Articles

Last week the Commission and OLAF responded to 154 questions on Dalligate tabled by MEPs. Instead of clarifying the basic facts about the Dalli lobby scandal, the Commission and OLAF left most key questions unanswered. The smoke is far from being cleared, and more pressure for real answers, and for stronger lobby rules, is urgently needed.

Corporate Europe Observatory and other members of the ALTER-EU alliance are urging European citizens to demand the full facts about what happened in the lobbying scandal that led to the resignation of Commissioner Dalli. Why was the Commissioner forced to resign and what was the role of the tobacco lobby? The Commission must end its secrecy and release the full facts about Dalligate

The way the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has managed the Séralini case does not meet the standards that should be expected from the “keystone of European Union (EU) risk assessment regarding food and feed safety”.

The European Commission has published an annual report assessing the first year of the new EU lobby transparency register. Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič claims the report shows that “all our short-term objectives [have been] met”. CEO found his assessment surprising, given the clear flaws in the register highlighted by ALTER-EU. Perhaps the Commissioner needs to set slightly more ambitious targets if transparency in Brussels is to be improved.

Bilateral investment agreements can pose profound and serious risks to government policy. South African government official ">

“The whole theory is to take the legal system and turn it into a stock market.” Quote from John H. Beisner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

There is little use in going to law with the devil while the court is held in hell. Humphrey OíSullivan, The Diary of an Irish Countryman, 1831 Would you go to court with the devil if the court was held in hell? Of course not. But governments have done it hundreds of times. And continue to do so.

The existence of international investment arbitration is based to a large extent on the argument that it provides a depoliticised, neutral space to resolve disputes between multinational companies and governments. This premise was always flawed given that investment treaties only enable companies to sue states at international tribunals, yet affected communities and governments cannot make use of the same mechanism.

The last two decades have witnessed the silent rise of a powerful international investment regime that has ensnared hundreds of countries and put corporate profit before human rights and the environment. International investment treaties are agreements made between states that determine the rights of investors in each other’s territories. They are used by powerful companies to sue governments if policy changes – even ones to protect public health or the environment – are deemed to affect their profits. By the end of 2011, over 3,000 international investment treaties had been signed, leading to