tactics and strategies in the negotiations deleted.

In an oral hearing in Luxembourg in January 2013, the Commission defended its practice, arguing that it was “fully justified” to censor the documents as their public disclosure would undermine the EU’s relations with India and in particular the ongoing negotiations for an EU-India free trade agreement (FTA).

But how can documents that the Commission has already shared with the business community at large suddenly become confidential and a threat to the EU’s international relations when a public interest group asks for their disclosure? This is the core question raised by the lawsuit.

What is at stake

The judgement comes as the EU and India are trying to sort out final differences in the FTA negotiations in technical level talks between the two sides in Brussels this week.

The negotiations, which started in 2007, have been shrouded in secrecy, with no text or position as yet disclosed to the public. Yet, there are major concerns prompted by the scant information that has emerged that the EU-India FTA will in fact fuel poverty, inequality and environmental destruction. And that the EU Commission and the Indian government have effectively handed the negotiating agenda over to big business (watch the video Trade Invaders).

Resistance has been particularly strong in India where the main opposition parties, industry bodies, street traders, farmers’ organisations and patient groups have voiced concerns over the proposed agreement for some time now.

What is at stake in the lawsuit is whether the Commission can continue its habit of granting big business privileged access to its trade policy-making process by sharing information that is withheld from the public. This practice not only hampers well-informed and meaningful public participation in EU trade policy-making, it also leads to a trade policy that, while catering for big business needs, is harmful to people and the environment in the EU and the world.

Read about the case in detail:

 

Attached files: 
The lawsuit (T-93/11) concerns 17 documents related to the ongoing EU-India free trade negotiations. The Commission shared all of these documents in full with corporate lobby groups such as BusinessEurope. But Corporate Europe Observatory only received censored versions, with allegedly sensitive information about priorities, tactics and strategies in the negotiations deleted.In an oral hearing in Luxembourg in January 2013, the Commission defended its practice, arguing that it was “fully justified” to censor the documents as their public disclosure would undermine the EU’s relations with India and in particular the ongoing negotiations for an EU-India free trade agreement (FTA).But how can documents that the Commission has already shared with the business community at large suddenly become confidential and a threat to the EU’s international relations when a public interest group asks for their disclosure? This is the core question raised by the lawsuit.What is at stakeThe judgement comes as the EU and India are trying to sort out final differences in the FTA negotiations in technical level talks between the two sides in Brussels this week.The negotiations, which started in 2007, have been shrouded in secrecy, with no text or position as yet disclosed to the public. Yet, there are major concerns prompted by the scant information that has emerged that the EU-India FTA will in fact fuel poverty, inequality and environmental destruction. And that the EU Commission and the Indian government have effectively handed the negotiating agenda over to big business (watch the video Trade Invaders).Resistance has been particularly strong in India where the main opposition parties, industry bodies, street traders, farmers’ organisations and patient groups have voiced concerns over the proposed agreement for some time now.What is at stake in the lawsuit is whether the Commission can continue its habit of granting big business privileged access to its trade policy-making process by sharing information that is withheld from the public. This practice not only hampers well-informed and meaningful public participation in EU trade policy-making, it also leads to a trade policy that, while catering for big business needs, is harmful to people and the environment in the EU and the world.Read about the case in detail: 
 
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Polluters in Peru blog

Corporate Europe Observatory analyses the UK government's grid of stakeholders working on TTIP which clearly illustrates how the forces for and against the EU-US trade deal are shaping up.
Conferences sponsored by corporations have become platforms for lobbyists and policy makers.
170 organisations de la société civile s'unissent pour demander de mettre fin à la “coopération réglementaire”
"We urge the negotiators to remove regulatory cooperation from the TTIP negotiations"
The 'cash for access' scandal in the UK has taken the House of Commons by storm and prompted a vote about banning certain second jobs for MPs. CEO looks at what the scandal shows us about the loopholes in the European Parliament's own rules and procedures.
Corporate Europe Observatory analyses the UK government's grid of stakeholders working on TTIP which clearly illustrates how the forces for and against the EU-US trade deal are shaping up.
The recent cases of former MEPs going through the revolving door, including a number of UK Liberal Democrats, has once again shown why the European Parliament needs to draw up new rules to tackle the risk of any possible conflicts of interest arising.
Many who walked past the BNP Paribas Fortis' central Brussels branch during their lunch break yesterday were surprised by what they saw: activists-turned-bailiffs removing tables, chairs and other materials from the building, leaving them out on the pavement. At a time of severe cuts to social spending in Belgium because all the money has been spent bailing out the banks, citizens repossessed bank furniture as the first step in recouping the billions of Euros that BNP Paribas – who controversially bought Begian bank Fortis in 2009 – helped its client avoid via its 214 branches located in tax havens.

Alternative Trade Mandate

Corporate Europe Forum