Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Stakeholder contacts on TTIP (since 12 December 2014)'.


18.
Ref. Ares(2017)1114743 - 02/03/2017
Ares(2015)5581402
From: 
Art. 4.1 (b)
Sent: 
04 December 2015 12:09 
To: 
Art. 4.1 (b)
Subject: 
FW: Meeting with CCBE on TTIP and 

[Out  Friday 20 March 2015
if scope]
… 
From: Art. 4.1 (b)
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 1:48 PM 
To: Art. 4.1 (b)
Cc: Art. 4.1 (b)
Subject: Meeting with CCBE on TTIP and [Out – Friday 20 March 2015
of scope]
Meeting with CCBE – Friday 20 March 2015 
Had a meeting with CCBE (
Art. 4.1 (b)
) on Friday, 
organised by GROW (
), to discuss TTIP but also some elements 
Art. 4.1 (b)
of  [Out of scope]
 
[Out of scope]
[Out of scope]
  They are very encouraged by the engagement by Judge Lippman, who sees TTIP as a harbinger
to make things move on the US side in terms of making US states harmonise their regulatory
systems more. They are very pleased that CCJ is working on a draft resolution (which can still
take up to end 2016 to be finally adopted) as now for the first time they have a document on
paper setting out what would need to be done – can be a benchmark to assess progress.
  Dialogue with US is good and ongoing: CCBE President is meeting the ABA President this week.
On 6 April CCBE will join a meeting of the CCJ Task Force.

CCBE noted that, although not a federal competence, USTR (Tom Fine) sits in at all the trade 
related meetings CCBE has with their US counterparts. 
  CCBE is working on a formal offer/demand for TTIP and hope to have this adopted in May at their
meeting in Gdansk.  They know that US side wants to also look at the Services and Establishment
Directives – which are off the table for the EU since the nationality requirement will be hard to
overcome. They expect the US will repeat this request. We discussed that it would be good to
develop a joint argumentaire on why we cannot have this.
  Regarding TTIP MRA – “although we are not a similar profession as architects and auditors” CCBE
is favourably inclined to considering a MRA under TTIP as it could be beneficial for their offensive
interests.  Art. 4.1 (b)  expects that CCBE will make a formal demand towards the fall or early
next year. We explained that we go with architects first so a request after summer would fit this
calendar.
  Art. 4.1 (b)  recalled KDG proposal for a TTIP regulatory cooperation council and repeated his
interest to also have prof services represented. I said I was not aware of latest state of play, but 
that is was not the idea to have direct industry representation. He was fine with that, as long as 
there would be industry consultation from time to time . 
  CCBE were curious to know when TTIP would discuss legal services.  We informed that prof
services might come up again in April but agenda is in US hands.
Art. 4.1 (b)
(separate report by GROW may follow)